Bring back Smellovision
The thinking is that Tom Tykwer's Perfume (Paramount, 12.27) isn't going to do as well in the U.S. as it has so far in Europe. But it could turn into a goofy-kicky theatrical event if ..if...the Paramount distribution people were crazy enough (and trust me, they're not) to invest in a special revival of an upgraded Smellovision system to accompany the showing of Tykwer's film in select big-city theatres.
Perfume is a movie about the loveliness of scent -- specifically about an oddball character who lives for the spiritual transportation he receives from very special scents, aromas and perfumes. What triggered my idea was Variety critic Derek Elley writing in his 10.4 review that "the problem with Perfume is not so much how to make the audience identify with a largely silent, olfactory-obsessed nerd who turns serial killer, but how to transmit his compulsion in the strictly audiovisual medium of film.
"More than just a killer-thriller or the tale of a man with an exceptional gift," Elley continues, "Perfume is a skewed love story...[about] a man who suddenly discovers the 'scent of woman' but can't make the jump into real relationships.
Bringing back Smellovision would be such a no-brainer goof of a gimmick I can't believe it wasn't at least considered for the release of this film. People are still into 3D and every so often there are revivals of 3D versions of House of Wax , Dial M for Murder and whatnot -- why not bring back aroma-fortified cinema?
Smellovision and Aromarama were attempts to enhance the moviegoing experience in the late 50s. I'm guessing that if any desire existed within Paramount to bring this theatrical device back for special Perfume showings, a more effective, less cumbersome version than was used in big-city theatres in 1959 and '60 would be within the grasp of '06 technology.
In this Variety review of Scent of Mystery ('60), Smellovision was described as a somewhat more advanced process.
"In Smell-O-Vision, developed by the Swiss-born Hans Laube, the odors are piped via plastic tubing -- a mile of tubing at Chicago's Cinestage Theatre -- to individual seats, the scents being triggered automatically by signals on the film's sound- track," the review wrote. "The Aromarama smells are conveyed through the theatre's regular air ventilating system. The Smell-O-Vision odors are more distinct and recognizable and do not appear to linger as long as those in Aromarama."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 5, 2006 at 5:00 PM
comment #1
erniesouchak
says ...
Honestly, Jeff, the movie is so good it doesn't need that kind of gimmick (though I'd love to see a scratch & sniff press kit). Furthermore, whatever kind of smell devised for the universal "scent of woman" is bound to be highly subjective -- and ultimately pedestrian. Leaving the scent to everyone's own imagination rather than making it literal is a much smarter choice.
Posted by erniesouchak
at October 5, 2006 7:28 PM
comment #2
Joshua Mooney
says ...
"Upgraded" Smell-O-Vision, Jeff? And just what would that consist of, exactly? You're taking the piss, ain't ya? Yet you're touching on a genuinely crucial issue here, as the sense of smell is so intimately connected to the brain's processing of, and linking to, memory. Which in turn links crucially to story and to plot, as interpreted by the ol' brain-pan, innit?
Proust wrote something about that.
Alas, beyond smell itself, there is no other way to satisfactorily convey the olfactory experience, except by words, which Patrick Suskind uses so nicely in "Perfume": "The streets stank of manure, the courtyards of urine, the stairwells stank of moldering wood and rat droppings, the kitchens of spoiled cabbage and mutton fat; the unaired parlors stank of stale dust, the bedrooms of greasy sheets, damp featherbeds... The stench of sulfur rose from the chimneys, the stench of caustic lyes from the tanneries, and from the slaughterhouse came the stench of congealed blood." And that's just the first page of the novel. Even John Waters couldn't come up with a Scratch-'N'-Sniff to match that prose.
Having not seen the film, I can only hope that "Perfume" has managed to transcend its literary roots while still holding on to the essence and impact of the words, in a way that so few film adaptations of successful literature do.
But dig: We ALL know that the technology to do Smell-O-Vision perfectly right, in a way that would blow our minds, does exist. But the Government is not letting go of THAT action any time soon.
Maybe stoned Mickey from "The Ice Storm" summed it up best (props to Rick Moody, I assume, without having read the book itself. But I did sniff it once, at a Barnes & Noble; it smelled like... vic'try).
"Because of molecules we are connected to the outside world from our bodies. Like when you smell things, because when you smell a smell it's not really a smell, it's a part of the object that has come off of it, molecules. So when you smell something bad, it's like in a way you're eating it... So the next time you go into the bathroom after someone else has been there, remember what kinds of molecules you are in fact eating."
Posted by Joshua Mooney
at October 5, 2006 8:36 PM
comment #3
Mark G.
says ...
Bad idea, it would degrade the whole movie experience...
Posted by Mark G.
at October 6, 2006 2:48 AM
comment #4
Thrudvangar
says ...
I'm quite content with the aroma of my buttered popcorn, thanks though.
Posted by Thrudvangar
at October 6, 2006 3:41 AM
comment #5
sunny
says ...
The book was one of the most horrifyingly original pieces of literature I have ever read. I wonder, can that really traslate to film? I hope so.
I also wonder, does the film shy away from the incredibly terrifying, and ironic, ending?
Posted by sunny
at October 6, 2006 7:11 AM
comment #6
monetnj
says ...
It's funny, but Disney has been making use of smell-o-vision, sometimes along with 3-D type technology, on attractions for years down at their themeparks. Phil-har-magic, A Bug's Life, Soarin', Stitch's Great Escape are examples. It can be fun, but I would think it would get tedious over the course of a full-length movie. They would have to use it sparingly.
Posted by monetnj
at October 6, 2006 7:30 AM
comment #7
durrani
says ...
i saw this movie a couple of weeks ago and was transfixed the entire time. i LOVED the book and i thought twyker did an excellent job translating it to film (although ben winshaw is a bit too pretty for the lead). the film is beautifully shot and visually you are lead through the scents as jean-baptiste grenouille traverses the streets in his quest to catalogue every smell in his mind.
winshaw is disturbing as grenouille but he also brings pathos to the role, which wasn't in the book. grenouille was a maniac who only cared about his selfish wants and desires. i will say that adding a sympathetic element to the lead character brought a whole new dimension to the story and was probably a good decision to help make the film resonate with viewers.
the ending is true to the book, although you don't see much gore. beautiful, haunting, disturbing. and the acting is stellar, although dustin hoffman is HORRIBLY miscast as the italian perfumer. his sounds like someone from bed-sty.
i can't stop thinking about this film and hope it does well.
Posted by durrani
at October 10, 2006 7:51 AM