Il nome della rosa

Only a limited number of films that I watched during my youth managed to leave an everlasting impression on me, but Jean-Jacques Annaud's adaptation of Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" is one of them. Even though we are 25 years later, and I've seen perhaps 15.000 films since then, I still remember practically every detail of that wondrously grim and mysterious film in which creepy monks were being killed off in a remote and petrifying old monastery. Although I tried a couple of times, I never found the courage to actually read Eco's source novel. It's just too thick, sorry. The 1986-masterpiece is urgently due for a re-watch, but instead I stumbled upon this Italian/German mini-series that allegedly was a lifelong dream-project for actor and producer John Turturro to realize. Come to think of it, it's actually quite surprising that it took more than 30 years for someone to make a new version! Seeing that Annaud's film is "only" a little over two hours long, I must assume that it threw a massive amount of Eco's book-content overboard. With 8 episodes of approximately 1 hour each, I'm sad to confess that "Il Nome Della Rosa" is too long and quite often balancing on the verge of boring. Also, I keep reading that the script differs immensely from the book, at least for what concerns the numerous sub plots surrounding the pivot murder mystery.

Turturro is great, but Sean Connery's charismatic image remains stuck in my brain as the one and only William of Baskerville; - wise Franciscan friar and Sherlock Holmes ahead-of-time. All the other, nevertheless adequate, actors can't even begin to measure themselves against the quality performances of the fantastic actors in the 1986 film, like F. Murray Abraham, Ron Perlman, Michael Lonsdale or William Hickey. The sole performance I rate higher comes from the fairly unknown Damian Hardung, who's portrayal of young novice Adso Von Melk is more authentic and convincing than Christian Slater's role.

Or, perhaps I just ought to stop comparing this with youth's nostalgia and simply acknowledge the multiple great aspects of this prestigious mini-series. The production values, for instance, are deeply impressive. The 14th century set-pieces, costumes and relics are astounding. Also, the history lessons processed into the screenplay are far more educational and compelling than anything you'll ever learn in school, and Tchéky Karyo has a brilliant supportive role as the megalomaniac Pope Giovanni XXII. If there's anything I firmly believe, it is that medieval Popes were exactly as deplorable and vile as him.

In short: there is a reason why the central character in Eco's work is named after Occam and nods to Sherlock Holmes. It has to do with presenting complexity and then dealing with it though Occam's maxim and Holmes' deductive reasoning. Yet, the writers of this mess of an adaption seem to have not understood Eco or Rose at all and simply opted for injecting and proliferating haphazard disorder to mimic it complexity when it is just -- mediocre plot device and script-writing and. Sorry but gibberish is not complexity because it meanders, and proliferation non sequiter subplots are not semiotics just because your brain has to also work when decoding nonsense . It goes without saying as well that labyrinth is meaningless if you just proliferate blind ally diversions and don't understand it is the great classics Eco is presenting as the guide, the key.

If you've got that liberal arts degree for undergrad and loved history and literature, like I did, (before having to turn to something that can make some money for grad) they you probably knew about this series planning and had enthusiastic and positive expectations. The original film version of Name of the Rose was not bad, it was a decent adaption of Umberto's Eco's intricate but certainly his most approachable book, but it certainly could be much better fleshed out in a mini series length.

In addition to being a fan of Eco, I certainly am as well of John Turturro.

Sadly this series just doesn't work given the source material and talent. It is a serious disappointment; in fact a jumbled mess. Instead of using miniseries length to flesh out the complexity, tease the symbolism, and give us more of Eco, the writers went off the rails as well, distracting packing in all kinds of PC nods to contemporary issues that are not in Eco's novel. And even for "a loose adaptation" there is a continual sense of disjointed and artificially forced elements and messages that are not in Eco's work. Most galling -- but also telling -- metaphor for the utter humorlessness in the makers of this adaption is dropping emphasis on Aristotle's Poetics; whose dramatic theory, and utilization of humor, is what Eco is using. In the book we are immersed IN the Poetics, the author has structured he work so we are, while the character searches for it, along with a solution to the crime mystery, and this is not even attempted in this miniseries.

I spent about two years working in Italy and I have a high tolerance for the messiness of Italian productions, be they film, TV or contracting of goods or services. Things there are beautiful and interesting, but often don't work well. OK. I did not go into this adaption of name of the Rose expecting complete rationality or order. But there are so many artificial jumps in plot that it nears incoherence. Especially since none of it is really true to the core of Eco's work which has to do with the sequestration of knowledge, such as sublime and complex classics, and not for example some hamhanded lesson on immigration, class struggle, or violence toward women. Eco already had a strong and important social message with poverty and a church that lost its way, or whose future was being fought over. By throwing in the kitchen sink of social commentary this gets diluted to nothing.

I give this a six star, even though it is a four, since part of Eco is there, even if, with united irony -- it is hidden by the script writers' own nonsense.

That's it. Watch the tv series and be yourself the critic. You should trust yourself to see it this adaptation is good or not.

That being said, I'd like to say that I've read the book on which these series is based, a monumental thriller set on the middle ages by the master Umberto Eco. I've seen the first two episodes, and I find myself thinking this is a nice start. Strangely to me, I come to see the reviews on this site and I'm baffled. Honestly, I really don't know what they saw. John Turturro is a great William of Baskerville and overall the setting is good. There is a bit of cgi on the landscapes, but mixed properly with real life places that look beautiful. Don't let these people misguide you, who knows what interests do they seek.

A lot of money has been spent on this production, and it shows. John Turturro is great, as always, and the supporting cast includes stalwarts such as Sebastian Koch, Rupert Everett, and Michael Emerson. But you might want to hold off on making the popcorn. The Name of the Rose is a big book, but Jean-Jacques Annaud showed us that it's possible to present it on film in just a couple of hours or so; nevertheless, this series has been expanded to 8 one-hour episodes. You might expect the producers would want to explore plot points from the book in greater detail, but that hasn't really happened. Instead the writers have been busy updating Eco's masterpiece to speak more directly to contemporary issues. In the first two episodes (all I've seen of the series), you can tick off feminism, immigration, torture, gay rights--you name it (perhaps your time would be better spent at the microwave after all). When it focuses on Eco's story, the series can be riveting, and I'm eager to learn more about the library. So what if Damian Hardung as Adso of Melk seems to belong to a different century?--that was also the impression I had of Christian Slater as Adso in Annaud's 1986 film, and it didn't ruin the story for me. John Turturro, on the other hand, is perfect as William of Baskerville, even if we won't be forgetting Sean Connery right away, and there's nary a hint of a Brooklyn accent in his delivery. So I guess I'm in for the long haul.

The book and the movie are masterpieces. This serie spoils the original story by deviating from its storyline and not in a better way but rather in a french way( without inner purpose and in a life random but not clever way) maybe to prove the story can last for a while! Even the tricks that Baskerville used to elucidate mysteries and riddles have been Changed! Why? To gain independence from the movie? To serve the producer ego! The result is a little bit disappointing. You should have been more smart than Umberto Echo which is not needed and really hard. I'd rather watch again the movie instead! Which I did!