So the movie consists of two different tales. The first one, a mix of drama and mystery thriller, deals with the murder of a fading actress whose father, another thespian, is devastated by the loss. The second tale concerns an agent flogging a script to a major studio without realizing the nature of the author who wrote it. This is a satirical comedy about the cinema industry.
I thought the first tale was too artificial and well, too theatrical to be wholly successful. Still, it does contain a devastating portrayal of the kind of overly-doting parent who adores his offspring, while neglecting to provide enough moral guidance. Here, you get a father who stands by without a word of reproof while his grown-up daughter collects the scandals and adulteries. Nothing is ever his daughter's fault ; it's the others (all of them scoundrels, philistines and parasites, of course) who mistreat a precious Spring blossom. In their most quintessential form, parents such as these can be found in or near courtrooms, most probably while they're being escorted out by bailiffs. Specialists can recognize them by their typical cries, such as : "How dare you revoke my baby's driving license ! He only surpassed the maximum speed by fifty miles !" or "Why should he pay support for that child, she had told him she was on the pill !"
So I liked the second tale better. Parts of it were genuinely funny. (Note the studio boss - in his own mind a great patron of the arts - who is unable to distinguish between a searching psychological study and a trashy bodice-ripper. Unsurprisingly, the same man shies away from all physical contact with the actual artists on his payroll.) However, this second tale tipped its hand much too early about a major comical reveal. This discovery could have been avoided quite easily, for instance by having someone relay the general gist of a telephone conversation to the agent.
Everything is played for laughs, but the more thoughtful viewer may wonder about the number of offenses being committed here : child labor, kidnapping, parental abandonment of a minor, and so on.
I thought the first tale was too artificial and well, too theatrical to be wholly successful. Still, it does contain a devastating portrayal of the kind of overly-doting parent who adores his offspring, while neglecting to provide enough moral guidance. Here, you get a father who stands by without a word of reproof while his grown-up daughter collects the scandals and adulteries. Nothing is ever his daughter's fault ; it's the others (all of them scoundrels, philistines and parasites, of course) who mistreat a precious Spring blossom. In their most quintessential form, parents such as these can be found in or near courtrooms, most probably while they're being escorted out by bailiffs. Specialists can recognize them by their typical cries, such as : "How dare you revoke my baby's driving license ! He only surpassed the maximum speed by fifty miles !" or "Why should he pay support for that child, she had told him she was on the pill !"
So I liked the second tale better. Parts of it were genuinely funny. (Note the studio boss - in his own mind a great patron of the arts - who is unable to distinguish between a searching psychological study and a trashy bodice-ripper. Unsurprisingly, the same man shies away from all physical contact with the actual artists on his payroll.) However, this second tale tipped its hand much too early about a major comical reveal. This discovery could have been avoided quite easily, for instance by having someone relay the general gist of a telephone conversation to the agent.
Everything is played for laughs, but the more thoughtful viewer may wonder about the number of offenses being committed here : child labor, kidnapping, parental abandonment of a minor, and so on.