'Hoo-Ah'

It was only a matter of time before Scent of a Woman (SOAW) made its way here. Anyone that knows me knows I never stop talking about or quoting this film. It would have been my first Fi’s Favourites post, but I managed to restrain myself until now.

For those who live under a rock and have never heard of the film, this 1992 classic was directed by Martin Brest and written by Giovanni Arpino and Bo Goldman. It stars Al Pacino and Chris O’Donnell. Something that always surprises people is that this film led to Pacino’s first and only Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role. Many think he deserved an Oscar for his role in The Godfather trilogy. Personally, I think he should have won one for Dog Day Afternoon. What is certain is that he deserved it for Scent of a Woman.

Films of the Eighties, and even the early Nineties, have a wonderful charm to them. The ‘Brat Pack’ films brought with them a sense of fun. We go back and watch them now. We have a sense of nostalgia. Despite some of these films appearing dated, they are still loved by teens. Films such as The Breakfast Club are a place of representation and a film that deals with the issues teenagers face. Years later, when I first watched it, I felt like this film had been made for me. For many actors, like Molly Ringwald or Judd Nelson, this was the absolute height of their careers. It was a period of success for these films and actors, with the films' mindset focusing on adolescence.

Many films from this era, particularly Sixteen Candles or Pretty in Pink, can be a real experience to watch. I enjoy these films, but a lot of the time you're wondering what the hell is actually going on? Is there a script? Did they use up their budget? Is everyone on drugs? Maybe it’s all improvised, in which case the ‘Brat Pack’ deserve more credit. They don’t have the structure or fine attention to detail that so many films have today. This really is not a criticism because I love so many of these films and it really just adds to their charm. The emphasis was on the story and this mind frame that existed in the Eighties was carried into the Nineties. The early Nineties films managed to keep this charm and sense of fun while also bringing a greater structure and cohesiveness to their films.

I will, of course, speak about the performances in SOAW, which are just one of the reasons why this film has made it onto the coveted Fi’s Favourites list. Sometimes when I watch a film, I wonder how its narrative was pitched to a prospective investor or collaborator. What did they say for SOAW? ‘A young, academically gifted man takes care of a blind, belligerent, alcoholic ex-Lieutenant Colonel’? When the narrative is explained, it may come across as heavy or busy, but the other elements of the film have a beautiful simplicity that is pleasing and alluring. There is less concern with cinematography or sound mixing. Again, this is not an insult by any means. Of course, they cared about how the film looked and sounded, but there is a greater emphasis on the story. I have mentioned before that when I watch a film, I want to get something from it. I want it to say something to me and make me feel something, whatever that may be. Often what affects a viewer the most and what causes them to feel is the story. Even with the most beautiful film, we won’t remember each shot perfectly, but we never forget a good story.

In film today, it feels as though all aspects of the film must be perfect. Obviously, directors and filmmakers want their films to be perfect, but if you aim to reach perfection in every element of the film, something's got to give, hasn't it? Films can be wonderful and amazing without having every element be perfect. Films like SOAW have human stories. They may seem a little unusual or even outrageous. Still, at the end of the day, they come down to the most basics elements of humanity: who are we, what made us this way, what kind of person do we want to be, what makes us good or bad and that, ultimately, we all want to feel connected and loved by other people. Another refreshing element present in SOAW and films like it is that it might teach us a lesson, but it is not all serious and there is also great humour. The film is not overloaded with reams of dramatic dialogue or emotive monologues. There is a balance; the drama is punctuated by humour and vice-versa. Films that overload you with drama and emotions can be exhausting. SOAW keeps us engaged with its humour, teaches us something, but is also realistic. Even during life's sad moments, we find time to laugh. If anything, we encourage it.

SOAW maintains that narrative of focusing on adolescents. It is Charlie's story we are introduced to and it's his journey we follow. We don’t abandon Charlie's story. For Frank, they become entwined and they both become an essential part of each other's stories. It is not just nostalgic as you can place your empathy with either or both characters. I have mentioned that this film has something to tell us, to teach us. This film uses a character who isn’t really a good person, but who can still do good things to show us that what we have been taught is the right thing is not always the right thing. Normally, we are always told to tell the truth, that that is the right thing. SOAW asks: is it?

To prepare for his role, Al Pacino was helped by a school for the blind. He said he wouldn’t allow his eyes to focus on any one thing. This makes the performance extremely convincing. Pacino’s humour is delivered with impeccable timing and his more dramatic moments are backed by much emotion. The crack in his voice as he screams "I'm in the dark here!" would break anyone's heart. His infamous catchphrase has been parodied and quoted many times. It is something that starts off as being comedic, but Pacino very cleverly uses it to dramatic effect; it switches from being comedic to a defence mechanism when Frank can not come up with a cutting, witty remark. As the film goes on, it is used less; a subtle way of marking character progression.

Al Pacino’s performance is spoken about so frequently and in such high regard that you may forget about O’Donnell’s. He was in his twenties shooting this film. It’s hard to believe he’s not a teenager. He is anxious, awkward and very inward. Like so many teenage boys, the weight of the world could be on his shoulders, and you would never know because he is so insular. His mannerisms and body language convey this perfectly. Not only is this film saying so much by using Pacino's character, but it equally does with O’Donnell’s Charlie. It shows a problem shared really is a problem halved. Sometimes you need someone in your corner to boost you up and reassure you that doing what you believe is right can be more important than what is considered ‘right’.

Don't shrug, imbecile. I'm blind.

It’s this dynamic of a retired, brash ex-Lieutenant Colonel and a quiet young man still finding himself in a complex world that makes this film work so well. It is outrageous and over the top, but it is a human story, and despite how the narrative sounds, it’s grounded in simplicity. So much of Hollywood today seems intent on merging with Arthouse cinema. Arthouse is a very niche genre and is certainly not everyone's cup of tea. To not alienate its audience and get the general public to the cinemas, they also need to make their film with a mainstream appeal, which is normally a relatable, likeable and human story. If you are going to try and do both, one or two elements will fall short or you will end up with a film that doesn't know what it is. This film is worth a watch for its stellar performances and its wonderful story. It’s a film that you can sit back and enjoy, and not only can this film be a welcome break from the challenges of arthouse, but it can also be more affecting and inspirational than most sophisticated modern films.

I will leave you with a small piece of trivia: Jack Nicholson turned down Pacino's role to do A Few Good Men. For me, Pacino's "Out of order. I'll show YOU out of order! You don't know what out of order is!" trumps Nicholson's "You can't handle the truth!" any day.

I'm no fucking good. I never have been.