गुलाब का

Der Name der Rose is by all means a great film. The story is an excellent mix of Sherlock Holmes-type crime thriller and religious criticism/commentary. I found this to be exceptional as the book was labeled as impossible to remake as a film and while the book is indeed better than the film, the film is certainly not without its charms.

First of all the cast is pretty much perfect. Reading the book Sean Connery wasn't who I had in mind as the character but he certainly makes the character his own. His performance is for lack of a better word unique. He brings his usual indescribable something to the character which makes him almost instantly likable and believable. He delivers his lines in a confident manner that suits the character. Like in many other of his films his character is a teacher character but he does not seem to berate his pupil (Christian Slater) but allows him to grow on his own merely nudging him along. Even though not my first choice to have played the character I cannot find any other who would suit the part after seeing the film. Christian Slater plays the protagonist in what must be described as his break through character. His inexperience as an actor shows and once again suits the character who is also quite inexperienced in many ways. He portrays the change and ultimate conflicts of his character well enough and like Connery makes the character his own. Michael Lonsdale is pretty good as well and even though the character is not as well defined as in the book he provides the broad strokes in a satisfactory manner. Feodor Chaliapin Jr. does an excellent job in bringing Jorge to life and matches Connery's authority in their scenes together but once again the character is done in pretty broad strokes and you only get a small taste of what the character was like in the book. F. Murray Abraham's character is not like in the book and even though I was slightly disappointed by the film's portrayal of the character I understand why it was necessary to change the character for dramatic purposes. Ron Perlman who has since gone on to become quite a big star has a small role in this film and he does a decent job.

The film thrives on its complex story (which is nowhere near as complex as in the book) and deep characterization of the main characters who are about as defined as characters can become without internal monologue. There is voice-over by the older version of Christian Slater's character but is basically only used in the introduction and end part of the film and at a few crucial moments. The fantastic characterization is also helped by the incredibly sharp and well written dialog which never gets boring or forced like you could have feared given the religious content. In many scenes the dialog was in fact so good that I got the chills. The film focuses mainly on the mystery elements but the religious elements of the film are somehow weaved into the overall plot but there were plenty more of these religious elements and factors in the book. Overall I think the film should have been at least 15 minutes longer to get more of these elements in but maybe thats just me. However, all the most important plot points (and a few sub-plots) are covered so in that sense the film is successful.

Another thing that works very well is the atmosphere of the film which is very tense and mysterious. The tension is helped by the music which like so many other things in the film is quite unique and fitting. The set work is pretty simple but as it is a monastery you cannot expect the most flamboyant of sets. The sets work in their simplicity, however, and there is really no point of critique to be found in the set work. The lighting is kept at a minimum as well and once again this works in favor of the film as it adds to the overall tension. Sometimes the lighting is a little to dark but it happens so rarely that its not really a problem.

All in all Der Name der Rose (or The Name of the Rose) is a wonderful film but what drags the film down ever so slightly is that it can some times feel a little rushed because of the amount of material it is covering and there were a few elements from the book I would have liked to have seen in the film. In general, however, the cross from book to film is very well done and the overall plot is very well depicted with many tense, frightening and interesting moments. The film is definitely one of Connery's best and it is mainly because of his performance that I am giving the film a 9 in stead of an 8

9/10

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.

Umberto Eco's novel has something of a reputation as one of the great unread bestsellers. To have it on the shelf in the early eighties was a fashion statement as much as it was a literary necessity. And yet when the film was released, it was attacked for being an ineffective adaptation. Turning the 600-page novel, a detective mystery enriched by descriptions of medieval life and semiotic ruminations characteristic of Eco's academic writings, into a mainstream two-hour movie was, of course, ambitious. Four credited screenwriters and an international co-production gave off a sense of struggle and indecision. The movie was, and remains, easy to deride.

It's true that the film, directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, has to skip, or skirt, much of Eco's detail - the famous pages-long description of the doorway, for example, is acknowledged by a few camera shots - but it takes the novel's literary strengths and offers a cinematic equivalent: a vivid depiction of monastic life which thrusts the viewer into the period of the story. In this respect, the production is exemplary: cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli, art director Dante Ferretti and composer James Horner were all operating at the top of their game.

And, as Renton in Trainspotting (1996) knows, Sean Connery proved a perfect choice as William of Baskerville, the 14th-century Sherlock Holmes figure investigating the deaths in an Italian monastery. It's one of Connery's best performances, a happy marriage of character acting and star casting: he suits the physical description of William and he properly conveys the character's wisdom, caution and sense of regret. Christian Slater's Adso, the narrator of the novel, is a surrogate for the viewer, expressing bafflement at the mystery story and awe at William's deductive powers; while F. Murray Abraham works wonders with the underwritten part of the inquisitor Bernardo Gui.

The Name of the Rose is one of the most underrated movies of the eighties. That it wasn't brilliant should not detract from the fact that it's as good as it is.

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've been enjoying films for 20 years now, and this is the first comment I've put on any film website. I've always had the mickey taken out of me for loving this film, and it's right up there amongst my favourites of a very eclectic bunch. Why? Well, firstly and I have to say, very importantly, it's taken from the finest piece of modern literature I've read. Umberto Eco's novel has such mammoth scope of subject matter and detail, it is was always going to be extremely hard to put into film (Dune anyone??), and Annaud certainly doesn't succeed in every way, but my lord he gives it a damn good go. The film quite rightly focusses on the human story within the book of a group of murders committed at an Italian abbey in the 14th Century, and the ongoing search for the purpetrator, by a Franciscan monk and his apprentice. The book encompasses many other issues and plotlines, which could not be fitted into the film. The three screenwriters do an excellent job, of filming the almost impossible to within 2 hours or so. Most importantly to me, the cinematography and set are sublime, almost unsurpassed in modern film to my mind, and still to this day amazing. I've always found that many non movie-lovers remember this film, for good or bad. The main reason for me is that it recreates so impressively the period it represents. Tonino Delli Colli, I salute you. The production team deserves a similar merit for bringing together what was in essence an European co-production, whilst not forgetting the biggest exterior set built in Europe since "Cleopatra". Step forward Dante Ferreti. I salute you too. 0.1 of a mark off for the editing, but let's not dwell on that. The acting is, bar none, marvellous, with even Christian Slater in his first main role putting up an extremely decent stab of being an apprentice monk.

I like a good whodunnit, but I adore a whodunnit which throws in the visual magnificence of a different age, top notch performances, a script taken from a extraordinary source, and assured directing. 10 out of 10, and my mates can carry on taking the mickey out of me.

So in summary, I'll leave it to the director himself.. `When I see a film, I love it when I'm entertained, when I care for the actors, when I share their emotions, when I'm scared, when I'm in love, but also if I learn a little something, if I have the feeling that I haven't seen something before, and that's what `The Name of the Rose' has.'