Lie to Me Season, 3 Episode 9, Part 1 “Funhouse”

After a brief hiatus, Lie to Me is back on the air!

In the first of two of this week’s episodes, “Funhouse,” The Lightman Group is approached by Emily’s friend, Amanda, whose father has been institutionalized in a mental hospital for 5 years. She is suspicious of the hospital, because of the fact that her father (Wayne) has been there for so long and is not getting any better.

We had hoped that, with the last episode before the break, Lie to Me was listening to its fans and incorporating more scientific information into their story lines.

However, the following clip shows Lightman and his cohorts acting more like psychics than scientists, similar to previous episodes of this season.

Even Dr. Grandon points out that they are acting as if they can read his mind. Quite a disappointing beginning for the show’s return.


The discovery at the end of the case is even more embarrassing. A sister going so far as to poison her brother, put her niece in danger, and send him to a mental institution for years, all in the name of horses? This seems a bit ridiculous; if the show is going to neglect the science altogether, they could at least write some decent plot lines.

Did you watch “Funhouse”? What did you think?

Overall, we think this episode is a little disappointing beginning to the second half of the third season. Will episode 10 make up for it? Check back with us tomorrow for our review of this week’s second episode!

12 responses to “Lie to Me Season, 3 Episode 9, Part 1 “Funhouse””

  1. Chris says:

    I was watching an interview with Tim Roth and the writers of Lie To Me… and they were answering fan questions and someone put the point to them the question that they were not seeing much of the science in the show anymore… to that the writers replied they found it was better to give people to little and to have them wanting for more than to give them too much and not having them want at all.

    I, for one… will stop watching if they do not start putting more of the science back into the program.

  2. Chris, where did you see this interview? We would be curious to see it.

  3. Russ Conte says:

    Horrible episode. Honest. I watched most of it, and could not stand what I was seeing. It’s not just the lack of science, it’s the lack of character development, and very poorly thought out plot, and the complete lack of believability. If the show is this poorly done all the time, it deserves to be cancelled.

    I’m shocked that any network would let a show that started with solid ratings allow a change that dropped the ratings by approximately 50%, and then stay with the lower rated format. Aren’t they interested in making any money over there at Fox??? Can’t they see the pattern, and how a return to the original format would boos the ratings – and revenue – of the network?

    Russ Conte

  4. Chris says:

    I was wrong the question was why is there less facial expressions in this season than last and that’s where one of the producers… answered about their beliefs in story telling… Tomato… Tomato…

  5. Yeah I have to agree with you on this one. I would have liked to have seen a little more science in the shows this go around too. But I think that Tim Roth is such a great actor, his character overshadows everything else and makes the show worth watching.

  6. Anon says:

    I saw the interview as well. the link is as follows
    1:06 in.
    I personally feel there is more to it then just trying to leave the audience hanging. I’d love to see what Dr. Matsumoto thinks about how they respond. I personally feel like, they don’t need Dr. Ekman’s consultation anymore and they just want to run with it themselves w/o having to consult him. Maybe it has to do with $$$?

  7. Keith D. says:

    Anon may be on to something. I read Dr. Ekman’s blog post about these previous episodes the other day, and today I see that his blog has been disabled entirely on the Fox website. I’ll hold off judgment for now, but my gut tells me that, sadly, they no longer value his input into the show and it’s either being officially canceled or the producers are breaking off ties to the science (or perhaps just his consultation or blog posts) completely and taking it in a dramatic direction. I hope neither of those is the case and that Dr. Ekman is simply on hiatus while the production is on break or something.

    The mis-handling of the show however really irks me. It started off so strong and was one of the most amazing shows on TV. Now it’s more of an also-ran, albeit with some good actors.

  8. Ginny says:

    I don’t mind that they’re backing down from the straight science. If I wanted to learn Dr. Ekman’s techniques I’d read his books or cough up the $70 for his online training session. On the other hand, if I want to be hugely entertained for an hour, then I watch Lie To Me. Too much emphasis on the science at this point would be too dry, like sitting through an upper-level psychology seminar. The main characters are not going to sit around saying, “Did you see that shoulder shrug? Did you notice the deception leakage?” They’re all pros, of course they all see it. They’re not going to yap at each other about it constantly. Now, did the plot line of this episode stretch believability? Absolutely. But wasn’t it fun??? Isn’t it amazing watching an actor the calibre of Tim Roth develop a character from episode to episode? I didn’t watch X-Files because I wanted to learn more about UFOs and I don’t watch Lie To Me for the science of microexpressions.

  9. Anon says:

    I actually don’t like the ‘new’ cal lightman. In the first season, he was witty, a bit arrogant, but stood as a serious person. Now, hes all over the place, his body movements, the way he walks, his hand gestures. He wobbles all over the place, it’s almost as though hes high on something every show.

  10. Hi Ginny,

    You make an interesting point. If the show focused too much on the science, it would indeed be quite dry. However, season one did an excellent job of incorporating the scientific aspects of emotion recognition while still being interesting from a dramatic point of view. The writers definitely need to strike a balance between interesting story lines and accurate scientific information.

  11. BenS says:

    Regarding that first clip, cues are there, they’re just not explained.

    They probably say the man won’t actually jump because his face shows sadness but not determination (which I assume looks something like the Dangerous Demeanor face).
    They probably say that Graydon would answer the question with another question because of his a) head tilt of contempt, b) his eyebrows go up deliberately, which they said in season one refers to not knowing the answer (vs. brow lowerer for knowing the answer, though I don’t know of any studies supporting that), and c) from his tone of voice, Graydon doesn’t have the guts to be openly, non-subtly contemptuous.

    To enjoy the show, you have to take as part of the suspension of disbelief that the characters have a perfect understanding of context, and how honest people would behave, and have accounted for every possibility, and never guess wrong.

  12. Ben,
    You are correct in that some cues are there. However, if the viewer needs to watch the show operating under those assumptions, the writers are not doing their job in conveying everything going on in that scene properly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © Humintell 2009-2018