Think Pink

Recently I’ve been reading Sam Wasson’s wonderfully spirited biography of Blake Edwards.  Wasson argues eloquently that Edwards is long overdue for a significant critical rehabilitation as one of comedy cinema’s great directors, to be spoken of in the same breath as Ernst Lubitsch, Preston Sturges, or Woody Allen.  But here’s the thing: even in this gloriously pro-Edwards manifesto, even here we find the Pink Panther franchise getting slagged off.  Sure, Wasson celebrates the original Pink Panther (on TCM tonight!) and its brilliant follow-up A Shot in the Dark, but of the others he writes: “the Panther franchise did little to enhance anything but Edwards’ bank account.”

Well, golly.  If you aren’t gonna find love for the Pink Panther franchise in the book that calls Blake Edwards an unsung genius, then where are you gonna find it?

Here, of course!

And by that, of course, I mean I’m loving on the franchise films—the sequels.  Wasser is right to speak of them as being a separate body of work from the original Pink Panther—and even A Shot in the Dark isn’t properly a sequel to The Pink Panther.  How’s that, you ask?


In The Pink Panther, Peter Sellers’ character Inspector Clouseau is a buffoonish supporting character in a heist comedy centered around David Niven and Robert Wagner.  Niven plays gentleman burglar Sir Charles Lytton (AKA “The Phantom”), and Wagner is his aspiring protégé George Lytton.  Aiding them in their plot is Clouseau’s own wife (played by Capucine)—who helps frame Clouseau for their crimes.  The film ends with Clouseau arrested and humiliated, and also becoming an unexpected sex symbol—none of which fits in any way with the character as developed subsequently.


If Edwards had made a sequel to The Pink Panther, it would have been another heist film continuing the adventures of Sir Charles and George Lytton as they defraud their way across Europe.  But A Shot in the Dark abandons them to focus instead on supporting character Clouseau—imagine if Steven Soderbergh had decided that the follow-up to Ocean’s Eleven would omit George Clooney and Brad Pitt to focus instead on the adventures of Andy Garcia.

Originally, the role of Inspector Clouseau in The Pink Panther had been cast with a wholly different Peter—Peter Ustinov.  But his last minute change of heart opened the role up for relative newcomer Sellers, who seized it with gusto and turned what was a supporting role in an ensemble comedy into the defining role of his—and Edwards’—career.


Meanwhile, almost simultaneously with work on Panther, Edwards was also developing a screen adaptation of the French stage farce L’Idiote.  Edwards realized that although Sellars was a legendary horror to direct, he was an extraordinary talent whose comic creation wasn’t fully exploited in The Pink Panther.  So, he reconstructed Shot in the Dark as a Clouseau vehicle—effectively shooting the sequel to The Pink Panther at the same time as its parent.

The films reached theaters within a couple of months of each other—Pink Panther was still playing in some houses while its follow-up opened down the street.  Audiences could watch both in the same day.  It was a piece of marketing synergy that helped drive both films to box office riches.

So in light of this, it isn’t entirely accurate to call Shot in the Dark a sequel—it has as much claim on being an original work as the film it followed.  And in many ways, it is the proper start to the Panther franchise—it’s in Shot in the Dark that we meet such essential supporting characters as Chief Inspector Dreyfus (Herbert Lom, he of the twitching eye) and Cato the butler (Burt Kwouk).  Most importantly, Shot is where Inspector Clouseau changes from being a supporting character himself, to being the star of the show.


And this shift obliges the entire comic orientation to change, too.  The point of Clouseau in the previous film is that he is an incompetent failure.  This is a key detail.  He is betrayed by his wife.  He does not recover the stolen diamond—in fact he is convicted of stealing it.  He goes to jail.  The end.

But, once Clouseau takes the center stage beginning in Shot in the Dark, he transforms into an incompetent success.  He is still incompetent—in fact, as the series progresses his ineptitude and foolishness only increase.  The only thing that rivals his incompetence is his supreme self-confidence.  So now we have a swaggering, self-important idiot in place of the useless blunderer—and the transformation requires some skillful rejiggering the overall plot structure to make this work.

Because it begs the question: if Clouseau is such a nincompoop, how come he isn’t just fired?  For the series to continue, Clouseau has to keep on getting cases to investigate, which means he has to somehow succeed at least enough to keep his job.  But at the same time, the audience has paid to watch him blunder about stupidly.    Edwards’ genius solution to this storytelling problem is to have Clouseau’s epic failures be most felt by his immediate allies, superiors, and co-workers—meanwhile the larger world (including distant superiors, political leaders, and the criminal underworld at large) believe him to be an imminently capable detective.  This allows Sellers to flail about for two hours destroying things and getting injured, then manage to luck into a happy resolution (usually because someone else solves the case and Clouseau just takes credit).


The one-two punch of The Pink Panther and A Shot in the Dark set a bar for commercial success that Edwards had a hard time meeting.  In the years that followed, he continued to make extraordinary comic masterpieces (The Great Race, The Party, What Did You Do in the War Daddy?) but as Wasson’s book details, the artistic and comic quality of these works weren’t appreciated by contemporary audiences.  And with every box office failure, Edwards found himself inexorably pulled closer and closer to returning to the Pink Panther and the comforting glow of predictable success it offered.

The studio had been keeping the light on for him, all those years.  The characters lived on in animated cartoons, and for a brief moment in 1968 there was an effort to bring Clouseau back to the screen without bothering with either Edwards or Sellers (that 1968 misfire, Inspector Clouseau, is an underrated thing, unfairly slagged off, but that’s a story for another day.)


Appropriately enough, then, the 1975 revival was called The Return of the Pink Panther—Edwards and Sellers were back with all their toys, and indeed the film lived up to everyone’s commercial expectations.  Two more sequels followed in short succession—The Pink Panther Strikes Again and The Revenge of the Pink Panther—which gave Edwards his mojo back.

But commercial success isn’t the same thing as artistic credibility.  Edwards was never a critical darling—his emphasis on slapstick and bodily humor was unlikely to endear him to pointy heads—but making a string of heavily promoted franchise films burned off whatever goodwill he might have had with the critical community.  Which is odd, when you stop and think about it—no one accuses the Marx Brothers of pandering when they made films that adhered to a known formula.  Comedians like Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin made films to recognizable patterns, intended to appeal to mass audiences.  Where Edwards differed was that it wasn’t him playing Inspector Clouseau.  Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Jacques Tati, Pierre Etaix, even Jerry Lewis—these men were praised for sticking to a known formula, insofar as it highlighted their comic character.  Edwards, directing Peter Sellers as his slapstick proxy, wasn’t judged by the same yardstick.



14 Responses Think Pink
Posted By Gerg : March 22, 2014 5:47 am

I cannot figure out how you can write this article and consistently misspell Peter SELLERS. Jeez.

Posted By David Kalat : March 22, 2014 1:17 pm

How can I consistently misspell Sellers? Because I’m a terrible speller and I don’t have an editor. Thanks for the catch–I’ve updated the post accordingly. Hopefully you’re the one of the few wounded by the earlier draft. Frankly, I’m just relieved I didn’t misspell “pink.”

Posted By LD : March 22, 2014 2:40 pm

Whenever I watch THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS I am reminded of Blake Edwards because of his uncredited role as the sailor who is a passenger in Sam Masterson’s car. Lucky for his fans that he decided to pursue directing.

Posted By Gene : March 22, 2014 3:04 pm

“Edwards, directing Peter Sellers as his slapstick proxy, wasn’t judged by the same yardstick.” – How true and how sad. We measure so many films in the wrong light. Box office success is good and gets the next picture made but we are too often so unfair to the people behind the success of that. Certainly today’s box office delight can be tomorrow’s long forgotten glory, and what stirs little fanfare today may become a masterwork for the ages. I think eventually Blake Edwards will stand out for his body of work. Mr Sellers was a talent, but any talent on screen is always the careful crafting of a (sometimes) greater talent off-screen.

Posted By Gerg : March 22, 2014 3:49 pm

OK, I forgive you. This time :).

Posted By Doug : March 22, 2014 4:40 pm

David, this is near to my heart-growing up, I saw all of the P-Panthers as they came out and my younger self with a less discriminating palate roared my head off at every Clouseau pratfall and perfectly timed disaster.
I would like to read Sam Wasson’s book-Edwards is a fascinating person.
I think that Edwards would have been well served to have a comic editor.
By that I mean someone who could have told him, “No, Blake-this bit is funny, but it isn’t funny enough. Dig a little deeper, work harder on the jokes.”
Edwards was the final judge of the quality of his own work, which leads to disasters such as Clouseau doing the same exact schtick 10 times in five movies-the law of diminishing returns should have halted some of that when it was no longer fresh and funny.
Every king needs a jester who can keep him honest, and Edwards needed an editor, someone who could have challenged him
to do better. If such an editor had been in place, we might have been kept safe from Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast At Tiffany’s or Larry Storch showing up in S.O.B.
But the Panther films-Herbert Lom and Burt Kwouk made the series work for me and I’m grateful that the sequels exist. The films also benefited from a great array of guest players, beautiful women and farcical plots. I just picked up the first film last week and I’m hungering to see “Shot In The Dark” again.
Thanks for highlighting the movie on TCM and Blake Edwards.
Without Edwards we would not have had “Tiffany’s” or Peter Gunn and Gunn’s theme song by Henry Mancini. He didn’t always just Meenky around.

Posted By AL : March 22, 2014 5:32 pm

THE PINK PANTHER STRIKES AGAIN is the best of them because it contains some of the most hilarious sequences ever filmed…

Posted By Ken : March 22, 2014 7:27 pm

I’ve always loved Inspector Clouseau. Seen as a standalone film outside of the Seller’s, it’s hilarious, and Alan Arkin is wonderful.

Posted By Susan Doll : March 22, 2014 7:39 pm

Excellent piece on Edwards and the PP series. I am a fan of Edwards, even his so-called failures. And, I agree that Edwards has not been judged by the same yardstick as other slapstick greats.

Posted By Susan Doll : March 22, 2014 7:40 pm

Oh, and I consistently misspell Joseph Cotten as “Cotton.”

Posted By kingrat : March 23, 2014 7:32 pm

I’m with Doug about Edwards needing an editor (or a better editor). This is extraordinarily difficult, because it’s much harder to write about comic editing than about thriller editing. I really like DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES and EXPERIMENT IN TERROR, which are very well directed.

However, I’m very glad to see a passionate defense of Edwards’ comedies, because every director needs champions like this.

Posted By Jane H. : March 24, 2014 10:17 pm

Blake Edwards snatching his honorary Oscar as his wheelchair careened across the stage to “crash” in the wings, I’ve always thought was one of the greatest Academy Award moments. I mean, the wheelchair drive-by snatch was funny enough. Who but Edwards would then compound the jest by returning to speak his acceptance in a post-crash torn and dusty tux. He cared more for his joke than for looking spiffy at the Oscars. Who else would ever make that choice?

It has always bugged me, though, the Pink Panther was the GEM, not the thief, not the detective.

Posted By swac44 : March 27, 2014 12:53 pm

I frequently refer to that great movie choreographer and director, “Bubsy” Berkeley. BTW, Pedantic Stephen says there’s still a “Sellars” in the paragraphs above the photo with Bert Kwouk.

The first Pink Panther was one of my parents’ earliest date movies, they loved it and Shot in the Dark, but were bewildered by The Party, and I grew up hearing how it was one of the worst movies they’d ever seen (they didn’t care much for Strangelove either). Thankfully I learned differently, but I’m grateful to them for taking me to my first Peter Sellers movie, The Return of the Pink Panther and getting me hooked on the great and troubled comic actor’s wonderful work (which led me to his earlier radio work with The Goon Show, which is one of my favourite things that’s ever been created).

This post also reminds me I have quite a few holes in my Edwards-watching experience–Darling Lili, What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? for example–need to correct that soon.

Posted By hondo : March 29, 2014 8:30 pm

Here’s one more editorial comment. You wrote: “… believe him to be an imminently capable detective.” The word you meant to use is “eminently” – you could look it up.

Thanks for the article. Interesting reading.

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r * is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.
See more:
See more:
3-D  Action Films  Actors  Actors' Endorsements  Actresses  animal stars  Animation  Anime  Anthology Films  Art in Movies  Australian CInema  Autobiography  Avant-Garde  Aviation  Awards  B-movies  Beer in Film  Behind the Scenes  Best of the Year lists  Biography  Biopics  Blu-Ray  Books on Film  Boxing films  British Cinema  Canadian Cinema  Character Actors  Chicago Film History  Cinematography  Classic Films  College Life on Film  Comedy  Comic Book Movies  Crime  Czech Film  Dance on Film  Digital Cinema  Directors  Disaster Films  Documentary  Drama  DVD  Early Talkies  Editing  Educational Films  European Influence on American Cinema  Experimental  Exploitation  Fairy Tales on Film  Faith or Christian-based Films  Family Films  Film Composers  Film Criticism  film festivals  Film History in Florida  Film Noir  Film Scholars  Film titles  Filmmaking Techniques  Films of the 1960s  Films of the 1980s  Food in Film  Foreign Film  French Film  Gangster films  Genre  Genre spoofs  HD & Blu-Ray  Holiday Movies  Hollywood history  Hollywood lifestyles  Horror  Horror Movies  Icons  independent film  Italian Film  Japanese Film  Korean Film  Literary Adaptations  Martial Arts  Melodramas  Method Acting  Mexican Cinema  Moguls  Monster Movies  Movie Books  Movie Costumes  movie flops  Movie locations  Movie lovers  Movie Reviewers  Movie settings  Movie Stars  Movie titles  Movies about movies  Music in Film  Musicals  Outdoor Cinema  Paranoid Thrillers  Parenting on film  Pirate movies  Polish film industry  political thrillers  Politics in Film  Pornography  Pre-Code  Producers  Race in American Film  Remakes  Revenge  Road Movies  Romance  Romantic Comedies  Satire  Scandals  Science Fiction  Screenwriters  Semi-documentaries  Serials  Short Films  Silent Film  silent films  Social Problem Film  Sports  Sports on Film  Stereotypes  Straight-to-DVD  Studio Politics  Stunts and stuntmen  Suspense thriller  Swashbucklers  TCM Classic Film Festival  TCM Underground  Television  The British in Hollywood  The Germans in Hollywood  The Hungarians in Hollywood  The Irish in Hollywood  Theaters  Thriller  Trains in movies  Underground Cinema  VOD  War film  Westerns  Women in the Film Industry  Women's Weepies