Why did they not act out the history-movies
Sure there was no fiction but could they not have acted out the history somewhat? It would probably be silent movies with the narratior talking over them.
perhaps acting is itself considered lying, but do we know that they didn't have acting? I recall the film title was the history of the fork; but they didn't show the entire film. I think the point of that depiction was merely to say that without lying art would be impossible and entertainment would be very very very dull... The history of the fork was just to make that point.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
Maybe.
It´s hard to understand how this world works. Do they just not understand the concept of lying or are they simply unable to lie.
Makes me remember the scene from Liar liar when Carrey tries to write "this pen is blue" when it´s really red. He tried to write a lie but failed.
What about animation or cartoons, could they not draw the history? There was a picture of a Polar bear on the Coka cola can so there is some artwork being done.
I think the main point of the film how less than perfect people would become outkasts without lies is true though. Without these white lies we use every day so we don´t hurt other people, we would all be extremely selfish.
So another question, do these people ever feel guilty over something they said? Does guilt exist in this world?
Its not supposed to work. The film is a joke; a satire. Its making of this world, and in part I think its.
I don't think its saying that people are outkast if they couldn't lie, but that interpersonal relationships rely on a lot of lies to be polite and discrete. Remove the lies, people are really nasty to each other.
Yes that world is very cold... especially to the dying.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.