Ella y sus millones

This film starts off with Sophia Loren inheriting her father's fortune after his death. Early on, I disliked the movie as Loren's character was ridiculous--more of a caricature than a real millionairess. I'm a bit surprised I didn't turn off the movie and actually stuck with it. In so many ways, her selfish and petulant routine was almost like a burlesque of that sort of person, as it was too broad and not the least bit subtle or believable. Rarely have I ever felt this annoyed by Loren--a genuinely bad role for the otherwise talented actress. The only saving grace for this incredibly annoying creature was her solicitor, played by Alistair Sim--whose indifference to her ridiculous behavior was at least enjoyable.

After Loren proves unlucky in love, she happens to run into an Indian doctor (played by Peter Sellers). Unlike other men, he is completely indifferent to her boorish misbehaviors or ample 'charms'. And, since Loren is playing a spoiled screwball, she falls for Sellers and does almost anything to get him. Frankly, this is an interesting but utterly ridiculous idea--and certainly not enough of a basis for a movie, as there is absolutely no chemistry between them and it didn't make sense. Sellers is pretty good and realistic in this role, but it isn't comedic in the least--despite the film being a comedy! In fact, his Indian character from THE PARTY would have probably worked better with this sort of broad comedy.

Overall, a rather pointless waste of the talents of the actors. You'd think they could have done better. But, actors cannot overcome bad writing and indifferent direction. Clearly a misfire.

"The Millionairess", loosely based on a play by George Bernard Shaw, is a British romantic comedy about a romance between a wealthy Italian heiress and an Indian doctor. (I cannot imagine the Hollywood of the early sixties making a rom-com about that particular racial combination). The heroine is Epifania Parerga, has inherited a vast fortune from her father; the hero is Ahmed el Kabir, who runs a clinic for the poor in London's East End. The main idea is that Epifania falls hopelessly in love with Kabir even though their values are diametrically opposed; she is a ruthless capitalist, he is an unworldly and idealistic socialist. (When Shaw wrote his play in 1936, doctors who worked in the East End or other poor working-class areas generally were self-sacrificing idealists, but the film is set in the year it was made, 1960, by which time the introduction of the National Health Service meant that this was no longer the case).

To win Epifania, Kabir has to satisfy the conditions of her eccentric father's will, namely that he must turn £500 into £15,000 within a three-month period. As he has absolutely no business acumen whatever, this seems a hopeless task. To win Kabir, Epifania has to comply with an equally eccentric condition laid down by his mother; she must prove that she can survive on only 35 shillings (£1.75 in modern currency) for three months. Rather surprisingly, she proves to be more than equal to this task.

The film was a great success, both in Britain and internationally, at the time of its release, but today it is difficult to understand why. Today it comes across as horribly dated. Part of the reason is that Peter Sellers' characterisation of Kabir, complete with brown makeup and sing-song accent, seems patronising, almost borderline racist, but there is more to it than that. (At least the song Goodness Gracious Me" was omitted from the film). Quite apart from the racial aspects, this is not Sellers' greatest performance. He could be very good in parts where he had to adopt a foreign accent, notably Inspector Clouseau in the "Pink Panther" series and Dr Strangelove in the film of that name, but both Clouseau and Strangelove were, in their very different ways, inspired creations. Kabir is not. He is a wordy, tedious bore of the sort that crops up in Shaw's drama from time to time, less a rounded individual than a mouthpiece for a set of political opinions, about as funny as a two-hour speech at a TUC conference.

Sophia Loren as Epifania is better, and she puts a lot of zest and energy into her characterisation. For all his own left-wing views, Shaw often couldn't help creating right-wing characters who were more interesting than his idealistic leftists, Andrew Undershaft in "Major Barbara" being another example, and with her zeal for capitalist enterprise Epifania comes across as a sexier, more glamorous version of the young Margaret Thatcher. There is, however, little chemistry between Loren and Sellers. Legend has it that Sellers fell hopelessly in love with the beautiful Italian on the set of this movie but that she- happily married to Carlo Ponti- failed to return his affections. If the legend is true, it would explain a lot.

There are some decent performances in supporting roles from the likes of Alastair Sim, Dennis Price and Alfie Bass, but they do not compensate for the lack of interest generated by the central love story. Director Anthony Asquith had earlier directed a very good Shaw adaptation ("Pygmalion" from 1938), but "The Millionairess" is not in the same class. 5/10

Sophia Loren is "The Millionairess" in this 1960 film also starring Peter Sellars, with director Vittorio de Sica playing a small role. The film is adapted from a play by George Bernard Shaw. I seem to remember that Garson Kanin and Katharine Hepburn had planned to do this play as a movie, but it never happened. I can't imagine why they wanted to do it, and I frankly don't know if their version would have been much better. At least in this production we got to look at Sophia and her exquisite wardrobe.

Loren plays an Italian heiress who falls for an Indian doctor (Sellars) devoted to helping the poor. She is determined to get him, even building a huge hospital for him, but nothing seems to work. Her father stipulated that if she married, she must give her husband-to-be 500 pounds, and within three months, he must have made it into 15,000 pounds. It turns out that Sellars' mother had a similar rule for a proposed wife - she must go out into the world with 35 shillings and the clothes on her back and make a living. Loren takes the bet and hands Sellars 500 pounds. She walks into a pasta-making sweatshop, cuts out the middleman, brings in modern equipment, lets the workers unionize, and makes a fortune for the owners and herself. The Sellars character leaves the money he was given on his reception desk, but no one takes any.

There is absolutely no action and no pacing in this film, and it fails to hold interest except when Sophia shows up in a new outfit. It's obvious that it's a play, and it would have to move a lot faster in order for it to have even a chance at working. Sophia is definitely one of the wonders of the world, and in 1960, she was on top of it, an absolute goddess with a voluptuous body, the kind never seen today. She's beautifully dressed by Pierre Balman. Sellars is excellent as always, but this would be at the bottom of the list as far as his early films.

Dull.

A familiar topic, the love/hate romance, is portrayed as an at times wacky comedy and at times an intense star-crossed romantic drama. Although the concept of romantic comedy has been done well many times, this is not one of them. The combining of the two genres is poorly done and inexcusable.

Bizarrely, the wackiness comes mainly from scenery and editing, not Peter Sellers. There are jump flash scenes at the end that are out of place anywhere but a Doris Day comedy. Scenes of the Millionairess' 'throne' room and board who apparently manage her fortune are equally out of place.

The film is redeemed only by a few somber lines delivered by Peter Sellers that are poignant and quotable, and the lovely Sophia Loren who is a vision in every scene.

Pieces of the story line are touching and reminiscent of 'The Gift of the Magi.' Unfortunately, sifting through the rest of the film to find these treasures is hardly worth the effort.

Chemistry can be a funny thing. This movie stars two charismatic legends of the cinema, Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers. Its script, on the surface, is intelligent and well-written, full of snappy dialog. (It's based on a play by G.B. Shaw.) They combine to make a relentlessly dull movie. Loren is a rich heiress who for some reason has to marry again to satisfy conditions of her father's will and Sellers plays an altruistic Indian doctor in London, where the movie is set, with whom she has an uninteresting love/hate relationship. I found it all but impossible to keep my attention focused on the screen as the film worked its way toward its conclusion. It made for one of the longest 90-minute movies I've ever seen.

Part of the problem I think is that characters here are not developed, they just burst out in full force the moment you see them, making a viewer feel like he or she has started watching in the middle of the film. Also, as a romance, the movie is completely flat, with zero chemistry between the leads. It's no wonder you don't hear much about this film from fans of Loren or Sellers, or Shaw for that matter.