Perfume de Mulher

Honestly, I'm only writing this to counteract absurd comments by other users. One comment and I'll say no more about it:

-----Start rant----- I HATE substandard, big star, corporate, homogenized movies. I hated the Bird Cage, I hated Point of No Return, I hated City of Angels, I hated Shall We Dance?(US) and every other movie that simply took a decent foreign film and photocopied it with familiar names in starring roles with dumbed-down dialogue because nobody thought that YOU were smart enough to understand the original. The whole world enjoys movies from other countries, enjoys visions of life in other places represented through film except the good 'ol USA that simply puts a veneer of saccharin over anything internationally successful to create unnecessary and boring hybrids. You don't have to be an intellectual to enjoy foreign movies, you simply have to have a brain in your head. -----End rant-----

The film is delicate, and presents a wonderful array of issues related to Italian culture at the time: inadequacy in the face of a changing world, individual impotence when fronted with social and personal injustice, and of course, that strange version of love only the Italians can put on screen.

The film has had a remake, and I found it inferior in just about every way. The original is simply good film-making, not an obvious ripoff that's been pasteurized to cater to a fast-food audience. Gassman is subtle, his manners and style give the film a slow pace, sometimes too slow for my tastes, but it's forgivable if you focus on other facets of the film, like the camera work and the faithful representations of culture through the dialogue. I've never liked Pacino, he's always seemed incredibly boring and stale to me, and his idea of subtlety is whether he should speak a bit more loudly or a lot more loudly. Except for maybe the first Godfather where he was fresh and not yet ruined by the studio life.

If you don't speak Italian, you'll have to read along, but the translation I saw on the DVD was pretty good.

See this film when you've had a bad day at work and you want to see how life could be worse AND better in one fell swoop...

I just wanted to outline that Vittorio Gassman has been one of the most famous and skilled and talented Italian actor ever. Dino Risi has made a great direction, but I guess it has been easy with Gassman. Al Pacino is a great actor, but in this case, if we should make comparisons between the two, Gassman in the original and Pacino in the remake...Gassman is much more powerful. All characters in this original version seem to be much more real and strong, and seem to be much more appropriate to fit where this story comes from, the novel of Arpino. The soundtrack then is something no one should miss to notice: Trovaioli has been almost forgotten indeed.

I don't necessarily want to slam the Hollywood re-make of this, which was a decent film in its own right that finally gave Al Pacino a long-deserved Academy Award, but frankly this is the better film. Vittorio Gassman doesn't necessarily give a better performance than Pacino as the blind, disabled,and sex-obsessed military man, but his is a somewhat more low-key one that involves a little less scenery chewing. Moreover, Gassman's character comes off as more tragic and more realistic since this version really doesn't have misguided "redemptive" courtroom scene that the re-make did.

While largely unknown, the young Italian actor Alessandro Momo is far, far better than the deservedly washed-up Chris O'Donnell, who is the real weak link in the American film. Then there's Agostina Belli. Both Gabrielle Anwar in the re-make and Belli in this are achingly beautiful girls, but whereas Anwar has little more than a cameo in the Hollywood film, Belli has a much meatier role (not to mention some nice nude scenes). Basically where the re-make relies on Pacino's considerable acting talents and dialogue to "tell" about the character's haunting obsession with the "smell" of a female sex that is forever lost to him, this movie does a lot better job because it is not afraid to actually "show" it.

Finally, there is director Dino Risi, who American director Martin Ritt is frankly not fit to pull focus for. Risi is one of those unfortunate Italian directors (like Salvatore Samperi, Pasquale Festa, Massimo Dallamano, and Alberto Lattuada) who was not QUITE in the class of Fellini, Pasolini, or the Antonioni, and has therefore been undeservedly condemned to obscurity. Risi made at least two other very good films I've seen, both also with Gassman--the 60's film "Il Sorpasso" and the later genre film "Anima Perse"--but this is generally considered his masterpiece.

Even when they have someone as talented as Pacino on board, American re-makes sometimes equal but rarely improve on an original film like this because its originality is inevitably lost in the rush to "Americanize" it. I'd actually recommend EITHER of these movies to anybody, but make no mistake, this is the better one.

"Profumo di dona"is not only an italian film with exuberant delight of life, it's the pride of Europe and european 7th Art. Why? Because of good playing, good production and of course good scenario. I don't know why American had to do a remake? Or perhaps european sensibility doesn't mean anything in USA? That film give us the opportunity to be happy as human being, to be happy to live. That's why cinema is so magic!

Only 2 User comments available at the time I decided to write this one and both of them negative. Both of them Typical American reaction to a European movie. A big misunderstanding. Yes, the Remake with Pacino is a good movie and nothing else. The original one, "Profumo di Donna" is a great masterpiece, and it makes a big difference. My piece of advice : do not try to watch "Profumo di Donna" with a Hollywood eye.