Synopsis: In the 18th century, a man develops an obsession about smells, becoming a perfumer and also a murderer. (Based on the novel by Patrick Süskind, 1st edition 1985.)
Appraisal: Basically this film makes no sense, for obvious reasons, unless watched with Odorama. To make matters worse, the plot is ridiculous. That leaves us with only the most superficial aspects of a film, such as cinematography -- astounding, acting -- competent, production design, etc.
Rating: 22
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think I liked it a bit more than you did. Smell is hard, if not impossible, to convey on screen... but I think Tykwer gives an honest go. I remember the sequence near the beginning with the fast cutting and images of fish heads and general filth as something a bit smelly.
Hi, Pacze. Thanks for reading my comments. My English is below par, to say the least, and so is my knowledge of film theory. Also, most of the time I write these notes in a hurry. Back to "Perfume", the fact that the director employs his enormous skills to try in every possible way to convey those sensations of smell ratifies, rather than contradicts, the fact that his project doesn't make sense at core and he is trying to film the unfilmable, as, according to Wikipedia, Stanley Kubrick himself would have said. As for the plot, it forms a curious duo with The Illusionist, as a sickly and vulgar fantasy about personal power. But I admit that the superficial, purely technical or logistic, elements of the film are often stunning.
You're right about pairing it with The Illusionist! Never thought of that connection ...though isn't there something romantic about trying to film the unfilmable? But you are right about the story. It all gets ridiculous quite fast. And yet I still prefer this one to Tykwer's Run Lola Run.
Run Lola Run was an interesting film, which I should view again some day. Anyway both films seem to have nothing to do with each other. Perfume seems to have been an on-demand job.
Post a Comment