Les dessous de la millionnaire

I've never read the GBS play this is supposedly based on, but I'm sure it had to be better than this movie adaptation. Shaw's influence is evident in the emphasis on class warfare and the evils of capitalists. But the silly plot in which these ideas are presented is tedious and slow- moving.

If you read a capsule summary of THE MILLIONAIRESS, you get the impression that it's somehow about a contest between a man and a woman, trying to fulfill the terms of various wills so they can be married. But the actual contest doesn't really come into focus until the movie is more than half over. Before that, it just grinds its gears, showing us how petulant and greedy Sophia Loren's character can be, and how pure and honorable Peter Sellers' Indian doctor can be. Her interest in him doesn't make much sense, and neither does his rejection of her advances. The abrupt ending leaves you wondering if a reel or two have been left out unintentionally.

Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren (looking so young and radiant) are always fun to watch. Just imagine what a great comedy they COULD have made if a good screenwriter had developed a proper vehicle for them. Watching them work is the only thing that makes this movie bearable. Great comic actors like Alfie Bass and Alastair Sim are wasted in parts that barely allow them to stretch (although we do get a couple of Sim's trademark giggles).

Besides all this, the film looks cheap. The sets are bare-bones; some looking like painted backgrounds from a school play. The scene where they visit the new hospital and Sellers raves about the equipment is a joke in itself: would he really be impressed by a couple of lab tables with a few test tubes and what looks like a Victorian microscope?

This film is only for Sellers and/or Loren fans who insist on seeing everything they ever did. Those who are seeking entertainment should look elsewhere.

The Millionairess reminds me of why people will sit through generally stale movies sometimes instead of just packing it in, the odd glitter or chemistry between two major movie stars who one does not often get to see together. This is a flat uncompelling piece of work about a newly minted heiress (Sophia Loren) who can't find the right man to marry and a devoted Indian physician (Peter Sellers) who has no interest in money- or women.

Sellers performance is about the only thing that takes this picture above banality; he has so much integrity as an actor that he raises the level of the mostly shoddy material. He has some truly wonderful, charming moments as the doctor who resists the stunning Loren at every turn (the same could not be said off-camera; Sellers wrecked his first marriage over the obsession). Loren, is a good, but not great actress; her appeal lies heavily in her charm and good humor. Here, those qualities are muted by the character she plays: a self-obsessed bombshell who has no real love to give- only money- and doesn't understand why a man of true integrity won't respond to that. But what's wrong with the screenplay is fairly obvious. In the typical Hate At First Sight movie romance, the characters learn and grow to see the virtue of the each other's worth, then fall in love. Here, they don't. Sellers character gives no indication of wearing down, Loren's never stops being exasperating (in one scene, she fakes an illness at 4:30 AM so Sellers will come over to examine her). When they hook up at the end, it's totally implausible and not very satisfying (she fakes committing suicide to draw him to her).

That said, the movie is not quite boring, the audience may be drawn to the radiance of the stars in spite of itself, but it has no real spark and no drive. The look of it is quite nice, it's expensive without being gaudy. But it doesn't serve the actors very well; even the great Alastair Sim isn't well-used. I suspect watching The Millionairess is something like being super-rich, one gets the feeling of having too much time to kill. 2** out of 4

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.

I never saw this when it first came out, though I remember the song that went with it (but does not feature in it), and only caught up with it when the Times gave away free DVDs with its Saturday edition recently. I agree entirely with other criticisms; too little happens, the dialogue doesn't flow naturally, some of the acting is wooden and there are pointless cameos (e.g. by Alfie Bass) and weak attempts at slapstick (various persons ending up in the Thames). The setting seems to be modern, i.e. 1950s, but the East Enders the Indian doctor treats belong to an older time, the time of Shaw's own play, except that some are Indian or similar. Part of the problem seems to be the placing of some of Shaw's epigrammatic dialogue in a weaker and rather inappropriate framework; the millionairess is much more ruthless and unpleasant in the play, as I remember it. Sophia Loren is a pleasure to watch, and there seems to be genuine chemistry between her and Peter Sellers (as I believe was reported off-set), but they cannot save this, and good actors like Alastair Sim and Dennis Price are wasted.

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.