Conference bookie::movies

    The kid is played by Chris O'Donnell, who is a senior at Boston
    College.  My daughter, a freshman, keeps hoping she'll see him around
    campus, but, so far, no luck.   :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Just to mention that this is a remake of the Italian movie with the
    same name.
    It came out in the sixties (I think) and was directed by Dino Risi, 
    starring the famous Italian actor Vittorio Gassmann. 
    
    Andrea
    

  Continuing on our campaign to see all 5 films nominated by the Academy for
Picture of the year, we went to see "Sent of a Woman". At last, after seeing
"Crying Game" and "A Few Good Men", we came across a film worthy of the
nomination. 

  The movie is actually a romantic story. Not romantic in the love sense, but
romantic the way early 20th century swash buckling stories of men and sailing
ships were romantic (although this has nothing to do with sailing ships). It's
romantic in that it shows an idealized view of life. If you can't get past that
you may feel that it is too unrealistic for your taste (i.e full of "nits"),
but if you can accept it, you should find it a really good film. 

 It's true that there are a few spots where it drags a bit but the movie does
have some great performances by the two lead actors and it does tell a really
fine story. I've never been a real big fan of Al Pacino, but this time he puts
in a 1st rate performance. In fact, the two performances that he's been
nominated for this year by the Academy are his two best, this one and his role
in Glen Gary Glen Ross. 

  Chris O'Donnell is remarkable and should have been nominated for supporting
actor. He's probably one of the best prospects in Hollywood today and no doubt
we will see him in many more movies to come. 

  **** (out of 5)
  George

    All I can say, is "hoo ha!"
    
    Loved this movie, and loved the characters!  I wanna tango with
    Pacino...
    
    Leslie

re: .2

Andrea,

Can you give any more information about the original?  How much of the original
was transferred to the remake? (I find it hard to believe that the original 
Italian version began at a New Hampshire prep school.)  

Also what was the original title (in Italian)?  

I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Ann Marie

    re. -1
    
    As I did not see the new version (it starts only this week over here)
    I cannot compare the two movies right so far.
    But I can't wait to see it.
    I saw the original many many years ago on TV, and cannot remember
    too much, but I will find out the details from my movie-guide and come back
    tomorrow.                               
    
    Andrea
    
    

    
    Original title - "Profumo di Donna"
    Italian film, released sometime in the early 1970s.
    Can't remember who starred...
    
    gloria

From the USENET database project:

Title:
                                  scent of a woman (1974)

Aka Titles:
  Profumo di Donna

Writers:
  Ruggero Maccari (SAO:AAN) [translation: Screenplay Adapted from Other
Material, Academy Award Nomination]
  Dino Risi (SAO:AAN)

Composer:
  Armando Trovajoli

    RE. -1,-2
    
    some more infos:
    
    Actors: Vittorio Gassman, Alessadro Momo, Agostina Belli
    
    based on the novel of Giovanni Arpino.
    
    in the original the young man is also a soldier, who is accompaning
    the old blind officer. the plot takes place in italy.
    
    Andrea

Thank you all.  Very interesting.  Kind of explains the "Italian moments"
that pop up.  


The last name of the Pacino character 'Slade' doesn't strike me as Italian.
Yet he spoke fluent Italian to his seamstress and raved about the Ferrari
as being the "greatest piece of machinery ever made".  

At first, I thought they were Pacino's contribution to the script, but now
I figure they were leftover from the original version of the movie.

Ann Marie

    I saw this move on friday and was really impressed. Both,
    Al Pacino and the young man (O'Donell) did a great job. Pacino
    MUST win the Oscar !
    
    Andrea

    Is this really a 2 1/2 hour movie?
    

    Yes.  The reason I know this is because we were a half hour
    late for a dinner reservation going on the assumption that
    it was two hours long.
    
    Jodi-

Did anyone else notice the major disconnect between the plot and the title?

His ability to identify women's perfume was nothing more than a minor point
to the Pacino character.  It doesn't tell us anything about the story or the
theme.  Imagine _Close_Encounters_ titled _Unbelief_of_a_Wife_!  I suppose
this is up to the producer or whomever, but I though it was a little strange.

Perhaps it was just a holdover from the original movie (and original book) and
the reason for the title was lost somewhere.

-Ann

    Oh. I thought it was "Scent of a Woman" because his talent
    of being able to recognize perfumes/soaps enabled him to 
    break the ice and make contact with the women around him,
    which (whom) he could no longer see. It was his way of checking
    the women out. (Instead of scanning the room visually,
    he did it...uh...olfactorily.)
    
    The talent was also impressive and made him seem attractive
    to women, and got them to open up to him. Which was important
    because he felt so isolated.
    
    Can someone else explain this better than I seem to be doing?
    
    
    helen

Helen,

I understand what you are saying, but the movie wasn't about his relationship
with women;  it was about his relationship to the young student. 
His olfactory senses were peripheral, I thought.  And I couldn't see why
some peripheral aspect became the title of the movie.

It is unclear to me how his talent with the women connected with his 
realtionship to the young student, in any way but a minor way.  Perhaps
I missed something?

Ann

    FWIW, I've not seen the movie, but assume that "sent of a woman" is
    also implied.  Having no knowledge of the plot, I don't know if this
    helps.
    
    Steve

    Gee, and here I'd been thinking all along that the movie's title had
    something to do with what _women_ smell like, not what perfume or soap
    smells like... Which is why I was so puzzled by the previews, which did
    not seem to indicate anywhere near as earthy a tale as the title
    suggested. [So he can distinguish perfumes; big deal. That's what
    they're designed for. Sheesh. (Though I suppose someone who'd spent a
    bundle on "Special Fragrance #27" might indeed be pleased that somebody
    would notice...)]
    
    -b

re<<< Note 39.17 by 5259::SHERMAN "Steve ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 MLO5-2/26a" >>>

  >  FWIW, I've not seen the movie, but assume that "sent of a woman" is
  >  also implied.  Having no knowledge of the plot, I don't know if this
  >  helps.
    
    Steve

    I thought the title alluded to his appreciation of women (and by  inference,
life?) dispite his blindness and his depression?  The friendship between Pacino
and his aide, allowed Pacino to overcome his bitterness at being blind and his
aide to overcome his fear of peer pressure/rejection?

Regards
Barry

	Does it really matter what the title is?  You shoudn't
	go see a movie based solely on it's title!

	This is not the first and only movie to have a title that
	doesn't sum up the plot of the movie in the title alone!
	Do you think "The Crying Game" is about a game where people cry??

re<<< Note 39.17 by 5259::SHERMAN "Steve ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 MLO5-2/26a" >>>

  >  FWIW, I've not seen the movie, but assume that "sent of a woman" is
  >  also implied.  Having no knowledge of the plot, I don't know if this
  >  helps.
    
    Steve

That would be neat if it were true.  But since the title is translated directly
from the Italian "Profumo di Donna", I doubt they meant for us to infer the
English homonym "sent" to be another way to take the word "scent".

Thanks for the suggestion, though.

Ann  

    Spoiler comment on the title:
    
    
    
    When Pacino was on the verge of suicide, and asked for a reason for
    continuing to live, I kept expecting his young friend to offer the
    scent of a woman as just such a justification for continuing to
    experience life.  But he never did.
    
    -- Mike

re: .39  

Mike,

That *would've* explained a lot.  Possibilities:

1.  It was lost in the transition from the novel to the original Italian movie.

2.  It was lost in the transition from the original movie to the remake.

3.  It ended up on the cutting room floor.

I could believe 1 or 2, but not 3.

-Ann

  When I saw the movie, I felt that the title was a reference to the fact that
the main character used his other senses to make up for being blind. In
particular he was fond of women and would dwell on their scent where before he
would have dwelt on what they looked like. 

  It was that same zeal for woman "watching" that carried over into other parts
of his life and helped to define his personality which, to a large extent,
defined what happen in the movie.

  George

George,

I guess that makes sense (no pun intended) in a subtle sort of way.

Ann

    Okay, how about:
    
    Al Pacino wants to take one last trip to his old stomping grounds,
    and smell some women....take him back to what he once was before
    he leaves this earth.
    
    It was this quest to recapture his lost "self" that takes them on
    the journey that helps Charlie become a more mature kid and make
    his decision re: squealing.
    
    His search for the "scent of a woman" (the kind of women he "had"
    when he could see and was "normal") triggers the whole plot.
    
    ?
    
    helen

    On the airline trip to New York, I seem to remember Pacino giving a
    detailed description of women and their scent(s) -- perfume and
    otherwise. It was a rather graphic description, from what I recall.
    
    Catherine
    

    Were the soothing melodies of the Cramps featured as background music? 
    I think they did a song called "Smell of Female".  I know they did one
    called "You've Got Good Taste".
    
    How about Terry Clement's rockabilly classic "She's My Baby Doll" with
    the verse "Rich girl wears expensive perfume / Poor girl does the same
    / My girl don't wear none at all / But you can smell her just the
    same"?
    
    Ray

    Helen, I think you got it right the first time ...
    
    I don't think this movie was about Slade's relationship with the
    student.  It was his relationship to himself, which is why he wanted to
    visit his family, find a woman for a night, and go to the best hotel
    for dinner.  He was having his "last fling" with life and his very
    graphic (at times) appreciation of women was his best and most
    endearing quality.  It gave him something to teach to the student, and
    reminded himself of how he felt about the opposite sex.  I got the
    distinct impression that he was in total awe of women and respected
    them totally, despite the off-the-wall comments he made about his niece
    and grandniece.
    
    This was a haunted, depressed man who, through a stroke of luck by
    being with this particular student at this particular time, looked deep
    within himself and found something worth saving.
    
    As far as this big debate about the name of the movie, what about "The
    Postman Always Rings Twice..."  Did anyone think that was the story of
    a mailman??!!  Who cares about the title!!!  The movie was wonderful
    and Pacino deserves the Oscar.
    
    Leslie

    Yes, Pacino deserves the Oscar but that's not a Politically Correct
    choice, and frankly Hollywood is the PC center of the planet.
    
    Does anybody know enough Italian to be able to say if the original
    title better translates as "scent of perfume" vs. "smell of woman"?
    (I.e., "earthy" vs. "charming" translation).  The literal translation 
    does not necesarily convey the right meaning.
    
      John

 > I don't think this movie was about Slade's relationship with the
 > student.  It was his relationship to himself, ...

Ok, I'll buy that.  

> Who cares about the title!!! 

I do. IMHO, I think the people who made this movie were more interested in
Pacino winning an Oscar than whether the movie made sense.  I think the
fact that the title only weakly links to plot is an indication of this.
Pacino was brilliant, don't get me wrong.  And for the most part the movie 
was very well made, but the plot (for me) had holes.  I wouldn't be surprised
if it won for Best Actor, or even Best Director; but I would be if it won
Best Picture or Best Adapted Screenplay.

 > This was a haunted, depressed man who, through a stroke of luck by
 > being with this particular student at this particular time, looked deep
 > within himself and found something worth saving.

My response to this is somewhat of a spoiler...

SPOILER ALERT:



I thought the student willing to die to save Slade's life was what kept him 
from ending it all.  

    re: .29
    
    Thanks for the agreement. You'll hear no more argument from 
    me anyway, since today is my last day.
    
    Still, it was a great movie, although the "blind man
    driving the Ferrari" bit was a little farfetched to me.
    
    helen

  I still felt the title fit really well. Here's another angle.

  The title is symbolic of the way the main character viewed life. This was
not a philosopher or someone who learned Braille to spend his time reading
Plato or Kant. This was a guy who was very earthy and who believed in very
fundamental values. He lived very close to his emotions and base instincts.

  The title is symbolic of the fact that after becoming blind, he shifted
over to using hearing, smell, taste and touch to remain connected to those
things he loved, a woman being symbolic and being one of the most important
things he desired.

  Does that make sense?
  George

George,

Yes, that makes sense.  And I understood that when I saw the movie.  I guess
I saw his ability to pick out perfume as an interesting novelty,  not as such 
an integral, almost defining, part of his character. Even so, it's too indirect 
for me.   

Ann

    The thing that really bothered me about the film, aside from the 
    ridiculous Ferrari scene, was the fact that he appeared to have
    developed abilities that would ordinarily take a blind person a
    lifetime to master, and he did in only 2-3 years.  This made the
    film totally unbelievable.
    
    I found the character study interesting though and thoroughly
    enjoyed the acting by both Pacino and the young kid.
    
    Jodi-

    At least they didn't call it "Women Stink".
    
    I'm amazed that it's up for Best Picture.  The only other nominated
    film I've seen is "Howard's End", and this isn't even in the same
    league.
    

    
    Profumo di donna literally means scent of a woman in Italian - in 
    the earlier film version I vaguely remember something about the scent 
    of a woman's hair, for example.
    
    I'm reminded of that nasty little novel "Perfume" in which the mad
    protagonist uses foul means to isolate the fair scent of a young woman 
    and makes of it a marvelous essence...
    
    gloria  

    I finally saw this movie last night, and probably would never have
    bothered if I hadn't wanted to check out Pacino's performance due to
    his winning the Oscar.  Anyway, I was very pleasantly surprised.  I thought
    it was a very good movie.  I found it very uplifting and life
    affirming, not depressing at all.  I, also, thought it was quite funny
    in parts.  I thought Pacino deserved to win the oscar (although I
    personally think that both Stephen Rea and Denzel Washington gave
    performances of equal caliber, and would also have deserved to win).
    
    The previews of this movie made it look awfully boring to me -
    prep-school student and blind guy off on a weekend trip to NYC - who
    cares?  But, there was a lot more to it than that.  I'm glad I finally
    saw it.
    
    Also, I'm surpised by the debate over the title of the film here.  It
    seemed obvious to me.  I agree with George in .33.
    
    Lorna
      

My husband and I saw this movie last night.  We thoroughly enjoyed it and 
both considered it an excellent movie - much better than average.

I liked so many parts of it - one of the nice things about this movie 
is that there are multiple story lines and facets to the plot - that it's 
hard to come up with just one overall impression or reason for liking it.  
It does stay with you long after you've left the theatre.

I've read the previous replies and am surprised at how literally most 
people tend to take things... "Scent of a Woman" is an intriguing title.  
It forms a lot of questions in one's mind almost automatically.  It is also 
a fine title for this film.  

All below is spoiler...  (as are most of the replies I feel...)



I felt that Al Pacino was very real, honest, and volatile, emotional yet 
defiant, boldly confident yet insecure with the love of his family, sensual 
and very attractive (despite being blind, older, and occasionally unsteady on 
his feet.)  I would have fallen for him (at least momentarily) had he danced 
the Tango so romantically with me.  

He was sexy and very much in control most of the time.  Women (and men) were 
drawn to him - he didn't need to tell women the name of their perfume for 
that to happen (even though it really was an art - there are so many perfumes 
out there and the ones he mentioned weren't your average Caldor's variety.)  
All he needed to do was direct his attention and words toward people for his 
spell to be cast.

What struck women about his "olfactory art" was that it made very evident his 
vibrant sensuality - his ability to be in the moment fully and appreciate the 
"fine wines" along life's way... many seeing men aren't even able to do that.  

That's somewhat about the man/women part of the movie, which really doesn't 
dominate the film although it does help to define the Pacino character as a 
deeply sensual, mature, and experienced man.  This personal style was also 
witnessed in his keen, quick ability to dissect Charlie's dilemna at school.  
Pacino's character knew the lifestyle and selfish attitudes of Charlie's 
schoolmates without so much as hearing their full names.  His "centeredness"
was prevalent throughout the film and it made me as a viewer wish I could 
ask him for advice about my own problems.  He seemed a very wise and worldly 
man, though admittedly somewhat eccentric.  I kept wishing Charlie would more 
fully expose his situation so that the Pacino character could better assist 
him.  

Charlie was also well-played.  I especially loved his crying scene with 
Pacino.  It was so real and it felt right that during the peak of their
emotional and physical struggle, Charlie would be willing to die with Pacino.  
At that point he seemed so conflicted in his own life's worth and path that 
it was a very honest and believable scene.

There were also parts that I wasn't sure about - like whether Charlie would 
have really taken the $300 dollars for the weekend, and whether it was better 
to keep quiet about the schoolmates - but that was ok (Even Pacino mentioned 
that right or wrong wasn't the issue here - values and sticking to one's 
principals were...)  

Well, that's all for now... lunch is over.  I liked it a lot and think you 
will too if you go.

    So last Saturday my wife and I had just finished a -fine- dinner at
    Shorty's and were about to exit the parking lot via a left turn onto 
    101 in Bedford.  At 6:30 on a Saturday evening.
    
    Usually 101 is a stream of traffic both ways, making left turns difficult,
    but this time we exited the parking lot with no wait at all.  As we
    accelerated to cruising speed my wife and I simultaneously spoke out:
    
    		"HOOOOOOOOOOO-AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!"
    
      John

>   Does anyone know what the name of the actrees is,she was married to
    
    That question is kind of ambiguous. You mean Gabrielle Anwar --
    Pacino's tango partner? Or some other actress?
    
      John

    Rented it this weekend but I FELL ASLEEP during the (it seemed to me)
    protracted "trial" scene at the end.  At that point I didn't care 
    about Charlie's dilemma any more, but I'm curious as to how it was
    resolved.  (Didn't rewind the tape because I didn't want to admit to 
    my viewing partner that I'd been snoozing!)
    
    Anyone care to put it behind a spoiler?  Thanks,
    Leslie

    I'm surprised you fell asleep at just that point, having stayed awake
    for the rest of it. It was a bit smarmy, but touching as well.
    
    <spoiler>
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    <spoiler>
    
    
    Charlie goes to court alone; his friend is also up on the podium, but
    he has brought his father. As the proceedings are getting under way,
    the colonel is guided to the stage, tells the headmaster that he is a
    dear friend of Charlie's parents, and sits with Charlie. The friend,
    apparently under pressure from his father, gives a stuttering and
    highly  equivocal account which names the three boys who pulled the
    prank. He wasn't wearing his glasses, he's not sure, but he named names
    anyway.
    
    Charlie's turn comes. Even under hard pressing by the headmaster (who
    points out that Charlie does not wear glasses), he says that the three
    boys could have been any group of Baird students.
    
    Headmaster is about to lay into Charlie and recommend that he be
    executed on the spot. No, not quite, but you can tell he'd like to. But
    the Colonel gives a moving speech liberally laced with profanity,
    in which he admires Charlie for not snitching and urges the Board to
    nurture his spirit instead of crushing it. The board lets Charlie off
    with no penalty. The Colonel tries to pick up a math teacher on the way
    out. The end.
    
    I thought it was a good flick. Long, but I never felt bored. The
    Colonel was an interesting character.
    					Jim
    

    Thanks, Jim.  I appreciate the details and your rendering of the scene
    ("...you could tell he wanted to...")!
    
    Leslie