Why do the makers of an otherwise highly inventive biopic chose the fairly uncreative title 'The Life and Death of Peter Sellers', especially if the actual death of that person is not shown in the film at all, but only mentioned in writing as a part of the end credits? Does this mean that Peter Sellers started 'dying' at a very early stage of his life, and that what we saw was not only his life but, at the same time, his death? This question has bothered me ever since I saw this film.
However, The Life and Death of Peter Sellers is absolutely great - no: grand. It is one of the most adequate film biographies I have ever seen: entertaining and subtle, fearless and extremely touching in its combination of form and contents. It is perfectly adequate for the person it portrays and also for the medium it uses. (Normal film biographies usually fail to deal with the problem of having to cut a long life to make a two-hour film without confusing anybody and without leaving any holes.) Stephen Hopkins and his unbelievably marvelous lead actor Geoffrey Rush have mastered an apparently impossible task: they have portrayed this interesting genius in a way that makes us understand Sellers' personality, although Sellers himself said that he had no own personality and was desperately looking for one. Geoffrey Rush does what Peter Sellers failed to do: being there as Peter Sellers.
I love everything about this film: the way the image switches from "Breaking the Waves"-style whenever it shows Emily Watson to gaudy sixties colors whenever showing us the films of Peter Sellers (and those inside his head); Peg's sad "death scene"; or one of the last scenes where Sellers is standing in the yard of the bistro as if he was frozen, waiting for Blake Edwards.
Watch this film and enjoy its courage, enjoy the incredible acting performances and enjoy the story of this legendary egocentric.
However, The Life and Death of Peter Sellers is absolutely great - no: grand. It is one of the most adequate film biographies I have ever seen: entertaining and subtle, fearless and extremely touching in its combination of form and contents. It is perfectly adequate for the person it portrays and also for the medium it uses. (Normal film biographies usually fail to deal with the problem of having to cut a long life to make a two-hour film without confusing anybody and without leaving any holes.) Stephen Hopkins and his unbelievably marvelous lead actor Geoffrey Rush have mastered an apparently impossible task: they have portrayed this interesting genius in a way that makes us understand Sellers' personality, although Sellers himself said that he had no own personality and was desperately looking for one. Geoffrey Rush does what Peter Sellers failed to do: being there as Peter Sellers.
I love everything about this film: the way the image switches from "Breaking the Waves"-style whenever it shows Emily Watson to gaudy sixties colors whenever showing us the films of Peter Sellers (and those inside his head); Peg's sad "death scene"; or one of the last scenes where Sellers is standing in the yard of the bistro as if he was frozen, waiting for Blake Edwards.
Watch this film and enjoy its courage, enjoy the incredible acting performances and enjoy the story of this legendary egocentric.