Most baby boomer and older Brits - including famously Prince Charles -have known the many incarnations of Peter Sellers from austerity late '40's Britain through the '50s radio comedy "The Goons" all the way to "Being There". As Britain's biggest post war star, interest in him and his life was and is considerable - Sellers' lives - and wives - were public property. Excellent documentaries on British TV featuring his enormous library of home movies and interviews with those who knew him very well including his live-in driver and close British showbiz pals gave as much insight into his character as perhaps is possible at this distance in time. Does this movie add to all this? The simple answer is no.
For those who know him from his Hollywood movies then it does a good job of providing insight into his real character - such as it was. Visually the film was quite stunning - Rush did look like Sellers and the exact recreations of Seller's movies was an achievement in itself. But Peter Sellers distinctive talent was for voices.
His peculiar skill was the ability to completely inhabit a character, the way of moving and way of standing but especially the voice. He originally made his name by providing an extraordinary range of voices for radio comedy shows. By seemingly some kind of instant galvanic action he could perform startling changes of identity - from confused quavering geriatric to breathy starlet to shabby-genteel conman - and a thousand others by a change of voice. That is how he made his name - and his fortune. Sellers when not performing sounded like a man bored with himself - when he jumped into another character he became energised and vital. In this movie Geoffrey Rush uses his own rather breathy flat voice throughout with just tentative attempts at a few of Sellers' voices and thus failed to communicate Sellers' highs and lows. One can only imagine what Sellers in a rage sounded like - a petulant child with an actor's power. Or at other times being charming, delightful and or hilarious.
Brilliant support from Miriam Margoles - surely made for the role of Peg, Peter's besotted devoted mother who would have died for him and instead ended up dying without him.
Sellers, we see in the movie, became exhausted at the effort of inventing - and becoming - new characters. That is the point: Sellers lost himself when he played a character but Geoffrey Rush remained Geoffrey Rush, good actor, in his portrayal of Sellers. That is why the movie, though visually stunning and keeping close to what is known about his life, never rises above that. When Martin Landau played the part of Bela Lugosi he received an Oscar. The test I suggest is: does the memory of the portrayal tend to displace one's memory of the original?
For those who know him from his Hollywood movies then it does a good job of providing insight into his real character - such as it was. Visually the film was quite stunning - Rush did look like Sellers and the exact recreations of Seller's movies was an achievement in itself. But Peter Sellers distinctive talent was for voices.
His peculiar skill was the ability to completely inhabit a character, the way of moving and way of standing but especially the voice. He originally made his name by providing an extraordinary range of voices for radio comedy shows. By seemingly some kind of instant galvanic action he could perform startling changes of identity - from confused quavering geriatric to breathy starlet to shabby-genteel conman - and a thousand others by a change of voice. That is how he made his name - and his fortune. Sellers when not performing sounded like a man bored with himself - when he jumped into another character he became energised and vital. In this movie Geoffrey Rush uses his own rather breathy flat voice throughout with just tentative attempts at a few of Sellers' voices and thus failed to communicate Sellers' highs and lows. One can only imagine what Sellers in a rage sounded like - a petulant child with an actor's power. Or at other times being charming, delightful and or hilarious.
Brilliant support from Miriam Margoles - surely made for the role of Peg, Peter's besotted devoted mother who would have died for him and instead ended up dying without him.
Sellers, we see in the movie, became exhausted at the effort of inventing - and becoming - new characters. That is the point: Sellers lost himself when he played a character but Geoffrey Rush remained Geoffrey Rush, good actor, in his portrayal of Sellers. That is why the movie, though visually stunning and keeping close to what is known about his life, never rises above that. When Martin Landau played the part of Bela Lugosi he received an Oscar. The test I suggest is: does the memory of the portrayal tend to displace one's memory of the original?