Le Nom de la rose

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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.