A SHOT IN THE DARK is, for all intents and purposes, the second installment in the "Pink Panther" film series, in that it features Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. However, it was not originally meant to be so (Many people don't remember that "the pink panther" is actually not a nickname for Clouseau's character, but is actually a diamond – that obscure object of desire – in the first film). As a matter of fact, the film is based on a modern stage play (which in turn was based on an older French farce) that didn't feature Clouseau at all. As the story goes, the script adaptation had taken on many incarnations until director Blake Edwards (a.k.a. Mr. Julie Andrews) got a hold of it and decided it would be a good vehicle for Sellers' bumbling French detective. He and co-writer William Peter Blatty (perhaps best known for writing THE EXORCIST – an eclectic career, right?) turned the play upside down to make room for Clouseau. What's particularly interesting about that is that the original Pink Panther film hadn't even been released yet. A SHOT IN THE DARK was released only three months after the "original" and was far more successful. Additionally, the film introduced series mainstays Kato and Inspector Dreyfus and so even though it doesn't feature the cartoon Pink Panther at all nor makes any reference to the eponymous diamond, it is largely considered to be the primary example of the Clouseau films and certainly served as more of a structural boilerplate for the subsequent films than The Pink Panther.
It is also probably the best film in the series. As much as I enjoy The Pink Panther and The Return of the Pink Panther, this is the film that stands out in my mind as being the most artfully crafted and also, the funniest. As a matter of fact, I can't think of anything negative to say about the film (I suppose I could suggest that love interest Elke Sommer isn't a very good actress, but honestly, I'm not sure she needs to be very good to fulfill her purpose in the film). It is consistently sharp, smart and entertaining and as far as I'm concerned, the main figure responsible for this is Blake Edwards.
This is not to take anything away from Peter Sellers. There is no question that Sellers is a one of a kind talent (actually, Alec Guinness might have been that good as well… Any thoughts?) and is the engine that makes the film(s) go. But if Sellers is the engine, then Edwards is the driver behind the wheel, gently steering his powerful machine to maximize its potential. When I watched the film again last night on Reel 13, I was amazed at how cleverly detailed it was – the kind of detail that elevates a film to a whole other level – and that all falls on Edwards.
For example, in the first interrogation scene with Maurice the butler and Elke Sommer's suspect/maid Maria Gambrelli, watch carefully the progression of Clouseau's hat – as it subtly makes its way from person to person, signifying their lack of respect for the detective. There are no close-ups of the hat or the exchanges, nor are there significant pauses/looks to call attention to what's going on. It is a simple added element to the scene that turns a mostly expositional scene into something beautiful and hilarious (an old teacher of mine would call this a "nickel" – if you're interested in understanding where that term comes from, shoot me an email/comment and I'll explain…).
There are tons of little moments like that in the film (note the pic in the office with Clouseau and Charles deGaulle or the way in which Sellers is off one number when he counts the points of the case with his fingers, i.e. holding up five fingers when he makes point 4), but there are also several other stylistic things that Edwards does to the benefit of the piece. For example, I was surprised how few close-ups there were in the film. Edwards stays back and lets the action unfold before you. It can be construed as a bit theatrical, but frequent camera movement belies that theory. Edwards doesn't force your attention on anything in particular and as a result, we, the audience, work harder to scan the frame and take in all the information (read: details) being presented. (He brilliantly saves a close-up for a scene toward the end in which Clouseau raises an eyebrow and confidently/heroically arches an eyebrow and announces that he has a plan. By avoiding close-ups through most of the film, this moment has greater comedic impact).
Also, the film is a masterpiece of timing, which many would argue is at the heart of any good comedy. And I don't mean just dialogue timing (although Sellers is great about waiting just long enough to deliver the second half of many of his sentences). What I am actually referring to is the timing of the blocking – it's often impeccable. There are a few scenes (rooted in traditional farce) in which Clouseau walks out of the room, just missing what he was looking for walking in another door behind him. And of course, all the slapstick would be shticky if not for Edwards deft hand and careful staging.
Perhaps my favorite moment in the film is another example of great timing. Towards the end of the film, many of the murder suspects argue amongst themselves. Clouseau tries to intervene, but cannot. He inexplicably (and brilliantly) breaks the fourth wall and looks into the camera with a countenance of such frustration – it makes me belly laugh each time – and I've seen it a dozen times now. It's an equally insane and inspired choice – funny because of its unexpectedness, but also because of the way the scene is staged – shutting out Clouseau from the proceedings so that he becomes a spectator – just like us