Her Scent of Mystery: The People Who Reconstructed a Film’s Perfume 65 Years Later

“This is not a joke.”

— Tammy Burnstock

In 1960, cinema audiences were asked not only to look at the screen but also to use scent to distinguish the characters. The perfume in question was associated with the woman played by Elizabeth Taylor in Scent of Mystery.

The 2025 exhibition Her Scent of Mystery brought that perfume back 65 years later. This meant safeguarding surviving bottles, researching the film and its perfume, analyzing a liquid that had changed, and then deciding how to fill in what had been lost. The result was not a replica guaranteed to smell exactly as it had in the past, but a reconstruction that brought archival material and perfumery together.

Basic Information

• Subject: Scent of Mystery, the perfume created for the film in 1960, and its 2025 reconstruction and exhibition, Her Scent of Mystery
• Original perfumer: Raoul Pantaleoni
• Co-curators: Jas Brooks and Tammy Burnstock
• Perfumer for the reconstruction: Marissa Zappas
• Exhibition: August 14–September 20, 2025, at Olfactory Art Keller in New York; now ended
• Official resources: Exhibition archive / Snivure

The exhibition and the reconstructed perfume both have “Her” in their names. The 1960 film and original perfume need to be distinguished from the perfume Zappas made in 2025, both in date and in authorship.

A Perfume That Distinguished the Film’s Characters

With Smell-O-Vision, Scent Becomes a Clue to the Story

Smell-O-Vision, the system used in Scent of Mystery, delivered odors to the audience in time with the film. It was a technology for olfactory cinema developed by Hans Laube, and the apparatus that became the subject of conservation is called the “Smell Brain.”

The perfume did more than add atmosphere to the scenery. It provided a clue that distinguished Taylor’s character, Sally Kennedy, from her stand-in. Scent communicated a character’s identity to the audience when appearance alone could not resolve it. Perfume was information woven into the plot.

Pantaleoni created the fragrance for this woman. The film was released in 1960, and promotional bottles of the perfume were distributed to members of the press and invited guests at its Chicago premiere. It did not, however, go on to sustained general retail sale.

The Schiaparelli Connection Lies in an Unrealized Distribution Plan

There is a reason one might want to call the original “Schiaparelli’s lost perfume.” Zappas points to the Schiaparelli name written on the boxes and explains the belief that the company was involved in the distribution plans. The official exhibition material, by contrast, frames this cautiously as evidence suggesting that distribution by a major perfume house may have been envisaged.

The existence of physical promotional bottles is not the same as a commercial launch. The perfume was trademarked, and there were hopes of bringing it to market, but it never received a general release. Its relationship with Schiaparelli is easier to understand in the context of that unrealized plan. Nor is the 2025 reconstruction a reissue released by Schiaparelli.

From Safeguarding Surviving Bottles to the 2025 Reconstruction

The Apparatus and Perfume Conserved by Brooks and Burnstock

Brooks is a designer and media archaeologist who researches historical scent technologies and contemporary sensory interfaces. Burnstock is a filmmaker whose work connects cinema and olfaction, and who also co-directed the documentary In Glorious Smell-O-Vision! Their interest lies in preserving a system often dismissed as an eccentric publicity stunt for an old film as cultural material that can be studied and reconsidered.

Burnstock’s statement that it was “not a joke” came against a background of people treating Smell-O-Vision as a laughing matter simply on hearing its name. For Brooks and Burnstock, it contains a history of technology and expression worth investigating.

A conservation-project account dated 2022 already placed the apparatus and the perfume side by side. Laube’s apparatus was loaned from Carmen Laube’s collection and brought to the University of Chicago by Brooks. The other element was a perfume sample provided by Susan Todd, daughter of film producer Mike Todd Jr.

The perfume research also records collaboration with the fragrance company MANE (in Japanese). Its aims were analysis, conservation, an approximate reconstruction of the formula, and investigation of its origins. The 2025 exhibition grew out of this continuing conservation work.

The Historical Formula and Surviving Liquid Entrusted to Zappas

According to an account Zappas wrote in July 2025, the request came the year before.

“Last year, Jas got in touch and asked me to reformulate this fragrance.”

— Marissa Zappas

For Zappas, Taylor was also more than a subject for work. Taylor had been a special figure since childhood: Zappas had grown up watching Taylor’s work, written fan letters, and later even had both of Taylor’s eyes tattooed on Zappas’s arm.

“She was always very good at embracing her desires and pursuing them.”

— Marissa Zappas, on Elizabeth Taylor

The perfume was not reconstructed from personal admiration alone, however. Pantaleoni’s original comprised 60 ingredients, and its surviving sample and historical material formed the basis of the work. Zappas was entrusted with responding to evidence, rather than freely imagining a vanished perfume.

How Do You Reconstruct a Degraded Perfume?

Analyzing What Remains and Restoring the Lost Opening

A perfume that has aged for 65 years is not a liquid in which time has stood still since 1960. The exhibition explicitly identified the original as an oxidized sample and presented it alongside the reconstruction. Simply reproducing the smell that remains is not, by itself, enough to recover the fragrance as it was when the film was released.

The reconstruction used chemical analysis by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, or GC-MS. Combining analysis of the surviving liquid with archival research, Zappas used fewer ingredients than the original and added materials such as bergamot to restore the citrus opening.

Snivure describes the 2025 version as having white flowers, a bright aldehydic lift, a powdery finish reminiscent of talc, and a little spice and warmth. Here, talc describes an olfactory impression, not the addition of the powder itself. Adding bergamot, softening the composition, and adjusting the overall balance were specific decisions made in the reconstruction.

Approaching a Historical Scent While Making a Work for the Present

“My intention was to make it just a little more wearable.”

— Marissa Zappas

These words capture the nature of the reconstruction. While aiming for fidelity to the original, it also involved adjustments to make the perfume wearable now. Given that such judgment was involved, describing the 2025 version as a new interpretation grounded in evidence is closer to the actual creative process than calling it completely identical to the perfume of 1960.

Chemical analysis, surviving bottles, historical material, and the perfumer’s judgment each play a different role. The analysis alone should not be made to stand for a complete picture of the past, but neither should the word “creation” obscure the connection to the evidence. Snivure itself positions the perfume not as a “copy,” but as a way of bringing film history into the present.

An Exhibition Pairing Scent with Film Archives

The Original and the Reconstruction, Perfume Bottles and Diagrams of the Apparatus

Rather than displaying Zappas’s perfume solely as an independent new work, the exhibition also presented material tracing its origins: booklets, promotional material, photographs, and images by Nadia Roden illustrating how Smell-O-Vision worked. Its arrangement brought film technology, publicity, and a character’s perfume together as one history.

The flacon made by glass artist Mark Eliott also connects past and present. Its shape took its cue from a depiction of the original bottle in the film’s premiere booklet. It is a vessel for the reconstruction and the oxidized sample of the original provided by Susan, not the 1960 bottle itself.

The small bottles for the public should also be distinguished from this special glass artwork. The former are products that deliver the 2025 perfume; the latter is a work that brings together traces of the original and a contemporary interpretation. The containers and display made visible not only the perfume’s origins, but also what had been conserved and what had been newly made.

Alongside the surprise of a historical fragrance returning, Her Scent of Mystery presented the judgments that made that return possible. A perfume once released into cinemas to identify a character now became, together with archival material, a way of thinking about the lost sensory experience of film.

Historical Timeline

This exhibition has ended. When checked on October 15, 2026, the venue’s official website displayed “currently closed.” This is a cultural article tracing the creation and exhibition of the perfume in 2025.

References

1. A Rare Smell on the Brink of Extinction — A syndicated New York Times article published by Oman Observer, August 26, 2025. Participants’ remarks, promotional bottles, analysis, and reconstruction
2. Her Scent of Mystery — Olfactory Art Keller. Exhibition concept, dates, and production credits
3. Smell-O-Vision and a Ghost Perfume — Marissa Zappas, July 27, 2025. Timing of the commission and explanation of the Schiaparelli name
4. Smell-O-Vision! conservation project — Tammy Burnstock. Conservation of the apparatus and perfume
5. Her Scent of Mystery — Snivure. Description of the 2025 reconstruction and its scent
6. How to Smell Like a 1960s Film Star — April Long, The Cut, September 8, 2025. Zappas’s creative intentions
7. Snivure. Origins of the glass artwork and the distinction between the original and reconstructed perfumes
8. Her Scent of Mystery — Tammy Burnstock. Exhibition material and collaborators
9. Olfactory Art Keller. Venue status checked on October 15, 2026