A harsh satire on contemporary populist art. According to the director himself in this film, he fought postmodernism with his own techniques. This is eloquently evidenced by the scene with the drawing up of a will, in which the character of Stupka, wishing to harm humanity as much as possible after death, establishes a fund in support of postmodernists.
In the best traditions of the genre of satire, vice is presented in extremes. The genius of the director is that he presents in extreme form the very absence of extremes. The characters of the film, as in any satire, are conditional and hyperbolized, because of this, they are not plausible. Stefan seems to be the very embodiment of kindness, and at the same time too infantile and naive. Constant seems to be an outspoken villain, but at the same time a funny old man who favors him. The very story of how cynically and prudently they want to steal Stefan’s heart, while babysitting him like a child, fulfilling all his whims, instead of ruthlessly killing him and taking his heart. The characters of the film seem to change under the influence of life circumstances, but also remain the same (the piercing in the language of the opera singer reminds of the past life, and Constant, giving money to the poor, is preparing for a new kidney transplant operation). And the film itself, which initially announces a tough and quite obvious morality, does not give anything. As a result, a small viewer may think that this is a sweet fairy tale with a happy ending, in which the characters are ordinary people, neither bad nor good, and you do not need to draw a conclusion from it, because life is a complex thing and everything is possible in it. The deeper viewer will have, deliberately conceived by the director, dissonance. The moral of the movie is simple. There are things that need to be talked about seriously, giving them an unambiguous polar assessment.