The Millionairess

Plot synopsis:
By the terms of her late father's will, spoiled London heiress Epifania Ognissanti di Parerga, the richest woman in the world, cannot marry unless her prospective husband is able to turn £500 into £15,000 within a three-month period. When Epifania becomes smitten with Alastair, a muscular tennis player, she rigs the contest by giving him £500 in stock and then buying it back for £15,000. Alastair is unable to live with the domineering Epifania, however, and leaves her for the more domestic Polly Smith.
Contemplating suicide, Epifania melodramatically plunges into the Thames, and when Dr. Ahmed el Kabir, a self-effacing, selfless Indian physician who runs an inadequately equipped clinic for the poor, ignores her plight and paddles past in his rowboat, she swims to shore and accuses him of being an assassin. Julius Sagamore, the shrewd family solicitor, then suggests that Epifania undergo therapy with noted society psychiatrist Adrian Bond. The opportunist Bond makes a bid for her hand, but after he criticises her father, Epifania throws him into the Thames, and when Kabir rows out to help Bond, Epifania jumps in the river after him. To ensnare Kabir, Epifania feigns injury, but the dedicated doctor remains impervious to her charms and indifferent to her wealth.
Determined to win the doctor, Epifania buys the property surrounding his clinic and then erects a new, modern facility. After Kabir rejects Epifania's offer to run the facility, she suggests that they marry instead. Intimidated by the headstrong heiress, Kabir manufactures a deathbed promise that he made to his mother, pledging that he would not marry unless his prospective bride can take 35 shillings and earn her own living for three months. Undaunted, Epifania accepts his challenge and then discloses the details of her father's will and hands him £500. When Kabir protests that he has no head for money, Epifania plops down the wad of bills and leaves.
Setting out to prove her worth, Epifania takes 35 shillings and heads for a sweatshop pasta factory. There, she threatens to expose the labour violations unless Joe, the proprietor, allows her to manage the plant. Three months later, Epifania has installed labour-saving machines, thus boosting productivity and making the plant a big success. Kabir, meanwhile, has tried in vain to give away his £500. After Kabir becomes drunk at a scientific dinner hosted by a wealthy doctor, he finds a sympathetic ear in his former professor and mentor, who generously offers to accept his money. At the clinic, Kabir eagerly turns over the cash to the professor. Soon after the professor leaves, Epifania appears and informs Kabir that she has met his mother's challenge. When he replies that he has failed and given all the money away, Epifania is deeply offended. Deciding to turn her back on the world of men, she announces that she plans to fire her board of directors, disband her empire and retire to a Tibetan monastery once she has evicted all the monks.
Desperate to keep his job, Sagamore realises that Kabir is responsible for Epifania's erratic behaviour and goes to see the doctor. At the clinic, Sagamore tells Kabir that Epifania has vowed to withdraw from the world at the stroke of midnight. Concerned, Kabir hurries to the reception where Epifania is to bid farewell to her previous existence. Certain that their marriage is now imminent, Sagamore meets the terms of the will by purchasing Kabir's medical papers for £15,000. After Kabir rushes to Epifania, they kiss and he finally expresses his love.

Tags: romantic

Review:
This movie stars two charismatic legends of the cinema, Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers.
(It's based on a play by G.B. Shaw.) They combine to make a relentlessly dull movie.
Loren is a rich heiress who for some reason has to marry again to satisfy conditions of her father's will and Sellers plays an altruistic Indian doctor in London, where the movie is set, with whom she has an uninteresting love/hate relationship.
It made for one of the longest 90-minute movies I've ever seen.Part of the problem I think is that characters here are not developed, they just burst out in full force the moment you see them, making a viewer feel like he or she has started watching in the middle of the film.
Also, as a romance, the movie is completely flat, with zero chemistry between the leads.
It's no wonder you don't hear much about this film from fans of Loren or Sellers, or Shaw for that matter..
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..
The movie is somewhat dull and you may be sure that neither Sophia Loren or Peter Sellers could have been nominated for Oscar on this performance.
But, does anybody remember the scene when Sophia undresses in Peter,s doctor cabinet and shows herself in a black guepiere , black stockings and garter belt?
For the remaining part, I must agree that the story is weak, the other actors ( including an improbable Vittorio De Sica) are unnoticeable, and Sophia as a millionaire is less credible than as a Naples Pizza seller!.
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).
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.
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.
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).
This film starts off with Sophia Loren inheriting her father's fortune after his death.
Early on, I disliked the movie as Loren's character was ridiculous--more of a caricature than a real millionairess.
The only saving grace for this incredibly annoying creature was her solicitor, played by Alistair Sim--whose indifference to her ridiculous behavior was at least enjoyable.After Loren proves unlucky in love, she happens to run into an Indian doctor (played by Peter Sellers).
And, since Loren is playing a spoiled screwball, she falls for Sellers and does almost anything to get him.
Frankly, this is an interesting but utterly ridiculous idea--and certainly not enough of a basis for a movie, as there is absolutely no chemistry between them and it didn't make sense.
Sellers is pretty good and realistic in this role, but it isn't comedic in the least--despite the film being a comedy!
In fact, his Indian character from THE PARTY would have probably worked better with this sort of broad comedy.Overall, a rather pointless waste of the talents of the actors.
A bit boring apart from one or two scenes with Sophia Loren.
I am a big fan of Peter Sellers and this is one of the two reasons I saw this movie.The other one was to get some of this 60s wonderful feeling.
All in all this was neither a good nor a bad movie, just a boring one.I am sure everyone expected something more than a dull and a bit childish comment on common social problems..
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.
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.
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.
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.
I loved watching Alastair Sim, Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers in action.
Alastair's voice is still bubbling in my head as is Peter Seller's Indian accent.
Let me just start off by saying that George Bernard Shaw is one of my all-time favorite playwrights, and Peter Sellers is one of my all-time favorite comic actors.
So naturally I think this is a pretty good movie.
And it is a very intriguing idea.I think the best moments are when Sophia Loren's character gets the good doctor to make a house call, the Doctor trying to give his fortune away on the street and no-one bothering to take it (Would that still be the case today?), as well as Alistair Sims excellent lawyer.
There are certainly some exceptional social commentary behind the human story, which is the trademark of Shaw's work.But I like this movie especially for being the inspiration of the classic novelty song "Goodness Gracious Me!", which the two leads recorded in order to promote the movie.
I actually think the song works better..
Sophia Loren is one of the most beautiful women of all-time; and Peter Sellers was one of the funniest comics of all-time.
And as far as social commentary - the aspect we can doubtless attribute to the socialist George Bernard Shaw, upon whose play it is based - it has all the subtlety of a polo mallet upside the head.
The two greats, Alastair Sim and Peter Sellers, do as best as they can with what they are given.
But Sophia Loren seems to have been chosen purely to flaunt her sex appeal which, though considerable, poses obvious and clumsy distractions from the story, and her character is totally unbelievable as far as motivation or personality.
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.
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.
Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren (looking so young and radiant) are always fun to watch.
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).
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.
Placing in the top quartile of my movie experiences, it's a light comedy well worth seeing..
"The Millionairess", loosely based on a play by George Bernard Shaw, is a British romantic comedy about a romance between a wealthy Italian heiress and an Indian doctor.
The heroine is Epifania Parerga, has inherited a vast fortune from her father; the hero is Ahmed el Kabir, who runs a clinic for the poor in London's East End. The main idea is that Epifania falls hopelessly in love with Kabir even though their values are diametrically opposed; she is a ruthless capitalist, he is an unworldly and idealistic socialist.
(When Shaw wrote his play in 1936, doctors who worked in the East End or other poor working-class areas generally were self-sacrificing idealists, but the film is set in the year it was made, 1960, by which time the introduction of the National Health Service meant that this was no longer the case).To win Epifania, Kabir has to satisfy the conditions of her eccentric father's will, namely that he must turn £500 into £15,000 within a three-month period.
Rather surprisingly, she proves to be more than equal to this task.The film was a great success, both in Britain and internationally, at the time of its release, but today it is difficult to understand why.
Part of the reason is that Peter Sellers' characterisation of Kabir, complete with brown makeup and sing-song accent, seems patronising, almost borderline racist, but there is more to it than that.
He is a wordy, tedious bore of the sort that crops up in Shaw's drama from time to time, less a rounded individual than a mouthpiece for a set of political opinions, about as funny as a two-hour speech at a TUC conference.Sophia Loren as Epifania is better, and she puts a lot of zest and energy into her characterisation.
For all his own left-wing views, Shaw often couldn't help creating right-wing characters who were more interesting than his idealistic leftists, Andrew Undershaft in "Major Barbara" being another example, and with her zeal for capitalist enterprise Epifania comes across as a sexier, more glamorous version of the young Margaret Thatcher.
There is, however, little chemistry between Loren and Sellers.
Legend has it that Sellers fell hopelessly in love with the beautiful Italian on the set of this movie but that she- happily married to Carlo Ponti- failed to return his affections.
If the legend is true, it would explain a lot.There are some decent performances in supporting roles from the likes of Alastair Sim, Dennis Price and Alfie Bass, but they do not compensate for the lack of interest generated by the central love story.
Director Anthony Asquith had earlier directed a very good Shaw adaptation ("Pygmalion" from 1938), but "The Millionairess" is not in the same class.
Sophia Loren plays the only daughter of a wealthy Italian tycoon in London who dies and leaves his fortune to her; she's indifferent to the money and only wants love, but all her suitors are duds.
Enter Peter Sellers as a doctor from India who treats the poor; he could use Sophia's money, but he's indifferent to her!
Why the good doctor is uninterested in the woman is the weak link of the material, especially with Loren so glamorous.
It's possible that Sophia's aggressive flirtations could scare doctor Peter away, but the deal they make here is a dull one, leading to a silly conclusion.
Fine art direction, costumes and photography--and the leads make an intriguing movie-pair--but this George Bernard Shaw play is obviously not one of his better efforts.
Bizarrely, the wackiness comes mainly from scenery and editing, not Peter Sellers.
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.
Peter Sellers did another uncannily dead on imitation of an accent, to go with his many imitations of accents from England and America, and he got to read some actual GBS lines, which was nice.
There was more language from the George Bernard Shaw play than I had expected.
I just wish they could have used an actress less concerned with how she looked and more interested in the language of the play.There are obvious flaws in this film.
I give this film a pass because of the appealing performances by the film's leads, Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren.
Loren is earthy yet manages to humanize the spoiled heiress she plays.
As written, her character comes of as unappealing but Loren manages to engender empathy.
Great film, great direction, great actors and actresses (Sofia Loren is amazingly beautiful, and no wonder why Sellers fell in love with her)!Overall rating: 7 out of 10..
Yes, it's true that there is no real chemistry here between the stars: Sellers never had any and Sophia always had too much.
Every once and awhile the wit of G.B. Shaw's original play sneaks through this unfortunate 1960's modernization.
For one, the young Sophia was never more luscious -she's the blooming flower of Italia, as tasty as the mozzarella of Napoli, a veritable Mount Vesuvius overflowing with girlish charm, and, as she spends a great deal of time in this film in various stages of undress, some wet and most dry, there is much to look at here beyond Jack Hildyard's photography, Balmain's clothes and Paul Sheriff's elaborate studio sets.
The story has it all--love, money, sex, politics, religion, social ethics...however the cheesy editing and Loren's cartoonish performance distract from what could have been a really good movie.
That said, Peter Sellers is brilliant as always.
The movie dates itself with the dialogue and that *awful* "pulse" effect, but the questions it raises and Seller's consistent work save it from being really dreadful..
You cannot hit the target perfectly every time, and this is true of dramatist as the rest of us.George Bernard Shaw gave us MAJOR BARBARA, PYGMALION, ST.
Shaw felt that one could not look at these men and their actions without seeing the total aim that they were pushing.
It actually can succeed as a comedy - Katherine Hepburn played Epifania successfully on stage.
Her father (whose painting looks like Peter Sellers in a beard) has set the standard for whomever she will marry in the long run.
And she meets Sellers, playing Dr. Kabir from India.Sellers is as mother fixated as Loren is father fixated (Seller's mother's picture looks like Loren).
What follows is Loren's attempts to win Sellers, first as a desperate patient, then as a would-be financial angel.
Finally she does get him to agree to taking a test her father set up: can Sellers make a fortune out of 500 pounds (in three months), and Sellers gives her a test his mother set up for the woman he was to marry: can she live on 500 pounds for three months.We watch Loren go to work for small restaurant owner, Victorio De Sica, for three months - she ends up making it into a nightspot for the rich, and De Sica admits that he thinks he will sell it and then find a side street to start a nice small family restaurant again.
This is disappointing to Loren, who decides that as Sellers has failed she will enter a convent (one that she has funded).
Sim, not liking such a waste, contacts Sellers that Loren is going to commit suicide.
This finally rouses Sellers, who shows up to prevent such a catastrophe.Sim actually gave the best performance of the three actors, but I feel it is because his Mr. Sagamore was just reacting to the activities of the other two.
Also the work by Purcell and De Sica was quite good, as small as both performances were.
Loren and Sellers did well.
This film works very well, IMO, on the level of pure entertainment.
But on top of that there is the way Peter Sellars interprets his particular character.
The body language he brings to it and some of the nuances in his schtick are both intriguing and highly entertaining to observe.Then there is the stunning beauty of Sophia Loren which is further enhanced by a steady stream of wardrobe changes, each more spectacular than the one before.And then there is the parallel running commentary you can have in your own thoughts about how the movie plot line brings to mind some possible similarities that there may have been in the real-life relationship Princess Diana had with her very own Indian doctor, Dr. Khan, said by some to have been the love of her life.Again, a lot to enjoy about this film and well worth seeing, JMO..
Millionairess-Money Can't Buy Love, Happiness and this Film 1/2*.
It is simply a bomb of major proportions with Peter Sellers, as the poor Indian doctor, drawn to a wealthy Italian woman, the indomitable Sophia Loren.
Loren with her money can't find happiness and falls for our Indian doctor when she attempts suicide by jumping into the river.They both have agreements that they have to abide by such as making money and in Miss Loren's case-actually working for it.All of a sudden Ms. Loren is a genius in business.