Spoilers herein.
I collect films about filmmaking. And also writing about writing. Here we have both. This is a script about a scriptwriter. A political commentary on a commentator. A writer literally playing an actor who is successful (as he says) not because he is a good writer but because he can act like one.
It is framed by Lilly's `performance' in front of the HUAC. It is directed by an actor who (as she says) is successful not because she knows how to direct but because she can act like a director.
It concerns a lot of unengaging drunkeness and promiscuity, and the writer was careful to place what we actually see of this to be exactly as refined from the reality as the `Thin Man' is to this film. Intellectually interesting, and apart from Shepard's fine countenance, is the only thing worth consideration. Otherwise, this is an incredible waste of an opportunity. Could have been a great film, or at least acted like one.
Ted's evaluation: 2 of 4 -- Has some interesting elements.
I collect films about filmmaking. And also writing about writing. Here we have both. This is a script about a scriptwriter. A political commentary on a commentator. A writer literally playing an actor who is successful (as he says) not because he is a good writer but because he can act like one.
It is framed by Lilly's `performance' in front of the HUAC. It is directed by an actor who (as she says) is successful not because she knows how to direct but because she can act like a director.
It concerns a lot of unengaging drunkeness and promiscuity, and the writer was careful to place what we actually see of this to be exactly as refined from the reality as the `Thin Man' is to this film. Intellectually interesting, and apart from Shepard's fine countenance, is the only thing worth consideration. Otherwise, this is an incredible waste of an opportunity. Could have been a great film, or at least acted like one.
Ted's evaluation: 2 of 4 -- Has some interesting elements.