That line always bothered me when Fletcher responded to his son Max's comment that "my teacher says that true beauty comes from within" implying that truly beautiful people are those who are physically blessed with good looks. So I guess if they're jerks, that makes it okay?
NOT TRUE FLETCHER!! Not a good lesson to teach your son.
Don't let anyone ever make you feel like you don't deserve what you want.
Hey, don't blame Fletcher, blame the universe.
He was forced to tell the "truth". He couldn't have helped it if he tried.
In the "Liar Liar" universe, this comment was taken as fact. :D
Well what are the use of my brains if I'm tied up with a dumb cluck like you?
It doesn't matter if it is universally true or not. He believes it to be the truth and he must tell the truth. Simple as that.
share[deleted]
I think you are missing the point. At that point in the movie, Fletcher was compelled to tell the truth, irrespective of whether it was a good lesson for his son or not. Like when his son asks him if he would go blind if he sat too near the TV screen and Fletcher says not in a million years. Even though that is somewhat the truth (it certainly would damage his eyes), it is not a good lesson to teach to one's kid.
As for the "true beauty comes from within" comment, that is sadly true. When was the last time you heard a supermodel say that true beauty comes from within? And it is a phrase that usually the not-so-attractive people use. Just like the poor always say, money can't buy happiness.
Mr McGee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!
Precisely. I don`t think the movie is trying to tell us that only looks can count as true beauty. It`s saying that that is what people look for. In a perfect world, we would look at the heart of a person, but we don`t live in that kind of world. So if you want to be characterized as beautiful in this world, you need to have the looks on your side.
shareI think you are missing the point. At that point in the movie, Fletcher was compelled to tell the truth, irrespective of whether it was a good lesson for his son or not. Like when his son asks him if he would go blind if he sat too near the TV screen and Fletcher says not in a million years. Even though that is somewhat the truth (it certainly would damage his eyes), it is not a good lesson to teach to one's kid.
"As for the "true beauty comes from within" comment, that is sadly true. When was the last time you heard a supermodel say that true beauty comes from within?"
Actually, it would be very easy for beautiful people to say things like that. Talk is cheap, and 'beauty-validated' people can live in any illusion/delusion they wish, PLUS, there is such a thing as virtue signaling (SJW Politically-Correct brownie points).
A better example to validate your point might be; if you see hordes of men falling madly in love with some old, ugly, wrinkly, obese, disfigured mutant with several syndromes, because she is beautiful on the INSIDE (for example, an impeccable cute spleen).
Actions always speak louder than words - any model can SAY anything (and even believe they're beautiful, NOT because of what they look on the outside, but because their soul is a shining beacon of virtue and wonder (even when their actions are vile and dispicable) - OR they can believe their external beauty they're worshipped for, is just proof/extension of their ACTUAL, inner beauty).
In any case, of course there is both inner beauty and outer beauty - but you don't usually see or pay attention to the inner beauty if the outer package is repulsive. How many women even glance at some monster-looking hobo they quickly walk by without giving him/her even a small coin? (I don't want to blame only men for neglecting to see inner beauty)
How many job applications are given to handsome and beautiful people, when ugly applicants might have been way more competent for the job?
Of course women enjoy this much more, because women have more social-sexual power to begin with, so the cards are stacked against men from the get-go. A handsome man doesn't have automatical power the way a beautiful or even 'slightly cute' woman has.
In the end, ugly women might fall harder than ugly men exactly because of this, and especially an ex-beauty that turns ugly will suffer great psychological damage in the long run.
This explains why so many older and uglier women are so bitter and unreasonable. They were once beauty queens (or 'cute neighbour girls') that had the whole world at their feet, ready to be exploited mercilessly and without limits. Women don't even get sentenced when they are violent, or even murder (as long as the victim is/are a man/men)!
In any case, inner beauty comes from the soul - so we have all the same capacity for inner beauty, but being born into two separate genders hampers cultivating this form of beauty, while the world encourages cultivating only the external beauty (and as for men, it cultivates a slave attitude, where men should serve women and where men's only value is in what they can do for others, especially women).
"Real beauty comes from the inside" is not something only ugly people say necessarily, it does have some truth to it. Someone that isn't born to 'beautiful genes', but is kind, caring, humble and a helpful and accommodating and giving delight to be around, can be seen as a really beautiful human being, even if her external beauty isn't much to type home about. A 'slightly cute' woman can be just 'meh' normally, but if she shows this kind of inner beauty qualities, her cuteness can suddenly seem way more beautiful than before.
Externally beautiful women have no reason to contemplate where 'real beauty' comes from, so they rarely say this kind of things unless they're virtue signaling or want to appear 'deep', and they can be really ugly internally, and yet worshipped as beauty queens. The fact is, this world is TREMENDOUSLY forgiving to externally beautiful people, no matter how nasty or evil they may be, or how internally ugly they are.
Things could be more equal, if people were generally more beautiful externally, and if men had their intimacy and sexual needs met. Then we wouldn't have millions of simps desperate for ANY chance for female validation, and external beauties wouldn't be pedestalised and celebrated as much.
Heck, a woman doesn't have to even be that good-looking for zillions of simps to drool over her all over these boards. Just look at almost any movie's discussion board that has even some semi-attractive female lead or even appearance. You'll see MULTIPLE threads dedicated for '[Actor/Character name here] appreciation' or such.
There will be multiple threads with only one line praising some actress's supposed beauty, no matter how plain she actually is.
If every man's sexual needs were met satisfactorily, this phenomenon couldn't happen.
Having said this, women and men's sexuality have been designed all wrong for modern age. In ancient pre-historic caveman times, this might've ensured the survival of the species on a physical level, but these days women's hypergamy and men's polygamous hyperhorniness just creates more problems than it solves.
What could the world be like, if women's sexuality got turned on by men's kindness and goodness, and the same was true for men's sexuality (about women's kindness and goodness)? What a would it would be. But instead, it's hypergamy and external qualities - neither gender gets turned on by internal qualities.
(You can claim that women get turned on by charisma or such, but in the end, that's just as superficial as anything else, since women get turned on by men's status. Status simply means a high place in the men's hierarchy - the FORM of status doesn't matter as much. Wealth is one form of status, being 'natural alpha' (behavioural charisma) is another. Celebrity is another, female pre-selection is another, being a leader among men, outlaw biker, etc. etc.. )
As a sidenote; a woman's kindness can enhance attractiveness that already exists - a cute woman will be 10 x more cute, if she's also kind and fun to be around.
This always disturbed me.
The fact he said it, means it was in fact "true". Interesting message from the filmmakers there.
Allow me to reiterate. What he says does not have to be an exact fact. He just has to believe it to be true. So yes, he believes that is only something ugly people say. I don't think the filmmakers were going any further than a laugh. I really do not think they were trying to make a statement or message.
This isn't a morality contest.
The point is HE can't tell a lie. HE can only tell the truth as it appears to HIM.
share[deleted]
LOL! that was part of the joke. I mean Fletcher wasn't joking, but thats the movie's joke. Its pure shock value! & the fact that he is telling it to a little kid makes it even funnier, LMAO!
But its all a matter of opinion, whether u want to believe where-ever beauty comes from, inside or outside or anywhere. Whatever Fletcher says is his own opinion, so it is true to him.
This movie is pretty well made, but it's clearly a tongue-in-cheek humor and comedy movie, and the deepest essence of this movie is..
.. it is a VEHICLE for Jim Carrey to express his manic comedy as much as possible.
This movie is tailored to fit Jim Carrey's 'funny style', and as such, it gives Jim Carrey almost completely free rein to do whatever he finds humorous.
That is the whole point of this movie - LET JIM CARREY LOOSE!
Everything and anything else is just an excuse to make some kind of rational sense out of it, and to create a story around it, to make a movie out of it (you can't just have Jim Carrey do his stuff freely for one and a half hours and call it a movie).
Any and all 'structure' that exists in this movie has been stuck there AROUND Jim Carrey's performances and expressions, because a movie needs some kind of coherence and story arc.
So they probably thought of all kinds of situations and scenarios that would create 'hilarious' consequences, if they let Jim Carrey loose in that very situation. "How about a lawyer that can't lie, and then Jim Carrey's character has to struggle against himself?"
That's possibly how this movie was conceived. So any nitpicking about it is useless, as the makers of this movie didn't focus mainly on the 'would he be able to say this if he can't lie'-angle, but more like 'what can we throw at Jim Carrey to maximise and optimize his funniness'.
Trying to find things that Fletcher said that might be interpreted as lies, while he's under the wish (that he thinks is a curse), is thus pointless and useless. A few inconsistencies and mistakes have certainly slipped through, but if you view this movie as "A funny Jim Carrey vehicle that just HAPPENS to have some sort of 'story' stuck to it as well", you can enjoy the movie for WHAT IT IS, not what you might think it tries to be.
This movie doesn't even really try to be very accurate about this whole 'can he say this or that'-thing. It is very funny, though.
I mean, it's always fun to discuss all these mistakes, goofs, and implausibilities or errors, or inconsistencies and so on. It's great to point out such stuff in a movie.
But it helps to enjoy the movie more, if you see it as "Jim Carrey Vehicle" that's funny, instead of anything else.
(It does have an interesting atmosphere for such a modern movie, but I wouldn't watch this purely because of that).
I have a soft spot for this movie anyway, because I was traveling quite large distances on this planet during the era when I watched this movie a lot a long time ago, and the airport scene always gets me excited about all that traveling (it was an eye-opening and a rewarding experience).