The good news is that, even though THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS relies on the tired and true method of most filmed biographies, it nonetheless makes several bold attempts to break free of the this-happened-that-happened format, striving to be inventive and daring in the way the story unfolds. The bad news about the film is that it falls into the same predictable trap that befalls most motion pictures that examine the lives of well admired people: it ends up showing the subject, in this case a comic genius, to be a real jerk off the screen. Thus, you have the paradox of making a film that will mostly be of interest to fans of Sellers and who, therefore, probably won't really want to see his memory besmirched.
THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS, though stuck with a mundane title, is certainly a well made film especially by TV standards. The film travels Sellers' path, more or less, chronologically marking each professional and private milestone with a scene or two of appropriate melodrama. However, the film cleverly steps into and out of reality at odd intervals to draw parallels between Sellers' largely successful career as a film star, while at the same time using little dramatic tricks to comment on various less successful aspects of his sometimes turbulent private life.
Showing a surprising versatility, Geoffrey Rush embodies Sellers, going beyond mere impersonation. He admirably meets the challenge of not only playing Peter Sellers both at various ages and as many of his most famous characters (Clouseau, Strangelove, Chance the gardener, etc.) but also steps into the characters played by the other actors. In a move that could have been no more than an embarrassing gimmick, the film allows Rush to briefly take over the other actors' roles and provide a secondary commentary on what is unfolding in the basic drama. The funhouse effect of watching, for instance, an actor (Rush) playing an actor (Sellers) playing an actor (John Lithgow) playing a character based on a real person (director Blake Edwards) is amazing, both in the way it propels the narrative and in how neatly Rush pulls the stunt off. Rush's performance, Stephen Hopkin's direction and the cleverly conceived script make the hall of mirrors trickery work as both a commentary on Sellers' own ability to play multiple roles in his films and also suggests that the way the people in Sellers' life saw him may have differed greatly from how Sellers thought he was being seen.
In much the same way that BEING JOHN MALKOVICH gave us a glimpse of a all-Malkovich world, we get an egocentric vision of Sellers' world. Generally, biopics have but one voice, that of the god-like filmmaker. PETER SELLERS like the actor himself, seems compelled to use many voices, most of them belonging to Sellers. Coming after scenes in which Sellers behaves rather badly, these character transformations allow Sellers to explain or excuse his behavior and use his talent to impose his self-absorbed personality on others.
Stylistically, the film is a success, as it also evolves visually, so that the tone and the style of scenes mimic the prevailing cinematic fashion of each subsequent era and each subsequent movie in Sellers' filmography. But it is as history that the film gets shaky. There are, for instance, inconsistencies: Scenes from several Sellers' films like DR. STRANGELOVE and BEING THERE are nicely recreated right down to the set design, yet the recreated scene from CASINO ROYALE bears no resemblance to any moment in the final film. Also, much is made of Sellers being picked to star in STRANGELOVE for Stanley Kubrick, but there is no mention of the fact he had already starred in Kubrick's extremely controversial LOLITA two years before. Nitpicky little things, maybe; but things that make you question the veracity of the film as whole.
Thus, PETER SELLERS faces the same problem that plagues all filmed biographies; how to squeeze thirty years of a man's life into two hours of celluloid. Facts unavoidably get omitted, relationships condensed and complex situations simplified. That is why the printed page and not the silver screen is the proper place for a good biography. Yet, Hollywood perseveres and foolishly aims for quantity over quality in trying to encapsulate a human life into a moving photo album. The result is less a story than a reel of highlights; a collection of moments chosen not so much because they accurately define an individual, but because they are particularly controversial, cruel, frightening or just plain weird. The atypical gets highlighted over the typical. With Peter Sellers, we have seen him at his best, on screen and in character; the film attempts to show him mostly at his worst; as a distant father, an unfaithful husband, a temperamental unprofessional celebrity and perhaps even as a manic-depressive.
Does knowing that Peter Sellers had a nasty temper and was prone to childish, petty temper tantrums really enhance our appreciation of his work? Will being exposed to his private demons make Clouseau funnier or Strangelove creepier or Chance more whimsical? I don't think so.
Shakespeare once wrote that "the evil men do live after them, the good is often interred with their bones." Had he lived today, he might have added "unless you happen to be a celebrity." Peter Sellers left a legacy of vivid, oddball characters and a handful of remarkably unforgettable movies. All else is interesting, but unimportant backstory. Thus, ultimately, Sellers will get the last laugh, something this film seems to want to deny him.
THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS, though stuck with a mundane title, is certainly a well made film especially by TV standards. The film travels Sellers' path, more or less, chronologically marking each professional and private milestone with a scene or two of appropriate melodrama. However, the film cleverly steps into and out of reality at odd intervals to draw parallels between Sellers' largely successful career as a film star, while at the same time using little dramatic tricks to comment on various less successful aspects of his sometimes turbulent private life.
Showing a surprising versatility, Geoffrey Rush embodies Sellers, going beyond mere impersonation. He admirably meets the challenge of not only playing Peter Sellers both at various ages and as many of his most famous characters (Clouseau, Strangelove, Chance the gardener, etc.) but also steps into the characters played by the other actors. In a move that could have been no more than an embarrassing gimmick, the film allows Rush to briefly take over the other actors' roles and provide a secondary commentary on what is unfolding in the basic drama. The funhouse effect of watching, for instance, an actor (Rush) playing an actor (Sellers) playing an actor (John Lithgow) playing a character based on a real person (director Blake Edwards) is amazing, both in the way it propels the narrative and in how neatly Rush pulls the stunt off. Rush's performance, Stephen Hopkin's direction and the cleverly conceived script make the hall of mirrors trickery work as both a commentary on Sellers' own ability to play multiple roles in his films and also suggests that the way the people in Sellers' life saw him may have differed greatly from how Sellers thought he was being seen.
In much the same way that BEING JOHN MALKOVICH gave us a glimpse of a all-Malkovich world, we get an egocentric vision of Sellers' world. Generally, biopics have but one voice, that of the god-like filmmaker. PETER SELLERS like the actor himself, seems compelled to use many voices, most of them belonging to Sellers. Coming after scenes in which Sellers behaves rather badly, these character transformations allow Sellers to explain or excuse his behavior and use his talent to impose his self-absorbed personality on others.
Stylistically, the film is a success, as it also evolves visually, so that the tone and the style of scenes mimic the prevailing cinematic fashion of each subsequent era and each subsequent movie in Sellers' filmography. But it is as history that the film gets shaky. There are, for instance, inconsistencies: Scenes from several Sellers' films like DR. STRANGELOVE and BEING THERE are nicely recreated right down to the set design, yet the recreated scene from CASINO ROYALE bears no resemblance to any moment in the final film. Also, much is made of Sellers being picked to star in STRANGELOVE for Stanley Kubrick, but there is no mention of the fact he had already starred in Kubrick's extremely controversial LOLITA two years before. Nitpicky little things, maybe; but things that make you question the veracity of the film as whole.
Thus, PETER SELLERS faces the same problem that plagues all filmed biographies; how to squeeze thirty years of a man's life into two hours of celluloid. Facts unavoidably get omitted, relationships condensed and complex situations simplified. That is why the printed page and not the silver screen is the proper place for a good biography. Yet, Hollywood perseveres and foolishly aims for quantity over quality in trying to encapsulate a human life into a moving photo album. The result is less a story than a reel of highlights; a collection of moments chosen not so much because they accurately define an individual, but because they are particularly controversial, cruel, frightening or just plain weird. The atypical gets highlighted over the typical. With Peter Sellers, we have seen him at his best, on screen and in character; the film attempts to show him mostly at his worst; as a distant father, an unfaithful husband, a temperamental unprofessional celebrity and perhaps even as a manic-depressive.
Does knowing that Peter Sellers had a nasty temper and was prone to childish, petty temper tantrums really enhance our appreciation of his work? Will being exposed to his private demons make Clouseau funnier or Strangelove creepier or Chance more whimsical? I don't think so.
Shakespeare once wrote that "the evil men do live after them, the good is often interred with their bones." Had he lived today, he might have added "unless you happen to be a celebrity." Peter Sellers left a legacy of vivid, oddball characters and a handful of remarkably unforgettable movies. All else is interesting, but unimportant backstory. Thus, ultimately, Sellers will get the last laugh, something this film seems to want to deny him.