L'Interdit (new) (2002)
by Givenchy

Genre: Floral

I’ve had a hard time figuring this one out. Set beside the re-released Insensé, Vetyver, Le De, and Givenchy III, L’Interdit seems shy, tame, and conventional. The top notes are extremely soft, sweet, “perfumey” aldehydic florals that make L’Interdit smell more like a period piece than any of the other Givenchy Les Parfums Mythiques reissues I’ve tried.

The powdery aldehydes, the prim white flowers, and a musky, mossy foundation make for a frankly dowdy heart accord. A previous review describes the scent as “dusty,” and I concur. There’s something flat and stale at the core of L’Interdit that my nose just can’t get past. Mind you, it’s possible that I’m anosmic to a large portion of this composition: it becomes extremely hard for me to detect L’Interdit after only ten or fifteen minutes’ wear.

L’Interdit – at least what I can smell of it – becomes more palatable to me with age, as the aldehydes and powder retreat and some woods, spices and vanilla emerge from underneath them. After an hour or two with L’Interdit what I experience is a very pale floral-oriental with an old-fashioned face powder accord of talcum and moss. In short, nothing special. I have not had the opportunity to try either the original 1957 scent or the 2002 reformulation, so I have no idea how the current version stands up to its predecessors. Perhaps they were more impressive.

I fear for the mental integrity of anyone who wears this thing regularly. It's so very dull that even as the adjectives crop up in my mind with each sniff, the part of my brain that commands and sends the synapses related to speech ceases to function. Even Prada is out-performing this.

This is old-style perfume-y in a soft and feminine way; powdery, aldehydic, musky, dry, slightly spicy and modestly floral. Scents with a similar feel to them are Mitsouko, L'Aimant and Farouche. It has echoes of Chanel No5, but it's much less of a bouquet and more of a powdery musk. It's not a knock-your-socks-off scent like hard-hitting florals, sparkly citrus or stonking orientals, but it's definitely got its place in the perfume wardrobe just like that cosy, feminine jumper has in yours. Surprisingly seductive.

Just gave this one to the Goodwill. Loved the old one, but not this one. How can two things with the same name be so different? I concur with flat and stale. Smells a little like old celery and tired tobacco leaves. Ugh!

So this one seems to be the modern reinterpretation of the original one, the all-new-revived composition to the new generations.
I’m not against creating new scents, but labeling one very beloved older scent on some other very different scent, changing its formula in full, and marketing it as the out-with-the-old- in-with-the-new feels a bit like an insult to both our ages and our noses. If you want to release a new scent, then do so but do not discontinue the older one.
That said, I like this scent, so much so that I got one for myself (even though it’s very feminine ( i like to collect and smell as much as I can), but Givenchy must get a big slap in the back of the head for discontinuing the older version.
I liked very much the old version too, but it wasn’t meant ot be for my skin chemistry, found it just too creamy, too “thick”. So this new reformulation feels just right, but of course, it doesn’t smell the same: on this one I get mostly the bergamot on top, the white peach and rose and vetiver, and not so much the amber nor the rest of the notes, green leaves, or jasmine, or whatnot.
There’s a certain “strawberryness” to it but it’s not too strong. Does this one has Lily of the valley? Maybe it’s the combo of flowers and green leaves.
For people that are not put off by the major re-working, people who love flowery but very fresh scents that have a green basenote (like,say, Balmain’s Iviore but less ambery), this is a must-try.
I will give this one a thumbs up only because i happen to like this scent, BUT i also give this a thumbs down for messing with the older release.