Following six previous nominations, and a further nomination that same night, Al Pacino won his currently sole Oscar in 1993 for his performance in the mostly forgotten film Scent of a Woman. The film is remembered it seems only for its win for Pacino and the repeated exclamation of “Hoo-Hah!” However upon rewatch I find the film deserves some more credit than it has been given in recent memory and although this is by no means Pacino’s greatest performance (I would actually have been happier if he had won for his other nomination that year, for supporting actor in Glengarry Glen Ross) and nor do I think the film is an especially exceptional one, I do still feel that it’s as a very enjoyable and powerful dramatic piece, and hence worth an article.

Credit

The film is Bo Goldman’s adaptation of the classic Italian novel “Il Buio E il Miele”, but not sharing much other than the basic plotline of a young man becoming the aid for a blind and bitter war veteran. Goldman however updates this is to the modern early 90’s, with Chris O’ Donnel’s Charlie Simms, a under privileged student at a rather exclusive educational facility. Charlie has bared witness to a prank against James Rebhorn’s furiously cruel headmaster Mr Trask. Following a bribe from Trask, Simms goes about his Thanksgiving weekend where he has taken the opportunity to care for a blind man whose family will be leaving him for the weekend. This man is Lt. Colonol Frank Slade played with great exuberance by Al Pacino hot off his performance in The Godfather Part III. Little does Charlie know that Slade has planned to take him for a trip to New York to fulfil his final wishes in life before he kills himself. A rather ingenious and suitably intriguing premise for a rather formulaic road trip film with the exact moments that you expect along the way, and although subversions of expectations and true surprises are few and far between, Goldman does still create an interesting, humorous and very watchable script which is brought to great life by it’s director Martin Brest. Brest has had a very odd career directing two full blown comedy/action masterpieces in the 80’s, with Beverly Hills Cop and Midnight Run, before making two dramas in the 90’s, with Scent of a Woman and Meet Joe Black, before directing the absolute trash work that was 2003’s Ben Affleck/Jennifer Lopez vehicle Gigli (his first screenplay since his 1979 feature directorial debut Going in style). This is certainly Brest’s third best film and he once more shows his capability in telling a character based story, never allowing anything to get in the way of the lead propellant relationship between the characters.

Pacino studied blindness for a very long period, particularly helped by a school for the blind, and his seriousness toward the subject and his commitment to the performance shows in every scene. This went to the extent that Pacino would often stay in character off set, using his cane and avoiding direct eye contact with those that talked to him. The role was more or less up for grabs for most of the peak actors of the period, ranging from Dustin Hoffman to Jack Nicholson to Harrison Ford to Joe Pesci. Pacino took the role following advice from his agent, who he would later thank in his Oscar acceptance speech. Even the “Hoo-Ha” is based in research, rather than some insane exclamation that Pacino just did all the time as people suggest it to be. The habit originates from an actual United States army battle cry, very apt for former soldier Slade. Pacino’s performance brims with great drama and tragedy, perfectly encapsulating a man on the edge of suicide, to the extent that not a scene goes by where the contemplation of taking his life doesn’t seem to be an aspect of motivation for Pacino’s line delivery. The film is most famous for Pacino’s’ over-the-top nature and that can’t be ignored, however no matter the heights and extremes of Slade’s most outrageous moments or lines, Pacino still manages to bring immense humanity and power and most importantly a brutal realism to everything he does, which ultimately makes the film the success that it is.

Credit

The film was critically and rather financially successful, with most critic’s issues lying with the running time of 2 and a half hours, which I personally didn’t feel as excessive, but I could see a nice twenty minutes trimmed very easily. The basis of many reviews however was the focus that this was Pacino’s time for the Oscar and that it was a performance worthy of it. It is here where I want to recognise Chris O’Donnell’s performance, for I feel that O’Donnell has the exact same issue that Tom Cruise had in the Oscar race for Rain Man. In many ways the two films are very similar; road trip movies where an unexpected pairing of people, one of which is a famous 70’s actor playing someone with a disability who would go on to win an Oscar for the role, the other being a more centred character (a ‘straight man’ if you will) named Charlie who received no such nomination despite delivering similar quality to a far more challenging role. William Goldman (Scent screenwriter Bo Goldman’s brother), the legendary screenwriter and essayist, always agreed that Cruise was the superior performance in Rain Man, with Hoffman’s Raymond being excellent but in many ways a simpler and more showy performance. Further believing that it was a travesty that Cruise received no such nomination or even much critical recognition for his work. I very much feel the same stands for O’Donnell here, who gives excellent work toeing the line between vulnerable impoverished child and a strong willed man who has seen the world and holds great contempt and admiration for Slade. This is all culminates in the very dramatic scene where Charlie directly confronts Slade and in this scene O’Donnell goes toe to toe with one of our most legendary actors and delivers a performance of an immensely similar capability.

But let’s face it... the title is terrible. It’s not that it’s not wholly appropriate for the film with Slade’s love of women only being able to be fulfilled by smelling them, with his sight removed. It just rolls off the tongue weirdly and sounds like the creepiest perversion based film of all time. It really isn’t that, bar some of Slade’s borderline derogatory comments, Slade’s love of women comes from a place of pure admiration and although that could be seen as a form of fetishism and just as problematic as a more misogynistic opinion, the film serves more so as a character study of a man who feels he has lost the capability to engage in sex rather than an examination of the sexual politics of the time.  All the same the film isn’t really overflowing with great female characters, despite being the titular focus and a chief motivation of the plot. The only major female character only appears with us of one scene, however it may just be the scene of the film; the restaurant tango with Gabrielle Anwar’s Donna. The setup for the scene is rather simple, Slade is once more attempting to get Charlie his own girl, for this he moves towards the beautiful dark haired lady in a sleek black dress waiting for her significant other. Slade ultimately ends up tangoing with this woman, named Donna, and what follows is a scene of pure joy where we see yet another flash of the elegance of Slade that has been so overcome by the vulgarity and crudity that has been brought about by his disability. A tango that the two rehearsed for 2 weeks and shot in 3 days. By the time Donna departs, we can see Slade accept that this may just be his last dance with such a beautiful woman. Donna also seems quite taken aback by the fleeting nature of their exchange and seems to look at her partner in a wholly different light as she slowly heads away.

Credit

Perhaps the second most famous scene in the film is the climatic pseudo trial sequence where Charlie faces down Trask, only to have Slade come and represent him with a fiery speech touching on honour and what he refers to as the great loss of an “amputated spirit”. This is Pacino’s real Oscar moment, delivering a marvellously written speech and really allowing himself to ham it up a little, whilst once again delivering great drama and power in his words. It is really in this speech where we see the new version of Pacino that we will come to know as ‘wild Pacino’ or whatever variation you would have. This is the Pacino of Heat and The Devil’s Advocate and most of his later efforts. Gone are the days of the subtlety of The Godfather. There is the major critical belief that the first option is suprmeley better than the latter, but I really do believe that there is still incredible worth in these later roles. Sure there are borderline over-the-top moments, but time and time again these are underpinned or juxtaposed with painfully subtle and dramatic moments. The over-the-top Pacino of later years is simply a showcase of another skill in the toolkit of one of our finest actors. Scent of a Woman is another incredible performance from Pacino, and although there are infinitely better roles in his cannon – a lesser Pacino performance is still a lot greater than the best performances of many actors. I can’t put it any simpler and although it may not be the Oscar he should have won for, it is certainly no less deserved. 

-         -  Thomas Carruthers