The Name of the Rose

The Name of the Rose undertakes an incredibly challenging project, aiming to bring to the big screen a massive book by Umberto Eco of immense complexity: Medieval history, theology, disputes among internal factions within the church, the intricate issues of medieval heresies as a social phenomenon, literature and art. All of this encapsulated within an investigation into mysterious murders in an Italian abbey in 1327 AD.

Anyone who has read Umberto Eco's book knows how detailed the author is in portraying these complex aspects, which are no longer obvious or easily understandable for a contemporary reader. Umberto Eco certainly has his own opinions on these themes, but still manages to paint a very authentic literary picture of that era.

Does the film achieve the same? No.

The casting is wonderful, especially Connery, but young Adso, played by Slater, is also well interpreted. The film focuses on the story of the investigation, which is undoubtedly the thread that ties the narrative together.

What bothers me most about this film is the depiction of the monastery and that distant medieval era, far from the historical reality described by Eco: The monks are mostly grotesque figures, dirty, crazy, deformed, obscene. The common folk, on the other hand, seem like a bunch of monkeys incapable of speaking, eating garbage thrown out of the monastery. The atmosphere always seems dark and devoid of light, as if to represent that era. This is a cinematic stereotype of the Middle Ages that is far from historical reality.

Monasteries were places where manuscripts were safeguarded, transcribed, and translated for centuries, without which we wouldn't have been able to read them today. The period of the High Middle Ages, in which the story takes place, was a time of great innovation for the era: agricultural innovations, the flourishing of universities, advancements in mathematics and civil engineering that allowed the construction of the marvelous Gothic architecture we can still admire today, infrastructure development.

We can't look back today and judge that era through contemporary lenses. Many concepts and innovations required time to develop before reaching us. What may seem obvious to us today was not so at the time, so it's necessary to empathize with the mentality of that era to understand its various nuances. Eco tries to do this in his book, but the film does not. The film settles for using clichés and a false stereotype of the Middle Ages.

The film manages to maintain tension and an interesting story, mainly because it follows the intriguing investigative plot of the original material. In this sense, it is certainly worth watching. However, I would still recommend to those who enjoyed this film to read the book.

I remember this film made a huge impression on me when I first saw it in the cinema almost 20 years ago. I think I watched it three times in a couple of months. Recently, I purchased the DVD and my memory did not prove me wrong, the film is still great. It is a quite free adaption of Umberto Eco's novel, and if you have just recently read it, you may be irritated by all the deviations from the story of the book. But it is important to remember that to fit a 600-page, quite academic novel into a two-hour movie one just have to make adjustments. In fact, I have to admit that I think the movie is superior to the book. The book is very good indeed, but to my taste slightly too dry. The movie is perhaps more "shallow", but it has a totally unique atmosphere and an exciting plot. Sean Connery does one of his best, if not the best, role as a combination of Sherlock Holmes and a medieval philosopher. Very entertaining indeed! If you buy the DVD, the extra material is almost as interesting as the movie itself. The almost two-hour interview with the director Annaud is very inspiring, and he really comes over as almost a renaissance man. Very thoughtful, yet energetic and with a real purpose to his work. I remember when I first saw the movie, that I felt I had never seen any movie which so convincingly pictured life in the middle ages. When we hear about all the painstaking work that went into making the movie historically correct, this is no surprise.

A murder mystery set in a monastery in the late middle ages, at a time when the Franciscan order and the Holy Inquisition were at odds, mostly over the extravagances of the Papacy, is a dark and moody film, which matches the period of the story well. Once again Sean Connery takes a difficult role and makes it uniquely his. Fifteen year old Christian Slater is seen in his breakout role. But the real star of the film is the library of the monastery, a labyrinthine building that is many floors high and created with stairways that seem to always lead away from where you want to go. I found the book, frankly tedious. Umberto Eco writes in a style that is very pedantic at times, and just plain confusing at others. But the story translated well to the screen, but you must be willing to exhaust a little brain sweat to get anything out of the story. Be well rested before you watch this one.

If you like movies to send you back to another historical period, there are few which can do it more effectively than this one. The period is pre-enlightenment when the only books in the land (Italy) are owned by the different denominations of the Catholic faith. Inquisitions are the order of the day and the atmosphere of mistrust and misrepresentation which accompany such a fragile state, is expertly realised.

Enter Sean Connery playing a Sherlock Holmes (`…Elementary my dear Wat-shun…') from the dark/middle ages, replete with a magnifying glass of sorts and a recognisable system of logical deduction. The story is a fine balance of complexity (easy enough to follow, but not too simplistic) with the inclusion of a number of sub-plots to keep it all ticking along nicely. The acting is very good but what makes it stand out is its evocation of another era, which is reproduced with authority. Highly enjoyable.

The film opens in 1327, with a Franciscan monk and his young novice arriving to a remote abbey in the dark north of Italy to participate in a crucial debate between the emissaries of Pope John XXII and leaders of the Franciscan order, to decide whether the church should take vows of poverty or wealth...

After a series of murders—attributed to the presence of a supernatural force— that are taking place within the cold walls of the godforsaken battlement, Brother William of Baskerville (Connery) ends up undertaking an investigation to solve the secrets surrounding these unexplainable crimes… All of them bearing blackened fingers and blackened tongues…

What follows, brings William face to face with Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham), the sadistic Grand inquisitor—appointed by the Pope to hunt down and free the Church of heretics—who sees the abbey enshrouded in a terrifying mystery and the devil roaming behind every foul deed… Gui burns every last suspected devil-worshipper in the village, forcing Baskerville to uncover the truth before innocent blood is shed…

As always, Connery lends dignity, intelligence as the acute and prudent monk who has knowledge, both of the human spirit and the wiles of the evil one… Connery plays his role with gusto…

Newcomer Christian Slater plays Connery's faithful sidekick, Adso, the youngest son of the Baron of Melk who sure does like to watch his master at work… One night—expressing fear and confusion— he gets feminine carnal delights from a peasant girl, 'a creature that rose like the dawn, was bewitching as the moon, radiant as the sun, terrible as an army poised for battle…'

For a moment, Ron Perlman steals the show as the heretical hunchbacked monk named Salvatore who is ugly yet phenomenal… His scenes with Abraham are stirring…

"The Name of the Rose" is atmospheric, but disturbing at many levels… Some might say, contradictory, leaving plenty of twists and turns unresolved and unexplained, but the film was a smash hit in Europe… Annaud succeeds in capturing the claustrophobia and panic of being truly lost in the menacing, creepy Dark Ages