The Name of the Rose

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.

I've seen this movie several times. It's a great movie. My problem is that I watched it the other night on Prime Video and the sex scene had been edited out. For me, the sex scene is absolutely needed to understand how deep the young man's emotions run. At the end of the movie, the narrator goes on and on about the woman and he will never forget her face. She had such an impact on his life that he carried her face in his mind until his dying days. I believe the sex scene is absolutely necessary for the viewer to FULLY understand his reasoning. She caused him to leave the priesthood. Put the sex scene back in. I'm glad I own the full movie on blu ray.

In medieval times William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) and his young helper Adso (Christian Slater) try to solve murders at a remote abbey. Most of the monks there think it's the Devil at work but William thinks it may be a human. What follows is a VERY complex and long but intriguing movie.

I read the book ages ago. It was an excellent book but I didn't see how it could ever be a movie. It was very long and had tons of theological discussions. The movie throws out most of the discussions, simplifies the story (but doesn't talk down to the viewer) and moves things along as quickly as possible. The mystery is deep and puzzling but I figured it out. During the last hour or so F. Murray Abraham shows up an Inquisitor and things really get out of hand. Still I was never lost.

The setting itself is bleak and remote perfectly fitting the tone of the movie. The acting is great. Connery just acts up a storm in a very pleasing, easy-going manner. Abraham takes his role and runs with it. You hate him every step of the way. Slater is given little to work with but he's still good. This is not for everybody. It portrays a somewhat realistic view of what an abbey would have looked like. It looks dirty and most of the monks look ugly and most have teeth missing! This is not a movie to watch if you want a pleasant feel-good movie. However it's great for people who don't mind the grimness and love a good mystery with theological digressions.. Recommended.

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.