With the favorable review from the Chicago Sun-Times spreading, good news came one after another.
First, The New York Times published a review stating, "The persistence and principles of this film offer every viewer an opportunity for self-reflection and contemplation. The brilliant performances of Al and Hugo make this story feel real and believable," and even awarded an extraordinarily high score of 85 points.
Then came a review from The Los Angeles Times by Nicholas: "Al's superb acting turns every scene in the film into a catalyst that could ignite a storm of thoughts at any moment. Hugo's exquisite performance as his counterpart makes us feel as if we're seeing once more the youthful boy who stunned everyone in Dead Poets Society." Nicholas also gave the highest score of 85 points.
The first four reviews released were all full of praise for Scent of a Woman, especially the unexpectedly positive response from the Los Angeles Times, which took the entire film market by surprise.
Before the film's release, no one was optimistic about its prospects whether in terms of reputation or box office. Everyone believed it would be another dull and forgettable flop released in October. The combination of Al, Hugo, and Martin made the film's future look bleak. But who could have predicted that once released, the film would not only overturn all previous skepticism but also announce its strong arrival with an awe-inspiring presence.
Nicholas from The Los Angeles Times had previously written a professional critique, predicting that Scent of a Woman would be a disaster. Yet after the release, Nicholas defected, even writing a long-form review of the entire movie, revealing his serious attitude toward the film.
"The film Scent of a Woman is adapted from the novel of the same name by Italian author Giovanni Arpino. In Giovanni's original work, the character is not Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade but Captain Fausto. Captain Fausto is more realistic and ordinary he lacks a heightened sense of smell and hides behind heavy sunglasses all day. His greatest joy is making himself happy through cruelty, using caustic and bitter words to make those around him suffer. He enjoys this process. This is his attitude toward life: storms are always better than sunshine, because storms force you to recognize your current situation, while sunshine only lets you get lost in the illusion of peace and serenity.
In Dino Risi's 1974 film of the same name, the focus was on telling the past of Captain Fausto a tale about understanding life. But in the 1992 version by Martin Brest, the same book has given rise to a different story. Set in a different culture and environment, the characters naturally have different experiences and outcomes.
Martin injected strong American values into each main character in the film family. Whether it's Frank Slade, Charles Simms, or George Willis, every one of them has a family. Their personalities and beliefs are deeply influenced by their families, and the bonds they share with their families are inseparable, especially under the backdrop of Thanksgiving.
Although George appears glamorous on the surface, he completely relies on his father. When an incident occurs, he can only obey his father like an obedient puppy. The promises and oaths he once made vanish completely under his father's dominance because he needs his father to support his future.
Charlie's impoverished family background makes him fully understand the hardships of life, so he works harder than others. He's stronger and more valuable than he appears he's a raw diamond waiting to be refined. So, when he faces criticism from school or the colonel's dominance, he still sticks to his beliefs. This is the principle rooted in his blood since childhood.
The family surrounding Frank is not present in the original novel. Those who care about him, hate him, those he likes, those he rejects their love, condemnation, and rejection all influence him to varying degrees. On Thanksgiving, Frank storms into his brother Willie's house, creating a typical American family conflict. Communication barriers and the inability to express emotions are the root causes of the final fallout. This is also the source of conflict in most families.
The film simplifies the original's deep reflection on life's suffering into a choice about life itself. It's a simplification, not a reduction of the problem's complexity. Frank says there are two kinds of people in this world: those who take responsibility when things happen, and those who look for a backer. The backer is the easier path. Charlie faces such a choice whether to betray his friends for a brighter future or to endure the consequences of staying silent.
This reminds me of a story I heard as a child. On Linda's first day of school, the teacher had to leave the classroom during a lesson and told the students not to cause trouble. Once the teacher left, the classroom became chaotic. When the teacher returned, Linda reported the situation. As a result, she was kept after school as punishment.
At the time, I was confused—Linda clearly helped the teacher, so why was she punished? I asked for the reason, and Linda answered, "Because I betrayed the team." So that was it. The teacher set the rule, and she alone should enforce it. Students reporting others breaks another unwritten rule: children must unite and not betray each other. If a child misbehaves, it's the teacher's or parent's job to discipline them. At least in theory, this is how the world should work.
Charlie faces the same dilemma. In fact, no matter what Charlie chooses, there's logic behind it. This is a conflict between right and right. From a relativist standpoint, one could even say his choice was wrong. In real society, choices are numerous not just between right and wrong or good and evil, but also between right and right, or wrong and wrong. Morality is not always black and white.
If a close friend or family member commits a crime, should you call the police? Should you betray them for the greater good? Legally, yes. But once someone chooses to report their loved one, they must also face emotional torment because that's their family. This is the moral bottom line.
This clash of rights is the harshest and most complex choice in reality. That's what Charlie faces. However, the nuance lies in whether his choice was for personal gain or to uphold his principles.
George, under his father's pressure, gave up his friend understandable. But his choice was for self-preservation. That's why he can't lift his head before Charlie. Charlie's decision may appear stubborn, foolish, and blind, but he didn't act for self-interest. In some ways, he chose to sacrifice his own interests to protect others. He didn't choose self-preservation. He stood by his principles. That's why he deserves praise, and why Frank passionately defended him in the end.
Rather than valuing Charlie's sacrifice for a friend, Frank admires his adherence to principles remaining unshaken by personal gain. That "path of principles, the path to character," is what left Frank in awe. When you can't have it both ways, at the very least, don't sacrifice others for yourself. That's the fundamental quality of a leader.
Charlie chose a hard, difficult, frightening path the right path. One that's hard to follow. He had a courage that most others do not.
Al Pacino's performance is the guarantee of the film's success. Whether you call him Frank Slade or Fausto, this man is hard to describe with mere words. He is a spirit, a mix of passion and pain that is difficult to define. He might suddenly burst into laughter, as if to announce something or mock it, and before you can even react, that laughter vanishes into the air. Those who like him will love him dearly; those who don't will scoff at him.
Under Al's portrayal, Frank is overflowing with charm so much so that it almost overshadows his pain. Or perhaps it is precisely this charm that makes the pain seem sweet. His appeal to women is like that of Donna, except he doesn't need to foolishly sing serenades beneath their windows he only needs to use his sense of smell, and women will be drawn to him like moths to a flame.
Al also gave the character his iconic shout—"Hoo-ah!" This is his bullet fired at life. At different moments, this exclamation carries different meanings. It can be a sneer, a lament, a cheer, or a lonely sigh. A simple phrase, yet Al enriches it with deep and touching emotions. As for that brilliant tango scene it is a stroke of cinematic genius. It makes the film a dream everyone longs for, and though it diminishes the realism of the story, it does not reduce the film's power to inspire and move, because what we see is not just a story, but a spirit the film conveys.
In the face of Al's performance worthy of the history books, Hugo delivered a performance in no way inferior one of the most brilliant in his acting career, perhaps even surpassing his dazzling work in Dead Poets Society. Shy, kind, gentle, humble, and refined Charlie, as portrayed by Hugo, is elegant and full of charm. Even when standing before Frank, this fine wine of a man, his own character remains fragrant and captivating. Even when overwhelmed and passive, when vulnerability has turned into tears swirling in his amber-colored eyes, his unwavering resolve still shines like a beam of light in the dark night illuminating Frank's life, the whole story, and the cold hearts of all viewers.
This Hugo we've missed him for too long. He deserves a standing ovation.
Giovanni wrote the ending in the original novel as follows: Even though he was surrounded by darkness, in the years to come, he would have to light a match to see in the dark, poke around with a bamboo stick to find his way. In this darkness, he laughed at people, offended people, and drank. Thus, even the most difficult life was still life, still his life, my life, our life the life of all who can acknowledge, accept, and manage their lives.
Whether life shows us a gentle or a hideous face, we must still strive for our choices, the paths we wish to take, and the goals we aim to pursue. And death must never become an excuse or a way to escape—because sometimes, it takes even greater courage to face life than to choose death the courage to take responsibility.
To such an extraordinary film we salute you."
Nicholas, the journalist who endlessly criticized Scent of a Woman, who never had much of a positive impression of Hugo Lancaster, changed sides after the movie was released.
....
Hi For access to additional chapters of
Director in Hollywood (40 chpaters)
Made In Hollywood (60 Chapters)
Pokemon:Bounty Hunter(30 Chapters)
Douluo Dalu: Reincarnated as Yan(40 Chapters)
Hollywood:From Razzie to Legend(40 Chapters)
The Great Ruler (30 Chapters)
Join pateron.com/Translaterappu