I Like Money

This is truly a very interesting film. It's not a masterpiece, but it's worth watching this film if you like Peter Sellers.

Greetings again from the darkness. This is the only feature film to have Peter Sellers credited as a director, and it was released in 1961. Retitled "I Like Money" for its United States release, it seems that regardless of the title or continent, the film can only be labeled a box office flop and disappointment to viewers and critics alike. Considered "long lost" and unseen for decades, the only surviving 35mm print has been restored by the British Film Institute, so that new generations can be disappointed ... or perhaps appreciate it from a 'history of cinema' perspective (which I certainly do).

Peter Sellers directs himself, as he stars as Albert Topaze, a provincial schoolteacher of the highest integrity. We get a good feel for Topaze in the scenes playing under the opening credits. He's a dedicated teacher, but not one the students respect. Topaze has a crush on fellow teacher Ernestine (played beautifully by Billie Whitelaw, whom you'll recall as the nanny in THE OMEN, 1976). The obstacle here is that Ernestine is the daughter of the bellowing Headmaster Muche (Leo McKern, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, 1966), Topaze's demanding boss. Topaze's loyal friend and landlord is Tamise (Michael Gough, BATMAN, 1989), another fellow teacher.

Topaze is a timid fellow, though of the highest moral principles. When the Baroness (fiery Martita Hunt) flashes what today we would call entitlement by demanding Topaze change her grandson's grade or be fired, Topaze finds himself out of work. It's here where scheming Suzy (Nadia Gray, forever a part of cinematic lore thanks to her unforgettable cameo in LA DOLCE VITA, 1960) and Castel Benac (Herbert Lom, Sellers' memorable co-star in the "Pink Panther" franchise and THE LADYKILLERS, 1955), entice Topaze into their shady business ... hoping to fend off legal inquiries given the reputation for honesty Topaze brings to the enterprise.

Can money corrupt even the most upstanding character? The story comes from renowned French writer Marcel Pagnol and his 1933 play with Raymond Massey in the lead. Pagnol also wrote the novels "Jean De Florette" and "Manon of the Spring", the sources of two excellent films from director Claude Berri. There have been at least three other film versions of 'Topaze', two 1933 projects including one starring John Barrymore and directed by Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast, and a 1951 version directed by Pagnol himself with Fernandel in the lead.

Mr. Sellers is in fine form here, and in the first half he displays some of the physical comedic traits that defined his Inspector Jacques Couseau in the 'Pink Panther' series a couple of years later, and this film was released three years prior to the all-time classic DR. STRANGELOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB. It seems the real issue with the movie, and why it was so poorly received, is that Sellers plays such a challenging character. Initially Topaze is a sympathetic, likable man and he transitions to one we have little interest in - one to whom viewers simply can't relate.

Still, despite the obstacles within the story, it's fascinating to go back almost 60 years and discover a previously unseen Sellers project that features not just the stellar cast listed above, but also John Neville (THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN or for fans of "The X-Files", he known as "the well-manicured man"), British film veteran John Le Mesurier as a blackmailer, and the only film acting gig for Michael Sellers, the son of Peter (he plays young Gaston).

Nadia Gray sizzles in singing "I Like Money", a song written by Herbert Kretzmer, and Herbert Lom gets an instant classic line, "He's an idiot. I like him." Is this a comedy? Certainly the first 20 minutes bring laughs, but by the end, those laughs seem quite distant. Watching a man lose his soul and his friends is painful. Can money buy happiness? Topaze has his answer, but as viewers we aren't so sure he's correct.

This is the fourth film version of Marcel Pagnol's play, the third of which was directed by Pagnol himself and here Peter Sellers as the title character is following in the footsteps of luminaries Louis Jouvet, John Barrymore and Fernandel. This would be a daunting enough task for the best of actors but Mr. Sellers alas does not fall into that category. He has furthermore made a rod for his own back by attempting to direct the piece. A handful of actor/directors have managed to pull off the double but he is certainly not one of them.

He has to his credit cast the film well, notably Herbert Lom, Nadia Gray and John Neville and the film perks up a little when they appear. Georges van Parys' idiomatic score is a delight whilst the excellent art direction is by Peter Murton, best known for his work on the Bond films.

The film is weakened however by the confounded Cinemascope format, plodding direction, dire pacing and one would have to say, Seller's performance. We are again witnessing brilliant mimicry with utter emptiness behind it although those who consider Sellers a great actor will no doubt consider this view to be heretical.

One critic has suggested that Sellers' sole directorial effort is in need of reappraisal.... No sir, it is not!

It's maybe not a masterpiece, but it surely is an enjoyable watch.

(Based on a play) Mister Topaze is a poor but honest schoolteacher with an avaricious boss (Leo McKern) and chased by his boss' daughter (a very funny Billie Whitelaw).

When he loses his job after not changing the grades of a student from a good family Topaze is taken in by a couple of crooks (Herbert Lom, Nadia Gray) who use the honest teacher as a front man for their underhanded schemes.

After that the teacher goes on a learning curve.

This is Sellers' sole directoral effort and that's too bad because he has a good eye for framing the wide screen, especially out in Paris and its environs. Sellers is surrounded by talent (including also Michael Gough and John Neville) and he's happy to take on the quiet role anchoring the movie and leave the flamboyance to others (especially Lom, Whitelaw and McKern).

Unfortunately, the role of Topaze is an actor-killer. The same play was filmed before with the great John Barrymore and he was surprisingly dull. I can't imagine employing that word for Barrymore, nor for Sellers. Yet it is true.

The thing about Sellers is his amazing ability to be quiet. Watch the first two Clouseau movies or "Being There." Sellers' being both fascinating and hilarious in stillness is a revelation.

Sellers is also, arguably (or I'd say not so arguably), the best slapstick artist since the Silent era. His subtle strengths (and, yes, his slapstick could be amazingly subtle), especially in the early 1960s, were wonderful. But he gives himself little to do in that direction. He might have thought it a betrayal of the character, but making Topaze a trifle clumsy in the patented Sellers way, working his special magic with inanimate objects so the simplest thing is menacing, would have been a boon to the character, making him at least a tiny bit interesting.

"Mister Topaze" fails in two areas. First, the lead character is simply uninvolving, even with Sellers playing the part. Second, the ending, while realistic, is too bleak.

Sellers always pretended there was no he. Actually, if only half the stories about him are true, he probably feared introspection. Mister Topaze (the character) is possibly a reflection of the way he visualized himself: a man who is invisible if he's not playing a part.

Or is that over-analyzing a movie I find well-directed with a superb cast but which I thought dull? Am I trying to justify finding Peter Sellers (Peter Sellers!) uninvolving?

This movie is a must for Sellers buffs, but that's as much as I can say for it.

I liked the song "I Like Money." And I liked Sellers' direction. But if I find the movie sad it's more because it's such a beautiful failure.