American Cinematographer - December 2004 - 85

makers had to portray many

of his
performances, including the
bumbling Inspector Clouseau, the

Opposite:
Geoffrey Rush

screen

obsessed

German

scientist

emulates Peter

Sellers while

Dr.

re-creating
scene

Strangelove, and the most inept
James Bond ever (in Casino Royale).
The telefilm is based

on

1967 James Bond

parody Casino
Royale.
Cinematographer
Peter Levy, ASC,

Roger

Lewis'

biography of Sellers, which
as a cruel, deeply
insecure narcissist. Though the film¬
makers took pains to soften the char¬
acter a bit for the project, they stuck
to many of Lewis' conclusions, many
of which have been echoed by other
accounts published by people close
paints the actor

to

the

says

actor.

that affected

projects. This
page:Levy sought
a

exclude certain colors from the

palette," he says. "It's a very econom¬
ical way to lend a look to a film.
When you say, 'We won't use any red
or
yellow,' right away the film has a
look. In this picture, the early period
of Sellers' life has no fully saturated
colors, but
introduce

as

his

more

career

takes off,

we

color."

Sellers' first

far less

glamorous look
for

scenes

depicting the
actor's everyday

was

help the production design is simply

success was as a

radio

performer on Britain's popular
post-war program The Goon Show.
But even then, he longed to be a
movie star. At that time and in that

Phot s

look of Casino
and other Sellers

life.

our

different looks. "One great way to

HBocOurft.esy

approximate the

"Sellers hated his life,"

light¬
ing and shooting. The scenes when
he's making films are hyper-real,
deliberately theatrical, whereas
scenes
depicting his normal life are
not glamorous at all. I tried to be
more miserly with
light for scenes
showing him offscreen, and excessive
with it when he is working."
Levy credits production
designer Norman Garwood with
setting the stage for the film's many
onscreen, so

to

ACS relished the
chance to

Levy. "He only thought he

existed and had value when he

a

from the

place, such a goal would have been an
unlikely one for even the handsomest
young man, and the chances of
achieving movie stardom seemed
especially remote to the stocky young
radio comic. Levy designed lighting
to reflect the long odds: "Sellers was a
radio star, and he wanted more, but

there wasn't that much
had. To reflect that,

more

to

be

wanted that

we

segment of the film to feel

gloomy,
physically and emotionally."
Interiors were set within dimly lit

both

rooms.

"The windows

are

small,

so

much

sunlight gets in. In those
days, people didn't leave electric
fights on when they didn't need to.
When lights were on, we used small
practical dimmed down to give us a
little amber light to justify sources.
Life in post-war Britain was not too
optimistic, so I didn't want fight to
project in from the windows; I
wanted it to sort of stop at the
windowsill. In California-style fight¬
ing, window fight penetrates the
room as a
big wash of fight. On this
show, I never put big units outside
windows to do anything like that.
Instead, we'd put a bounce card over
not

a

window and

bounce

a

little

use a

Mini-Brute to

fight just a tiny bit past

the window and inside the room."
The

movie's

framing also
starting out with
wider shots and ending up tighter.
"In the early days, we show what's
happening to Sellers," Levy explains.
follows

"The

an

arc,

camera

is

person narrator
meant to

more

of

a

third-

and the audience is

observe. As

we

get to

know

Sellers, we finger on shots longer and
go

in closer."

The

cinematographer adds
stylistic choice also was
dictated by practical considerations:
"The young Sellers was overweight,
and Geoffrey Rush had to work with
nine prosthetics - what we called

that this

'veal'

-

thetics

stuck

were

couldn't

use

to

his face. The pros¬

quite thick, and he
his facial muscles for

effect because you wouldn't see even
see them. We therefore had to cover
him from farther away. As Sellers
slims down, Geoffrey had to wear

fewer

prosthetics, so we could go in
tighter without worrying."
Levy credits makeup-effects
artist Wes Wofford for helping to sell
the reality of the story, but he notes
that makeup considerations became
an enormous
logistical factor for the
production. "We had 57 days to
shoot the film, but in reality, we had
57 half days because the makeup
application took three to seven hours
every day," he laments. "Geoffrey is in
almost every shot, so we could never
schedule around him;

we

had

to

schedule the shoot

entirely around
makeup, and once Geoffrey was
made up, we could only shoot scenes
that used that particular makeup.
Normally, productions shoot around
the set or the fight. This was the first

the

time I

ever

had

to

shoot around the

makeup."
American

Cinematographer 81
American Cinematographer - December 2004

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - December 2004
