• Type:
  • Genre:
  • Duration:
  • Average Rating:

Blake Edwards

Review: The Pink Panther (1963)

Logo
The Pink Panther (1963)

review | The Pink Panther (1963)

also on Cineluxe

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

The only Panther film worth watching, with Clouseau as a fully realized character instead of a one-joke cartoon

by Michael Gaughn
April 24, 2023

There is only one Pink Panther movie. Blake Edwards managed to create an almost perfect modern-day farce with the original, 1963 film. All the various sequels were just cynical attempts to exploit a brilliantly conceived comic character, reducing Clouseau to an increasingly repugnant cartoon and trotting out Peter Sellers like he was some kind of circus freak. The greatest sin of all is none of the sequels are even remotely funny. The only upside is that the massive revenue they generated allowed Edwards to make films like Victor/Victoria and 10.

Edwards had a weakness for sight gags, an itch he was able to scratch with varying degrees of success throughout his career. He used them to liven up early, fluffy efforts like Operation Petticoat and The Perfect Furlough but failed to show the necessary restraint in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, where they often feel like they were spliced in from another movie. The relentlessness of the gags chokes The Great Race, inducing fatigue by the end of the first reel when there’s still more than two hours of movie to go. On the other hand, he turned that relentlessness to his advantage with The Party, a successful modern attempt, with a nod to Tati, at a silent film.

The only time he achieved an ideal balance between story and gags was The Pink Panther, which works because he was able to use the conventions of classic stage farce without making the film look stagey—and because he came up with Clouseau. And because Peter Sellers played the character when he was at the absolute height of his powers. Sellers did The Pink Panther and Dr. Strangelove pretty much back to back—two of the supreme examples of comic acting on film and, considered together, an unsurpassed feat.

Peter Ustinov was originally supposed to play Clouseau, which would have guaranteed that the film would be nothing more than a pleasant temporary diversion fated to sink beneath the waves of time. The rest of the ensemble is solid enough but in no way exceptional, which allows Sellers to exist within it as an independent force of nature, but without the obligation to have him in every scene—one of the reasons the original film wears so well and the sequels seem so  ponderous and one-note now.

But for everything Edwards does well here, even he can’t sustain his well-modulated conception for the duration, and the whole thing starts to sag badly after the transition from Cortina d’Ampezzo to Rome, where the need to stage a “wild” party and a jewel heist simultaneously, followed by a “wild” chase scene—all of them forced exercises that feel more obligatory than inspired—threatens to sink the whole enterprise. (Richard Lester’s A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, made two years later, suffers from the same flaw, only worse.) The ending almost works and almost reestablishes some kind of equilibrium, but you’re basically left with a warm memory of what transpired during the earlier parts of the film, once you repress the egregious missteps.

The transfer on Prime bears all the earmarks of being the same Blu-ray-quality transfer available on Kaleidescape—which means it’s pleasant enough to watch with no significant distractions, but a movie of this popularity and stature deserves better. The famous opening titles look dirty and even a little murky, and some wear and tear with the elements is apparent throughout the film. That said, the colors are for the most part vivid, and streaming is able to handle things like the blinding white slopes of Cortina without a hiccup—something that would have been unthinkable a couple of years ago.

The audio could use some work. The mix from the time probably wasn’t great but I find it hard to believe it sounded this bad. This is probably Henry Mancini’s best score, which, aside from a few too-obvious “joke” cues is mainly wall-to-wall mood music—which is more than fine because it’s exactly what the material called for and a merciful break from the pretentious Post Romantic drivel that drips off most movies like syrup. But it’s painful to hear Mancini’s tasteful arrangements sounding like AM radio. On the other hand, it would be a disaster to give them a latter-day goosing—the Living Stereo treatment that make his cues on the most recent release of Breakfast at Tiffany’s sound like they existed in a parallel universe from the dialogue tracks.

It’s a shame Blake Edwards got lazy. Clouseau, married but as a perpetual cuckold, as lost running the gauntlet of domestic life as he is the one of crime and the police, and unburdened by the comic relief of a manservant, the Little Tramp removed from the Victorian era and saddled with the pathetic delusions and neuroses of the present, would have been a much richer character than the merely convenient and monotonous figure of the sequels. But at least we have the original Panther film to appreciate on its own terms and as a glimpse of what could have been.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | The transfer on Prime bears all the earmarks of being the same Blu-ray-quality transfer available on Kaleidescape—which means it’s pleasant enough to watch, with no significant distractions, but with enough evidence of worn elements to cry out for a restoration

SOUND | The audio could use some beefing up so Henry Mancini’s tasteful arrangements don’t end up sounding like AM radio

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Breakfast at Tiffany’s

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

review | Breakfast at Tiffany’s

related review

Miss Golightly, I Must Protest!

Some thoughts on Yunioshi

Because this film has been so viciously damned, and Blake Edwards was so relentlessly hounded, for Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi, and because those misperceptions still hang over Tiffany’s like a shroud, I would be remiss to review the film without weighing in. 

Talking about the merits of Rooney’s performance is probably not the right way to tackle this, but I think partly what irks the political reeducation crowd is that Yunioshi actually is funny, even at this late date. Yes, there are a couple of moments that are a little too broad, but we are talking about Mickey Rooney after all. 

The better tack, probably, is to talk about the glaring double standard that’s been applied to the film. Why hasn’t anybody gotten their dander up about Sally Tomato? Here’s a Jewish-American actor—Fred Flintstone, for chrissakes—playing an Italian in a stock-ethnic way just this side of Chico Marx. If one ethnic caricature is offensive, then they should all be. The seemingly endless number of warnings at the beginning of this innocuous film includes “yellowface.” It should say “goombah” as well. And yet Tomato raises nary a peep.

Following all this to its logical conclusion, Marlon Brando’s Vito Corleone—a mongrel Midwesterner playing an Italian mobster—ought to be damned as well. But—and maybe I’m just being short-sighted—I don’t ever see that day coming. If it does, we should all give up on the movies and play solitaire instead. But then someone would take issue with how the figures are portrayed on the playing cards. 

If you want to get pissed off at anybody in Tiffany’s, it ought to be Paul Varjak. That was a creaky conception from the start that unintentionally exposed all the many biases of the time and ultimately created more problems than it solved. And George Peppard could never act his way out of a rain-soaked paper bag. That’s offensive.

—M.G.

Ignore all the culture-wars propaganda—this ultimate Audrey Hepburn vehicle still reigns as one of the great romantic comedies

by Michael Gaughn
July 17, 2022

There are so many things to be said about Breakfast at Tiffany’s—not in a nostalgia-dripping stroll-down-memory-lane kind of way but more in a “this thing still reverberates like crazy—why?” kind of way. And, like anything with potency in the present moment, those reverberations have an inevitable dark side.

But let’s tackle the upside first. It’s a little too obvious to begin with Audrey Hepburn, but how can you not? What she does with her character is still breathtaking, somehow managing to stay true to the depth and nuance of Truman Capote’s original conception of Holly while shepherding her through all the standard-issue Hollywood attempts to blandify her, emerging with a conception that somehow manages to synthesize and transcend both.

She owns this film, in a way very few other actors have ever owned a film. And, yes, I know that’s what everybody loves about Tiffany’s—but that tends to be because of all the charming, kooky stuff, not because Hepburn succeeded in investing Holly Golightly with a soul. 

Usually, you’d give the director some credit for that, and Blake Edwards was brilliant in many ways, but no other female character in his work even comes close to being as fully developed or compelling. Golightly exists leagues beyond what he was able to accomplish elsewhere.

And keep in mind Edwards was still pretty much a yeoman when he made this film, with really only a couple of slapstick-driven service comedies (The Perfect Furlough and Operation Petticoat) under his belt. The sudden growth in his maturity as a filmmaker is more than obvious, and, as much as I love the original Pink Panther film and some of his other work, it’s a tremendous loss he never did another movie like this one—which suggests that Tiffany’s was one of those born-of-the zeitgeist miracles, like Casablanca, less the product of individual will and more the product of spontaneous generation. 

Other things to praise: Like The Apartment, Tiffany’s manages to capture the spirit of New York at that early-‘60s moment when the city was at its peak, unknowingly perched on the edge of a precipice. And it does this despite—or maybe because of—having been made mostly on LA soundstages and only partly on location in NY. It remains a beautiful film to look at—much more beautiful than it deserved to be considering the production values of other similar productions from the time.

When I was a kid, one of the Toronto stations would broadcast movies after midnight that weren’t available on American TV. I would sneak downstairs after everyone else was asleep and gorge myself on fare I was probably too young to be watching. (In the case of Bloody Mama, definitely too young.) That’s how I first saw Tiffany’s, and it was the first time I remember being entranced by the look of a film. It was so much more vivid than anything else I’d ever seen that it seemed almost magical.

If I saw it again today presented that way, I’d probably be horrified. But there was something inherent in the quality—maybe best called “power”—of those images that wasn’t quashed by the limitations of the medium or the device. Tiffany’s, seen in 1080p on Prime, was faithful to that experience. I can’t say I was entranced—too much time has passed—but I was engaged and impressed. Can 4K improve on that? Possibly—but only if Paramount can resist inflicting the same “grain—bad; digital—good” revisionism that made a travesty of The Godfather. 

The dialogue tracks are surprisingly clean—so clean you can easily make out whenever there’s a dubbed line. Originally mixed in mono, there’s nothing particularly good or bad about the stereo version here, except for a couple of jarring instances of hard panning. My biggest beef is that Henry Mancini’s score is presented in the Living Stereo style of his soundtrack albums, with that unrealistically wide soundstage making it feel like the music exists somewhere outside the film. 

It’s hard to watch Tiffany’s and not get a little wistful about Mancini. His scores for this and The Pink Panther three years later are probably his best—evocative, ingenious, tasteful, never bombastic, setting the appropriate mood instead of telling you what to feel, polished expressions of the second American renaissance. But the British Invasion left him lost without a rudder and he could never recover his bearings long enough to ever summon up anything half as good as what he did so effortlessly in the early ‘60s.

The film’s biggest problem is structural, and might come from Edwards never having dealt with material this complex before. The whole thing starts to unravel around the 2/3s mark, which is when most movies start to come apart when the director doesn’t fully grasp his material. The problem is, Tiffany’s isn’t just a light and fluffy romantic comedy. Edwards and screenwriter George Axelrod had retained enough of Capote’s novella that its darker undercurrents start to deeply trouble everything at the point where the filmmakers have to start pulling all the threads together, causing the movie to go full-blown schizophrenic, oscillating wildly between dramatic scenes and silly vignettes that tend to rob the more serious moments of their power. This created an insoluble dilemma that led to the infamous “I own you” conclusion, with the now thoroughly unpleasant George Peppard asserting his blond-haired, blue-eyed straw-man’s rights over the beaten Golightly. All of that somehow doesn’t sink the film completely, but it’s a hell of a note to end on.

Miss Golightly, I Must Protest!

Some thoughts on Yunioshi

Because this film has been so viciously damned, and Blake Edwards was so relentlessly hounded, for Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi, and because those misperceptions still hang over Tiffany’s like a shroud, I would be remiss to review the film without weighing in. 

Talking about the merits of Rooney’s performance is probably not the right way to tackle this, but I think partly what irks the political reeducation crowd is that Yunioshi actually is funny, even at this late date. Yes, there are a couple of moments that are a little too broad, but we are talking about Mickey Rooney after all. 

The better tack, probably, is to talk about the glaring double standard that’s been applied to the film. Why hasn’t anybody gotten their dander up about Sally Tomato? Here’s a Jewish-American actor—Fred Flintstone, for chrissakes—playing an Italian in a stock-ethnic way just this side of Chico Marx. If one ethnic caricature is offensive, then they should all be. The seemingly endless number of warnings at the beginning of this innocuous film includes “yellowface.” It should say “goombah” as well. And yet Tomato raises nary a peep.

Following all this to its logical conclusion, Marlon Brando’s Vito Corleone—a mongrel Midwesterner playing an Italian mobster—ought to be damned as well. But—and maybe I’m just being short-sighted—I don’t ever see that day coming. If it does, we should all give up on the movies and play solitaire instead. But then someone would take issue with how the figures are portrayed on the playing cards. 

If you want to get pissed off at anybody in Tiffany’s, it ought to be Paul Varjak. That was a creaky conception from the start that unintentionally exposed all the many biases of the time and ultimately created more problems than it solved. And George Peppard could never act his way out of a rain-soaked paper bag. That’s offensive.

—M.G.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | Tiffany’s, seen in 1080p on Amazon Prime, is amazingly faithful to one of the most beautifully shot Technicolor films ever

SOUND | The dialogue tracks are so clean you can easily hear when there’s a line dub, but the stereo mix of Mancini’s score fails to integrate it with the rest of the film

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: The Party

The Party (1968)

review | The Party

also in Reviews

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

This rowdy Blake Edwards comedy has gone from bomb to classic but has never gotten the presentation it deserves

by Michael Gaughn
March 21, 2021

Blake Edwards’ The Party actually opened on the same day as 2001: A Space Odyssey in that very strange year of 1968. It took a while for 2001 to gain some traction but it eventually became a big deal (thanks largely to a faithful following of stoners) and went on to become a classic. The Party closed almost immediately and the twin blows of that and the godawful Darling Lili almost obliterated Edwards’ career. But the film has shown surprising tenacity, and while it doesn’t have anything like 2001’s reputation, it is, in its broad, neurotic, and fundamentally conservative way, a deeply radical film.

Oddly, The Party and 2001 have things in common beyond springing from a radical impulse, primarily that, while they both have audio, they’re basically widescreen silent films—an itch Jacques Tati scratched at around the same time with Playtime. (It wouldn’t be inapt to see that retreat into silence as a kind of traumatic reaction to the times.)

But The Party’s biggest—and highly dubious—honor is that it single-handedly created the frat-boy/gross-out comedy genre that eventually proved stupidly lucrative for the studios and still plagues us today. And that, of course, has since morphed, as the culture has grown more callous, into the even more smug and sadistic genre of horror comedy. But Edwards can’t really be held responsible for that last crime against humanity.

And then there’s the fact that The Party would fall somewhere near the top of that daily longer list of films that could never be made today. The announcement that anyone like Peter Sellers was going to play an Indian in a comedy would cause vast hordes of rabid Millennials to well up trailing endless miles of hangman’s rope, Edwards’ and Sellers’ intentions and the actual execution of the film be damned. The sad truth is that any form of expression outside of some very rigid and oppressive guardrails has become verboten. There was far more latitude in the mid ‘60s, obviously, but nobody was quite sure what to do with the freedom that had suddenly tumbled into their laps.

That anyone who could enjoy this film might be dissuaded from watching it just because some zealots have labeled it “racist” is tragic. 

While Edwards tried to make important films—including some basically unwatchable dramas—and dabbled in social commentary, he was mainly an extremely gifted metteur en scène with a deeply intuitive sense of the physics of comedy who probably would have been happiest doing slapstick shorts in the 1920s but was born too late. The first Pink Panther film is a work of genius, an almost flawless classical farce in the style of Molière, Feydeau, and Beaumarchais. Its followup, A Shot in the Dark, is OK but begins to feel forced. All of the subsequent Panther films aren’t worth the time it takes to watch them. 

The Party is essentially Edwards’ baffled reaction—common to square-but-desperate-to-seem-hip society in the ’60s—to almost the whole of the social order being tossed into a blender. It takes the sophisticated, ’50s-inflected chaos of the party scene in Breakfast at Tiffany’s—a milieu he knew well—and wonders what would happen if that anarchy-within-bounds were allowed to roam free. But Edwards didn’t have a politically rebellious bone in his body, so the best he could arrive at was something that often resembles the finale of a Beach Blanket movie. Only the fact the he was a far more talented director than William “Bewitched” Asher begins to redeem this mess.

But it’s a both beautiful and nasty mess, and something to be savored—beginning, of course, with Sellers. This is his last great comic performance. After reaching his peak with Strangelove, Clouseau, and, here, Bakshi, he had little left to give and spent the next decade and a half stumbling from one mediocre film and half-hearted performance to another. (Being There is such an oddity it’s hard to say where it falls in all that.)

This is also his most fully rounded performance. Bakshi obviously meant something to Sellers (and Edwards) and he took the time to develop him into a complete character with a resonance that goes well beyond his comedic presence. You can laugh at him but at the same time can’t help but feel for him. None of Sellers other creations evoke that kind of emotional response.

While there are some perfectly tuned supporting performances (with the exception of the unfortunate Claudine Longet), they are all, appropriately, meant to create foils and a frame for Sellers. About the only thing that approaches deserving second billing is the studio head’s cringe-worthy home. Edwards and cinematographer Lucien Ballard captured the sheer awfulness of mid-‘60s West Cost architecture and design, and, again echoing Tati, turned this hideous altar to status into a character. It’s so ugly it’s, within the context of the film, beautiful.

Edwards and Ballard set up elaborate widescreen compositions with multiple bits of business playing out at the same time. The dinner scene contains endlessly cascading sight gags that display virtuoso timing and reward repeated viewing. (This was one of the first films to use a Sony video system for playback, which Edwards deftly deployed to develop his set pieces.)

You can’t say The Party looks great in Blu-ray-quality HD, but you can’t say it looks lousy either. The opening titles are better defined, less blotchy, than they’ve been in the past, and the increased detail helps enhance the impact of complex set pieces like that dinner scene, which have just been visually busy before. The film would obviously benefit from a bump up to 4K, but you can also see where certain elements would likely just look like too contrasty exercises in excess grain. 

(One quick aside: No other Edwards film looks and moves like this one, which can probably be largely attributed to Ballard, who cut his teeth shooting shorts for The Three Stooges and who would move on from The Party to shoot The Wild Bunch. Like I said, it was a very strange year.) 

Poor Henry Mancini. Just four years earlier, on the heels of Peter Gunn, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, and The Pink Panther, he had been the king of the pop music world, but the British Invasion had since all but wiped him from the face of the planet, and you can sense him struggling mightily here to figure out how he fits into a world of Day-Glo, psychedelica, and fuzz-tone guitars. The answer, unfortunately, is that he doesn’t, and his title song, with its sitar played with a Garden Weasel, ragtime syncopations, and Keith Moon at a high-school dance drumming, is so out of touch it’s unintentionally funny.

The Party should have a surround mix on par with the brilliance of its visual gags but it would be impossible for anyone, at this late date, to get far enough onto Edwards’ wavelength to pull something like that off. So what we get instead is serviceable but not what the film deserves.

There’s something deeply medieval about the present, where the most honest and potent creative works are being forced into hiding, held in some form of safekeeping until the day—that may never come—when they can again be appreciated for what they are. The Party, at its heart, is a tale of the outsider—and it’s exactly the iconoclasts, the outsiders, who are being purged. Enjoy it for what it is, but also for the badly needed context it provides. 

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | You can’t say The Party looks great in Blu-ray-quality HD, but you can’t say it looks lousy either. The film would obviously benefit from a bump up to 4K, but you can also see where certain elements would likely just look like too contrasty exercises in excess grain.

SOUND | The Party should have a surround mix on par with the brilliance of its visual gags but it would be impossible for anyone, at this late date, to get far enough onto Edwards’ wavelength to pull something like that off. What we get instead is serviceable but not what the film deserves.

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Scroll to top

sign up for our newsletter

receive a monthly recap of everything that’s new on Cineluxe