Reporters change their tune

With the praise from Chicago Sun-Times, the good news kept coming one after another. First, a review from The New York Times wrote, "The film's perseverance and principles provide every audience member with an opportunity for self-reflection. Al and Hugo's outstanding performances make this story truly believable..." and awarded it an incredibly high score of 85.

Next came a film review by Nicholas Allum from the Los Angeles Times, who said, "Al's superb acting turns every scene of the film into a catalyst that can trigger a thought storm at any moment. Hugo's excellent performance as Al's rival brings back memories of the mesmerizing youth from "Dead Poets Society"." Nicholas also gave it a score of 85, the highest rating.

The first batch of four film reviews was all full of praise for "Scent of a Woman", especially the contrasting reaction from the Los Angeles Times, which surprised the entire film market.

Before the film's release, no one had high expectations for its prospects, whether in terms of word-of-mouth or box office performance. Everyone believed it would be another dull and forgettable film released in October. The combination of Al, Hugo, and Martin only added to the dim outlook. But who could have predicted that after the film's release, it would not only overturn all previous doubts but also declare its strong presence.

Previously, Nicholas had written a professional film review for the Los Angeles Times, stating that "Scent of a Woman" would be a disaster. However, after the film's release, Nicholas changed his tune. He even wrote a lengthy review for the entire film, demonstrating his serious attitude towards it.

"The film "Scent of a Woman" is adapted from the novel of the same name by Italian writer Giovanni Arpino. In Giovanni's version, it's not Lt. Colonel Frank Slade but Captain Fausto. Captain Fausto is more realistic and ordinary; he lacks the sensitivity to smells and hides behind a heavy pair of sunglasses all day. His greatest interest is delighting himself through malicious means, inflicting pain on those around him, and he enjoys the process. This is his attitude towards life: storms are always better than sunshine because storms make you see your true situation, while sunshine only makes you get lost in the quiet and peaceful imagination. In the 1974 film adaptation by Dino Risi, the focus was on portraying Captain Fausto's past and reflecting on life. But in Martin Brest's 1992 version, based on the same work, a different story emerges.

Being in different cultures and environments inevitably leads to different experiences and outcomes.

In the film, Martin injects distinctive American values into each major character. Whether it's Frank Slade, Charles Simms, or George Willis, they all have their own families, and their personalities and beliefs are deeply influenced by their families. The bond they have with their families becomes inseparable, especially against the backdrop of Thanksgiving.

Although George appears successful on the surface, he is completely dependent on his father. After the accident, he can only obediently follow his father's commands, completely forgetting his previous promises and vows, because he needs his father to hold up his world, including his future.

Charlie's troubled family situation makes him understand the hardships of life. Therefore, he works harder than anyone else. He is stronger and more valuable than he appears. He is like a raw diamond that hasn't been polished. So when faced with criticism from school and the authority of the Lt. Colonel, he always manages to stay true to himself, a principle rooted in his blood since childhood.

The presence of a family surrounding Frank is something that was not present in the original story. The care, dislikes, likes, and rejections from those around him all influence him to some extent. On Thanksgiving, Frank barges into his brother's house, creating a typical American-style family conflict. The barriers in communication and the inability to express emotions are the root causes of the eventual parting ways, which are the sources of conflicts in most families.

The film simplifies the original work's penetrating portrayal of the pain of life into a choice about life. It's a simple choice, but it doesn't make the problem simple. Frank says that there are two types of people in the world: those who face the music and those who look for a cover, and it's better to have a cover. Charlie is faced with this choice, whether to betray his friend to gain a bright future or to bear the consequences of keeping his silence.

This reminds me of a story I heard when I was a child. On Linda's first day of school, the teacher had to step out for a moment and asked the children not to make a fuss. As soon as the teacher left, the whole classroom descended into chaos. When the teacher returned, Linda reported the situation to her. As a result, Linda was punished and kept after school in the afternoon.

When I heard this story, I was very puzzled. Linda clearly helped the teacher, so why did she still get punished? So I asked for the reason, and Linda's answer was, "Because I betrayed the team." I understood. The teacher set the rule that the children should not cause a disturbance, and it was her responsibility to judge and reward or punish. Reporting on other children was a violation of another rule of the game: children must stand united and not betray one another. When children misbehave, the teacher will take care of it, and parents will discipline them. At least in theory, this should be how the world operates.

Charlie faces a similar dilemma. Regardless of what choice Charlie makes, there is a rationale behind it. It is a contradiction between right and another right, and from a relativistic perspective, his choice can also be considered wrong. In this real society, there are many types of choices, not only choices between right and wrong or good and evil, but also conflicts between right and right and wrong and wrong. The black and white of right and wrong is not so simple.

Should one report it to the police if a close friend or family member commits a crime? Should one prioritize justice over family ties? Yes, that is the bottom line of the law. However, when someone chooses to report their own family and friends, they are bound to face inner torment because those are their loved ones, and that is the bottom line of morality.

This conflict between right and right is the cruelest and most complicated choice in reality, and it is what Charlie faces. However, Charlie's two choices have subtle differences. The question is whether his choice is for the sake of his own interests or for the sake of upholding his principles.

It is understandable that George succumbs to the pressure from his father and betrays his friend, but his choice is for the sake of protecting his own interests. That's why he can't look Charlie in the eye. Charlie's choice seems too stubborn, too blind, and too foolish, but he is not motivated by self-interest. To some extent, he is willing to sacrifice his own interests to protect others and chooses not to protect himself. He sticks to his self and principles until the end, which is why he deserves praise and why Frank makes his generous speech.

Compared to sacrificing one's own interests to protect a friend, what Frank admires about Charlie is his commitment to his principles, not being swayed by self-interest. This "path of principles" leads to personal growth, and that's what makes Frank admire him. When you cannot have everything, at the very least, ensure that you do not sacrifice others for the sake of yourself. That is the basic requirement of being a leader.

Charlie's choice is a difficult, challenging, and terrifying path, a path that is difficult to persist on. He has the courage that many others lack.

Al Pacino's performance is the guarantee of the film's success. Whether he is called Frank Slade or Fausto, this man is hard to describe in words. He is a kind of "spirit", an indescribable blend of "passion" and painful "confusion". He can suddenly burst into laughter, as if it's a declaration and a mockery. Before you even have a chance to react, that smile disappears into thin air. Those who like him will love him deeply, and those who dislike him will disregard him.

Al endows the character with a signature shouting sound, "Hoo-ah!" This is his bullet fired at life, and at different moments, this shout carries different meanings. It can be mockery, a cry of despair, a cheer, or a lament. Simple words are interpreted by Al in a rich and moving way. As for the brilliant tango dance scene, it is a stroke of genius in the film and creates a dream that everyone aspires to. Although it weakens the sense of reality in the story, it doesn't diminish the enlightenment and impact the film brings, because what we see is not just a story, but a kind of "spirit" conveyed by the film.

In front of Al's performance that is enough to go down in history, Hugo Lancaster also contributes another brilliant performance, surpassing even the one from "Dead Poets Society". Shy, kind, gentle, modest, and refined, Charlie becomes charming and charismatic under Hugo's portrayal. Even in front of Frank's glass of wine, his personal charm remains rich and captivating. In the midst of extreme frustration and passivity, even though his vulnerability has turned into tears in those amber eyes, his unwavering determination still shines like a ray of light in the dark night, illuminating Frank's life, the entire story, and even the cold hearts of all the viewers.

This version of Hugo has been missed for a long time, making it impossible for people not to stand up and applaud for him.

According to the original ending by Giovanni: Even though the surroundings are filled with darkness, in the years to come, he must ignite a lighter in this darkness, extend a guiding pole to explore the path, mock and offend people in this darkness, and continue to drink in this darkness. Even in the most difficult life, it is still life, his life, my life, the life of all of us who can acknowledge life, accept life, and manage life.

Regardless of whether life appears gentle or ferocious, we need to make efforts for our choices, the paths we want to take, and the goals we want to pursue. Death can never be an excuse or a way to escape. Sometimes, it takes more courage than choosing death to have the courage to take responsibility.

A tribute to such a brilliant film.

As for Nicholas, the journalist who criticized "Scent of a Woman" endlessly and didn't have many positive impressions of Hugo Lancaster, he quickly switched sides after the movie was released.