Perfume: The Story of a Murderer
Tom Tykwer has made some interesting movies in the past (that I’ve liked), like Run Lola Run and Heaven. I respect him as a filmmaker, and was quite looking forward to this, his latest. And of course, it has Alan Rickman, so it was practically required viewing for me.
Perfume tells the story of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, born in Paris in the 18th century. He is exceptional in many ways, most importantly, his incredible sense of smell. Grenouille can smell everything — every leaf on every tree, every apple in every orchard, even people from several miles away. But, and here is the gist of it, he has no smell of his own, and he so desperate craves it so that he too can become a normal human being.
It might not have been a very wise move of me to read Patrick Süskind’s superb book mere days before watching this, but I felt it was required to get a sense of the story. So let me say this right off: what a horrible disappointment.
Whereas Süskind describes Grenouille’s life with beautifully dark prose, every scent practically coming off the page, Tykwer instead (because of the lack of smell-cinema, presumably) assaults our other main sense, our sight. The visuals are overbearing. And they don’t work to convey a single smell.
Ben Whishaw does not evoke any of those feelings I had when reading the book. He is not worthy of our pity, yet he never quite becomes the monster Grenouille evolves into either. He simply does exactly what the script (and Tykwer) tells him to do, and we just don’t care. He’s quite simply dull. Dustin Hoffman though, is a breath of fresh air, so to speak, as a deliciously whimsical mentor to Grenouille.
Rickman does his job well enough, but after having read the novel, I can’t help but feel he was miscast as Antoine Richis. I was also thoroughly disappointed that they left out the semi-incestuous aspects of his love for his daughter (played rather blandly by Rachel Hurd-Wood). A few more details on Richis and his daughter would have served the movie well. As it is, it all seems terribly rushed.
Finally, and this is the bit that bothered me the most and probably won’t interest you unless you’ve read the novel, Tykwer manages to get the most basic things wrong. He doesn’t answer any of the most important questions. Like, why does Grenouille kill those girls? What’s his purpose and ultimate goal? What was his childhood really like, making him the man he later becomes? Why does he spend seven years in a cave in the mountains, and what brings him back? What’s so special about Laure Richis?
Quite simply put, this movie reaches for the heavens, but only just manages to reach the smelly mud of 18th century Paris. If you want a truly marvellous sensory experience, read Süskind’s incredible book instead.


07 Jan 2007 






Film Info
Nice review! I haven’t read the book, but I may well get around to it. Really enjoyed the film, but now that you point out some major plot holes, maybe I was just impressed with the arty shots. I’m assuming time constraints prevented Tykwer from adding in scences featuring Grenouille’s childhood and the cave thing. It is rather long as it is.
The ending bugged me, probably because it was kinda trippy, if you get my meaning. Does that get explained in the book?
Anyway, haven’t had a good look around your site in a while. Lookin’ goooooood …
Yes, and no. There is an explanation for why people act the way they do, if that’s what you mean. And this is an explanation based on ideas Tykwer would have needed to introduce at least an hour prior for it to make sense. As for Grenouille’s personal end, that is explained too, another thing Tykwer completely overlooked. The explanation in the book makes perfect sense too.