A wonderful cast tackles a translated short play by Henri Bernstein in a television production for which, clearly, no expense was spared -- players, set design and costumes are clearly top notch for the era. Unfortunately, the play, while well enough written, concerns itself not with people, but with clichés. It is all so simple and neat that it is not particularly engaging to watch.
Bernstein did not put up happily with critics who were harsh with his works. Well, I have dealt with a lot of writers who react poorly to even constructive criticism, starting with me. Bernstein's works were written for a well-to-do Parisian audience, and people find nothing so fascinating as to see themselves or people like themselves on stage. They assign depth and subtlety that the author did not write to the characters. Does this make poor writing seem better, or is it part of the craft, to leave enough blank spaces to let the audience fill them in, engaging them in the act of creation?
It does mean a lack of universality. Once you offer this work to people who cannot do that filling in, an audience foreign to the original, the work becomes incomprehensible It's why comedy of manners so rarely survives its original audience. It's why this one seems so dull.