Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (Tom Tykwer, 2006)

[Jem]

Set in 18th century France, Perfume relates the story of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, "one of the most gifted and abominable personages in an era that knew no lack of gifted and abominable personages".
Born lacking a personal odour (a fact other people find disquieting) but endowed with an incomparable sense of smell, he apprentices himself to a perfumer and becomes obsessed with procuring the perfect scent that will make him fully human. In the process, he creates perfumes - presumably based on pheromones - that powerfully manipulate human emotions, murdering 25 girls to take their scent.

Based on the novel by Patrick Süskind, the novel features detailed descriptions of the techniques of scent extraction such as maceration and enfleurage.

Ben Whishaw: Jean-Baptiste Grenouille
Dustin Hoffman: Guiseppe Baldini
Alan Rickman: Antoine
Rachel Hurd-Wood: Laure Richis

Parfum Film

IMDb

Patrick Süskind

[John Cope]

Nathan Rabin's fascinating response is up at the A.V. Club blog.

[Len]

Saw the trailer today when I went to see Borat. Looked hilarious, which I expect is not the look they were actively going for. Some shots looked nice, but above all the whole product looked just corny.

Wasn't a huge fan of the book, but the film looks really bad.

[Tommaso]

It's not a bad film, but something you've forgotten two days after seeing it. Nice visuals, but nothing you haven't seen many times before from your usual Hollywoood historical romance film. And that market place orgy is indeed hilarious.

[John Cope]

Another interesting review, adorned with some evocative pics, is up at Cinema Strikes Back

[toiletduck!]

Just caught the trailer, seemed pretty lackluster to me, EXCEPT --

Where did this Ben Whishaw kid come from? He had me mesmerized! Is his performance anything to speak of or was it just good editing?

-Toilet Dcuk

[Tommaso]

Clever editing, I suppose. He's not bad at all, but I wouldn't have thought of singling him out among other actors in the film in any way. Great performance by Dustin Hoffman, though, but really, no film that created much interest for me.

[MichaelB]

I first heard of Ben Whishaw when a relatively low-key stage production of Hamlet with him in the title role made such an impact that the Evening Standard newspaper was raving about it for days - and not just in the theatre section.

So it's probably safe to say that he can act!

[Scharphedin2]

I was curious about this film, first because it is one of the more grotesque books I have read in recent years (I can see it making an excellent film) -- actually thought to take a date to it, but on second thought it might not be such a smart idea.

Also, I remember reading a long time ago that this was a project that Kubrick was working on bringing to the screen, so I wondered if any of his preparatory work was used in adapting the book?

[toiletduck!]

My favorite performances have never been the typically loved ones (I still think Jason Patric in Narc is one of the best of the last decade), so this:

I first heard of Ben Whishaw when a relatively low-key stage production of Hamlet with him in the title role made such an impact that the Evening Standard newspaper was raving about it for days - and not just in the theatre section.

So it's probably safe to say that he can act!

is just random (and theatrical!) enough to get me pumped. Thanks, Michael!

-Toilet Dcuk

[Barmy]

I thought this was good, even mesmerizing. Way above average for a period film, with muscular editing and directing. Good music too.

The murder part was by far the least interesting. I would much rather have seen more about perfume even though it's a subject I care nothing about.

Too bad a talent like Tykwer wasted so much effort on such a trivial story.

Edited to add: This grossed $50 million in Germany, and $100 million internationally, so at least it was profitable.

[Galen Young]

[a.khan]

I saw parallels between Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" and "Perfume," as the end game is to document the rise and fall of the story's hero, a man so rotten and worthy of the audience's contempt that it's baffling when we cannot bring ourselves to despise him! The social satire and existentialism are facets both films share. Also, “Perfumeâ€

[soma]

This was awful, absolutely awful. Possibly the worst film I've seen in the past year. The storyline is a joke at best, and Tykwer pushes it into ridiculous ad nauseum. By the time the marketplace scene came around we were laughing out loud - corny, contrived, utterly illogical nonsense. And at 2 and a half hours it becomes a serious test of endurance - this is one film where I feel certain I lost more than a few brain cells by the time the credits rolled.

To even think of mentioning Barry Lyndon in this thread is pre-tty

[John Cope]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Of course, soma and I have disagreed in the past and his fondness for Darren Aronofsky is inconceivable to me but still.

I have not read the novel and I have only just seen the film so forgive me if I qualify my comments less than would seem prudent. To put it bluntly, I was floored by this and didn't really expect to be. I'm no great fan of Tykwer; the only film of his I had truly loved prior to this was Heaven, and the rest of his output felt like tedious, masturbatory exercises. My great admiration for what he has accomplished here is pretty well unparalleled. It truly felt like what it must have been like to see 2001 for the first time on a big screen back in '68.

I realize that won't sit well with some but the impact this had on me was profound. Tykwer ultimately comes across as perfect for this material for a whole host of reasons. I'm sure there are those who will always harbor imaginings of Kubrick and what he would have done, but, as with
A.I., this tends to blind us towards what has been done. Tykwer is obviously much more of a slick imagist but that aesthetic is put to good use here; it's conversant with the themes at the heart of this work and complements them. Initially I myself mused on how Greenaway might have handled this and obviously it would have been much different, as with Kubrick much more formally restrained.

There was a moment early on when I realized Tykwer was a good match for this. It's the scene in which Dustin Hoffman's character samples some of Grenouille's first mixture. Hoffman's dank basement surroundings give way to a garden complete with a beautiful woman strolling up to greet him. It's obvious at moments like this that Tykwer realizes how to deploy his own strengths best. It's an intentional allusion to modern ad technique, situating everything within a regimented domain that's meant to imply "freedom" in capital letters; it thus has the curious effect of diminishing the notion of freedom it seeks to make associations with, reducing it to a capturable, relatable and manageable defined object.

He also uses shock images, like the baby on top of the garbage heap, to drive home the idea of how little it takes to touch a nerve. The simplest images, the ones that lie on the surface, are often all it takes. Also note how Tykwer uses his musical score to accent Grenouille's work. The cascading choirs in the background make a similar point. Grenouille is indulging in actions which are anti-social at the very least and evidence a kind of sociopathy. But this is a reductive reading. Based on his actions alone we would normally be positioned to see him in a certain light and efforts to complicate his character would come from an equally familiar source, usually dialogue or backstory. But Grenouille has very little dialogue and the backstory we get is already largely compromised by irony. So Tykwer illustrates how motifs within the score can get the job done better. It is a surface music cue but it does complicate our assessment of this character as it seems to suggest that his vocation is almost a holy one, or at least certainly one which we can't begrudge him for. This is borne out by the caricature Tykwer makes of the figure of the bishop. He's spluttering and superficial, virtually a cartoon; but this is of a piece with Tykwer's intent, it's not an error in judgement. He wants us to consider unfashionable notions such as holiness or genius and what constitutes that and whether it can be severely contradictory, a living paradox if you will. Can the pursuit of an ideal be holy (i.e. worthy) even if it acts against existing, deeply imbedded mores of a society? After all, Grenouille isn't after sex but after something more like devotion; it's a recognition that becomes a passion to cherish what others throw away or disregard frivolously.

Clearly much of Perfume deals with the idea of capturing beauty and, in basic terms, how capturing it and maintaining it might necessitate killing it, literally and metaphorically. This is not new terrain but what is refreshing is the specificity of Grenouille's ambition. It's source is in the desire to capture something beyond the surface, to capture essence and how that desire leads to what eventually happens. His motivations lie in a unique gift, an excess of vision or insight which is what compels him to seek out the seemingly unattainable. In pursuit of his vision he befuddles simpler men like Hoffman's Baldini and establishes himself as a holy fool cum societal deviant. The ending is stunning because it bears out the truth of his insight and then opens the floor to a whole host of new, daunting questions. If, for one, essence can be contained is it really essence and what would it mean if it was? Are lives expendable in the pursuit of a truth which would render them tangential to its revelation? Is the loss of something temporary irrelevant in the face of what is not? Is there meaning in the establishment of a relation between the two?

If the murder plots seems negligible it's because it's all about what is and isn't negligible. What can be sacrificed in the pursuit of truth? The ultimate truth here seems to be in Grenouille's eventual recognition that power and mastery are only partial sources of understanding and that without receptivity and vulnerability they will only lead to tidal waves of consumption. Wisdom requires a balance between admiration and acquiescence.

[soma]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Of course, soma and I have disagreed in the past and his fondness for Darren Aronofsky is inconceivable to me but still.

Likewise it is inconceivable to me that anyone could praise this film for anything other than its technical bravado, and likewise that anyone could honestly think Panic Room is Fincher's best film, let alone even worth mentioning as any more than an average to semi-decent genre piece. I'm truly at a loss for words, and will have to come back to this when I get some time. It almost seems to me that you are inventing deep meanings and substance for films that, basically have little to none of either. I will say though, despite my honest shock and insatiable urge to cringe at these two films in particular that you are praising so highly, I do respect the time and eloquence you put into your posts - and enjoy reading them, though I disagree with them.

[John Cope]

It almost seems to me that you are inventing deep meanings and substance for films that, basically have little to none of either.

I can only imagine your response to my impassioned defense of Rafael Eisenman's Lake Consequence (Harris Savides' first film as DP, btw, and one I'm sure he's proud of).

Also, here's a great piece by Matt Zoller Seitz on Perfume. He articulates the merits of the film beautifully.