Umberto Eco is neither Baudrillard nor Foucault, of course, but he knew his time quite meticulously. The Italian professor of semiotics reflected in The Name of the Rose a disappointing postulate of postmodernism, stretching almost from antiquity (from the XIV century in this case) to the present day - in fact, the very disappointment in humanity, laying airliners on one side of the scale, and atomic bombs on the other; masquerading under the vaults of religious temples and deified society is all a hack and interpretation of unprecedented truths; oh, reason, you are stupid ... you can list the depth of disappointment for a long, it is easier to write "etc". And if the film adaptation of the indisputably important book, reflecting many ideas, was intended to reflect postmodernism as if on themselves, then its authors exceeded the limits of genius. After all, except for homeomorphism - a kind of mutual coherence - of film and philosophical currents, Jean-Jacques Anneau's cinema can shake nothing. For example, you do not need to go far, the dull rule “book is better” and dominates here. It is enough to read The Name of the Rose once to understand it. On the second reading, you will have a different story with different morals and thoughts, but this will not work with the film: it tries to act as a one-time universal of all Eco’s ideas in a paltry two hours, as a result of which it loses in the pursuit of meaning.
The man is disappointing. Churches are called to help people - is the scraps thrown from the Benedictine monastery for the poor really help? Churches behave in a barbaric way towards their neighbors, not honoring the commandments, not fulfilling biblical dogmas. And the year was only 1327, but already in it souls lost in the darkness of sinfulness fully personify the disgusting depravity of some worshippers. Are the secrets of the ancient abbey on the border of France and Italy, where William of Baskerville will lead the novice Adson, the future narrator, for a Christian discussion and will be involved in the investigation of a series of mysterious deaths of monks? It is necessary to find out, walking through the stone bins, and the answers will not please the old detective, skillfully drawn from Sherlock Holmes, and his young companion. Because the horror of murder flows evenly into the terrible truth of a religious monastery, where lust, gluttony, thirst for power rule. But there is no way back, since the medieval investigation has begun, until the impatient Wilhelm does not want to stop with the dead Adelm of Otrant on the rocks and Venantius in the barrel. Especially when so many people – from Malachi to the swine-like Salvatore – are trying hard to stop him, trying to hide the dirty secrets of the majestic place, immortalized by the Temple and the library, a huge treasure trove of knowledge, for some unknown reasons in the film is not necessary.
There is no trace of God’s commandments. The gospel can be plucked onto toilet paper, since the debate over poverty and lack of Christ’s possessions can become key to the enrichment of the cardinals themselves. After all, everything goes to the gold purses, and it does not matter whether he was at Jesus himself, no matter how much talk is conducted. Wilhelm must judge the discussion, but can he, if the head is occupied by another? On the pages of the book could, the ubiquitous octopus, while the screen image rushes in a hurry between the entire plot branch and convulsively grabs some phrases from the pages of the script manuscript. To please everyone, starting with Adson, who met the girl whose name is veiled in the headline and in the head of the young novice to the very end, as if they were trying to weave a hopeless melodrama about the separated by Christianity from the cinema. Christianity is indeed presented in the light of postmodernity - it suppresses all hopes, destroys moral foundations on the examples of vile inquisitors, and Wilhelm, himself once in such a status, it seems ... just does not have time to judge everyone, sometimes merging with the walls of buildings. The director even helps him when he reveals a lot of details at once, rather than piling up the story with the deduction of a new investigator. If you do not read the novel, you will not notice anything fundamentally wrong in the "spoilerness", laying out plot twists, but if you read and watch after, then you almost physically understand that you have been deprived of an important idea and intrigue of the work.
Alas, the former Inquisitor Wilhelm Baskerville is not impressive with his activities up to the credits, as well as any other hero of this unforgettable history. And this is not about Sean Connery, who is difficult to imagine anyone but 007, and not about Adson with his endless torments regarding the courtesan of Celar, and not even in Jorge, who with his empty but diabolical look revealed an antagonist in the first minutes. They all exist in different universes of origin, with no hope of communication or history. And Mr. Director cuts the eternal quote "Rose in the name of the former, with naked names we henceforth" acting as a preamble to the work: the book, being the primary source, retains its status, while the film is drowned in the mundane work. Of course, it was difficult for him, the director, to put together such a multifaceted product; to some extent, he and three other writers who worked on the adaptation of The Name of the Rose managed to express their vision. Nevertheless, the cinema does not become more connected and understandable from its ownness, such are the consequences of selective citation and lack of duration that charismatic performers and production artists will not save. Therefore, the version of Jean-Jacques Anneau is difficult to understand at the end, where everything seems to be revealed verbatim. Philosophy, obviously, was lacking - recalling the poverty of Christ, let us recall the laughter and do not recall the proper conclusions, as with respect to the legendary "Poetics" of Aristotle. Is this the Antichrist of this world? Does his dissent make sense, or does he exist to shine with fearful eyes? Eco would respond with prosecutorial enthusiasm, and the French director would only show a desire to seize the star of the work. The writer himself spoke critically about the film and subsequently did not give the rights to film his works. Towards the end of his life, he, however, became more loyal, but how many possible roses lost art from the former disorder of the author, now one can only guess.
4 out of 10
The first time I watched a movie was in the late 80s, early 90s. Many details were erased apart from the general admiration for the famously twisted detective story in the harsh realities of the dark Middle Ages. Well, the main actors in the face of Connery and very young Christine Slater. Which then pretty much dominated his own vision of the characters while reading the book. As a result, I never managed to get rid of the cinematic images of William and Adson. By the way, I read the book only now and, of course, immediately wanted to refresh the impression of the film. Visualize and compare with the source, as well as the sensations of viewing thirty years ago. And as they say in Odessa, these are two big differences. Two very different roses.
It is clear that even without the book, impressions from viewing would vary greatly, having such a significant time and, more importantly, age interval. From the height of years, accumulated experience and knowledge, much is now perceived differently: much has lost its former charm, but previously inaccessible details have been opened. And after reading the book, the gap between the two films became even deeper.
The main spears towards the creators of the film are rushing for discrepancy with its original source. Everyone recalls that the author of the acclaimed novel expressed a categorical rejection of the film adaptation, because of which he subsequently refused all subsequent productions of his works. Even Kubrick refused! Which I later regretted.
But let me ask you, how can you seriously talk about the film adaptation of such a complex, multi-level work, close to the original source, without losing the lion’s share of what the novel instantly acquired the status of a cult work? How can you fit its numerous layers and subtexts in 2-3 hours of screen time: historical, political, religious, philosophical and cultural, stylistic, scientific, detective-deductive, romantic-love, ironic, stuffed with numerous allusions and hyperlinks? After all, it is clear that of all this multi-layered splendor, only detective, as the most cinematic of the proposed genres, the only one begs for the screen. And the one with strict movie reservations.
After all, we do not blame Tarkovsky and Herman for significant deviations from the stories of Strugatsky and Lem, when in the end we received one of the most significant films of mankind. Simply and here it is necessary to take for granted what exactly to transfer to the screen "The Name of the Rose" Umberto Eco is simply impossible. And it is necessary: only change the term "screening" to "removed for reasons". And treat them as completely separate works.
In the end, 17 scenarios, a long search for a suitable nature and a choice between three hundred medieval monasteries in Europe, the exact selection of the cast, including extras, and the exact re-creation of the era up to the repetition of clothing technology, coupled with the deliberate naturalism of displaying everyday life, gave its result. After all, the novel is all about the same, only a few other artistic means.
Yes, for better cinematography had to adjust the plot, significantly changing the ending. But even this is difficult to blame the director Jean-Jacques Annault, because throwing out of the final script so much of the novel, including even the most exciting detective part with the solution of the maze, had to shift the emphasis towards the romantic experiences of young Adson. And add "light at the end of the tunnel", even giving some allusion to the resurrection of Christ.
Yes, Anno almost cut the text of the novel to zero. But what a delightful sight that speaks for itself. It requires no words at all. What mountains, what a deep sky above them. What perspectives, what interiors, what authentic costumes. How accurately recreated the era with its oppressive, hopeless religious obscurantism, dirt, falling morals and excessive naturalism. What lucky allusions with a maze of stairs that refer us to the etchings of Mauritz Escher. Isn't that the same stylistic technique Eko used? What a relief Bosch type. What a beautiful performance of actors, including 17-year-old Slater, but especially Ron Perlman as Salvator's hunchback. And the abbot, and the blind Jorge, and Malachi, and the Inquisitor Guy ... and Sean Connery himself created a worthy image of William of Baskerville, albeit somewhat more floating along the stream than his book counterpart. Although, of course, in my brain while reading the book, Connery played much deeper and more ironic.
Jean-Jacques Anno rich picture and created visual images said no less than so long and carefully built in his, replete with complex stylistic turns, postmodern novel by Umberto Eco. So what will remain of the novel The Name of the Rose if you remove the rose itself from it?
Baddy Riggo, 24.02.2021
In the exciting film “The Name of the Rose” there are many details that are designed to excite negative emotions in the viewer. The first thing that causes negative emotions is some unpleasant medieval atmosphere of the picture. Gray, musty, cold, dirt - all this is deliberately put to the forefront. Followed by the monks, who are depicted in this tape largely voluptuous, self-serving, mean. The question immediately arises: why did these people come to the monastery at all? Well, maybe they are just some ideological runners or, even worse, grieving, hiding from people who can not get along with? The second option seems the most true.
In the process of familiarizing myself with this film, interesting in all respects, a gratifying thought naturally appears in my head: how good it is that I am not a medieval Catholic monk and how wonderful it is that I am already in the twenty-first century.
The duet of the elderly Sean Connery and the young Christian Slater, to say the least, is impressive. Wise and experienced mentor William, a little suffering from the sin of pride, with a slight irony teaches the young man Adso the basics of righteous life and at the same time, mocking the mental narrowness of the monks, investigates the mysterious deaths that occurred in an Italian monastery. This is how you can briefly describe the story of this tape. And Rosa is the name of a wild, unkempt, but very beautiful girl with whom, at the behest of the flesh, William’s disciple fell in love.
But the most tragic note in this tape is the monastery, which is not a place of selfless reflection, but a shelter for unfortunate, generally poor and strange people who cannot live normally in society. It seems like that.
P.S. No one can say exactly how Western reclusives and ordinary people lived during the time of the ruthless Inquisitions, but what we see in films can be described with complete certainty as the most real lawlessness.
I repent, the famous novel by Umberto Eco was not read by me, so I evaluate the film adaptation in isolation from the original. I don't even know if it's a minus or a plus. Now in order. One more caveat, though. I am not very familiar with the director’s work either. “Enemy at the Gates” and “Seven Years in Tibet” are all I can boast about in Anno’s portfolio. And if I liked the second one, which turned out to be a wonderful meditative drama, the first one left indifferent, despite the events taking place in the film. But most importantly, I did not catch some kind of corporate manner that distinguishes the author. Or maybe when I watched them and didn’t pay attention to them. I will now turn to this creation
Everything begins without any swaying, without any prefaces. The heroes of Connery and Slater arrive at a remote monastery where William Baskerville is known, respected and revered. For what, about what, it is not explained, just take note that William is a good man, a wonderful monk and will understand everything. Although this “in everything” does not stand out extraordinary. A young monk was found dead, but for some reason there was general hysteria and there was talk about the intrigues of the devil. We do not explain why this event caused such panic among the other ministers of the church, nor why William was in this monastery. Whether they and the student were driving past, or were specifically called, which is doubtful, given the transmission of information in those days. It's all off-screen. That's the whole movie. Sombur and confusion. The director rushes from one topic to another without having time to finish the previous ones. Only the detective line is complete, but in my opinion it is also the weakest. Not even that weak, but simple, without intrigue. As for the other issues raised by the authors, everything is much more interesting, but superficial. It seems that Anna was afraid not to fit into the timing, so he tried to cover everything at once. Here the Inquisition, Franciscanism, the moral foundations of the clergy, the permissiveness of the Church, and the moral corruption of man. It is worth noting the director’s original approach to visualizing these questions. At least I understood his desire to reflect in the appearance of the clergymen of the monastery the general moral decay of the clergy as a whole. Almost all monks are ugly both externally and internally. And the inquisitor is depicted impassably stubborn, stupid and short-sighted. After watching it, I had the impression that Jean Jacques Anno does not like priests very much. He is not against religion, even I would say a man of faith, but the servants of the Lord in his view are people, to put it mildly, not the best. And for such a visual decision of the creators can be praised. It is not necessary to agree with them, but not a single approach deserves respect and attention. Too bad that wasn't enough. Such things in one video series is almost impossible to convey and the picture is very lacking bright discussions and persistent arguments. But Sean Connery’s character is the most educated person and could conduct a couple of intellectual disputes. And Sir Connery would have a place to go. Alas, it didn't work out. In the end, for me, The Name of the Rose was too simple and straightforward. Maybe I didn't understand him at all. So it's only 6 out of 10.
"The Name of the Rose" - the film adaptation of the novel by Umberto Eco - everything is more than just a historical detective. The setting of the cold Christian Middle Ages here is just a scenery in which a deep political spectacle about retaining power is played out.
A very subtle abstract visualization of the crowd - an elite pyramid, where the abbey (the place of action), initially, appears as its top. An impregnable fortress that stands on top of a mountain. The little people who live outside the walls are more like animals. They kill each other for the scavengers that a generous church bothers, from time to time, to throw for them through a breach in the walls of the fortress. The spectacle is disgusting, but figuratively very true. But are the inhabitants of the abbey such an elitist society, and how far are the “true” ministers of the church allowed to go to the primary sources of their worldviews? Of course, castes, even within the highest echelons of society, especially religious, are present. This is a well-known truth, it is not discussed, not criticized and, perhaps, not even understood. However, it is interesting that attempts to ask sometimes very logical questions about the interpretation of various aspects, such as the New Testament, are severely suppressed and punished. Even more interesting is the fact that these questions are asked, for the most part, by those who are not in the hierarchical system represented. Those who are endowed with real power are humbly silent, realizing the stupidity and illogicality of a number of theses that fill the life of both pseudo-elite society and the life of ordinary people. At the same time, ministers with real power in their hands do not look like scoundrels or scum, but rather foolish people who do not want to part with the crown, status, comfort. They are, in their essence, a convenient tool that enjoys authority among all the lower strata of the represented society, but at the same time, not interested in the depth of the issues underlying the teaching. A tool that integrates what the abbey’s intellectual elite supposedly comprehends and discovers. At the same time, there is no access to manuscripts, books and other sources of information for all other strata, except for the intellectual elite. Accordingly, there is no right to acquire any, but still a personal point of view regarding the formulation of questions related to learning. Thus, it turns out that it is the intellectual elite that forms the values and laws with which everyone else has to consider. So who rules the ball?
“I want to see a Greek book that you said was not written at all. A book entirely devoted to comedy that you hate as much as you hate laughter.
The book, of course, was written. It was written by no one, but by Aristotle himself, whose name carries a colossal authority for all who understand the difference between letters. Aristotle once managed to create a work that undermines confidence in the need to follow one of the most important behavioral patterns, thanks to which it is much easier to manage human resources within the existing system. Such a trick cannot but suggest the number of similar ones. And how much did it take to conceal or distort religion to become an instrument of government? How many books did it take to burn? How many people?
- What's so bad about laughing?
- Laughter kills fear. It kills fear of the devil. And without fear of it, there is no longer need of God.
If there is no need for God, there is no need for church. And if there is no need for a church, then all your influence has no more weight.
The plot of the film, to a greater extent, revolves around a specific detective investigation, through the prism of which a number of different subtle aspects are revealed, which allow you to understand all these patterns. The plot is interesting and original for its time, but in the film it exists to bring events to a public boiling point. To show people once again that the new truth is destructive, dangerous and sometimes even leads to death.
“When the fires burn today, let their flames cleanse each of us in his heart. Let us return in our cares in our hearts to what was and must henceforth be the purpose of this abbey: the preservation of knowledge. “Preservation,” I say, not search, because there is no progress in the history of knowledge, but for the most part the accumulation and perfection of the best of the past. "
What is frightening is that in drawing parallels with today's world, one unwittingly stumbles upon certain similarities in the behavior of society. Then, to listen to the priest and fully trust his word was hopelessness. You are either illiterate or unable to touch the source, and yes, his interpretation of your faith is the only way to fill the existential void, to comprehend your hardships and hardships. And now? The religious worldview for philosophy has outlived itself in the centuries of humanists and rationalists, in the centuries of Descartes and Kant, but it also ruled the ball 700 years before. These 700 years are a sufficient argument to accept the historical deformation of public consciousness. But damn it, we all learned to read! So what?
When I read The Name of the Rose and compared it to other works. I wondered if it was weird. What Diderot, Eco, and Mishima wrote about the decline of morals and faith. I kept asking myself that question. After Hitler, the church lost its power. The 1933 Concordat (German Reichskonkordat, Imperial Concordat) was a treaty (concordat) concluded on July 20, 1933 between Nazi Germany and the Holy See and determined the status of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany. It is still in force, although it is in conflict with post-war German law. Which is curious. It turns out that the reluctance of the church to go against him was the reason for the fall. The Roman throne did nothing to save Jews, many priests of the same church, and believers.
Ambrosio, or the Monk (The Monk: A Romance) is a Gothic novel by 19-year-old Englishman M. G. Lewis, written in just 10 weeks and first printed in 1796.
It turns out that all this in the novel is not accidental. After the revolutions and the decay of the ruling elite. Processes begin throughout. "The fish rots from the head." Eco's work remotely reminded me of the Plantagenet War. War of the Red and White Roses of the same dynasty.
The monk William and his disciple arrive at an ancient monastery to investigate a series of mysterious and almost mystical deaths. William's brothers believe that the devil himself is involved in misfortunes, but William is sure that everything is much simpler.
For a long time I wanted to see this film, as its many descriptions were intriguing, but in fact everything turned out to be much more banal, just as it is said in my description for the film. Yes, of course, it is a crime thriller, a little creepy and pretty beautiful, thanks to the location of the shooting, but to me, the film was as gray as its color scheme.
First of all, 2 plus hours is too much. The plot stretches and becomes boring, sluggish, slowly developing, and this is always a big minus. The riddle itself did not particularly strike me or engage me, although it seems to me that the same denouement could be presented more sharply, more boldly, more exciting and unexpectedly. But alas. It turned out, of course, tolerable, even perhaps interesting, if you break the film into parts and do not watch everything at once.
Sean Connery was definitely delighted, although his eyelight and craving for the new very often reminded me of Henry Jones, whom he played later, but nevertheless. But Christian Slater’s starry eyes and constantly tense face irritated me endlessly. The rest of the actors were incredibly colorful and played very well, helping to preserve the mysterious and frightening atmosphere of the ancient monastery.
A film about religion, faith, relics and other attractions, shot in stunning places, but, unfortunately, not with such a stunning plot.
Before I found out about the existence of the film, I read a book that, although known as a world bestseller, was not so impressionable. No, the plot is very interesting, and if you throw out 3/5 of the text from the book, then I would fall in love with Eco’s work.
Which is exactly what the writers did. They left the juice, the main storyline - the investigation of William Baskerville and the young Adso, adding a few elements from the book that decorated the meter. Using everything that allowed the level of development of cinema in the mid-80s, the Director and Co. recreated a disturbing atmosphere, a tense plot and unexpected twists. Fortunately, not the world of the future was filmed, but the distant year 1327 - dark times for bright minds, a period of godless poverty and unsanitary conditions.
I really liked the game of Christian Slater. Perhaps his character turned out to be more controversial than William Shawn Connery, and because of this, slightly more interesting. I also note Salvator, who was brilliantly shown by Ron Perlman. Splendidly terrible, I was absolutely disgusted, I even turned away periodically, and that's exactly what was required! Bravo to make-up artists and actors!
The Name of the Rose is probably the first movie I liked more than the book. Sometimes confused by the work of the operator, the quality of the scenery was striking, as a resident of the 21st century, and the whole intrigue was spoiled by the knowledge of the ending, but it is still worth watching a movie.
This adaptation of the eponymous book by Umberto Eco was so disliked by the writer himself that in the future he was categorically against any attempts to film his novels. Perhaps the reason was that the director Jean-Jacques Annault too freely treated the plot and the idea of the novel; one way or another, I do not know the original source, and therefore I can not judge how good this film is as a film adaptation, but as an independent work of cinema, he definitely succeeded.
From the very first shots, the picture caresses the gaze of strikingly beautiful, but at the same time evoking longing and sad winter landscapes, which smoothly pass into the gloomy, oppressive, paranoid atmosphere of the Benedictine monastery, where a series of mysterious deaths occurred. Anna shows the Middle Ages vividly and without embellishment - semi-savage ragged peasants, more resembling stray dogs than people, dutifully giving the harvest to the "servants of God" and greedily collecting scraps. Monks, many of whom are disgusting both internally and externally, secretly indulge in debauchery and gluttony. And at the same time, the film is not shocking black, like scenes of some particularly brutal atrocities of the Inquisition, outright dirt and obscenities - it is very gloomy, but without rolling into thrash, which is why you really believe that shown on the screen is the reality of those times.
Against this background, the main characters stand out - William Baskerville (who was magnificently played by Sean Connery), a sad intellectual, not covered, however, with a touch of cynicism, but still faithful to his ideals, and his disciple-obedient, bright and naive young man, thirsting for justice. No less expressive and secondary characters. Especially good is the image of the heretic monk Salvatore, whose role can be called perhaps the best in the career of Ron Perlman - a kind of hunchback-foolish, insanely muttering something under his nose, causing both disgust and pity.
The detective story perfectly falls on the medieval entourage, darkness and paranoia, reigning in the “convent”, until the end keep the viewer in tension and anxiety. Of course, the attempt of the director to fit into the two-hour format along with the detective story and philosophical reasoning together with the love line led to the fact that certain moments of the plot look unsaid, and the philosophical line is simply poorly disclosed. But despite this, the film leaves a positive impression thanks to its idea, expressed in the words of William - "These books can not be hidden from people!". It is ignorance that breeds obscurantism, fear and paranoia, and with it lies, hypocrisy and fanaticism. Good is the scene of final retribution, when everyone gets what he owes.
As a result, we have before us, albeit not perfect, but extremely useful film with a great atmosphere, an exciting plot and a wonderful ideological component.
In modern cinema, the concept of “Gothic” atmosphere has become largely collective, characterizing a number of features, often subjective for each individual. Nevertheless, this project, perhaps not too well known to the mass audience, has literally goosebumps feeling that for two hours you really find yourself in the inhospitable mourning world of the Middle Ages.
As for me, the first place here is still not the plot, which is based on an unusual investigation, but the environment. Today, with all the visible achievements of cinema, this film would certainly look different, losing the proper effect of presence. The monastery, within the walls of which the main events develop, embodies the dark behind the scenes and vices of the Middle Ages, known to us from fiction and documentary literature, other films. The place that is supposed to be the house of God is frightening with its majesty. And the priests, its inhabitants, inspire terror and even disgust. Dull, as it is not difficult to guess, lighting, dampness ingrained in the walls, rats. You catch yourself thinking that this is not some fantastic entourage, but a completely natural environment for its time.
Already from the first scenes of the film, the audience is provided with a detective drama. The investigation of a series of mysterious deaths in the monastery is seasoned with an atmosphere of mysticism and mystery. It is interesting to watch Sean Connery's hero, as a scholarly husband and former investigator, face a wall of prejudice, behind-the-scenes intrigue, distrust and hostility. The plot develops very slowly, and fundamentally important events are evenly smeared over a two-hour canvas of history. The apogee of what is happening comes just when it becomes boring.
The film has a dark viscous atmosphere of the Middle Ages and for two hours keeps you in the appropriate emotional tension. Mature storytelling is not for impressionable, but looking for fresh emotions viewers. The picture is stuck in the memory for a long time, but you are unlikely to decide to return to this experience again before a few years.
7.5 out of 10
The people of God can only be changed by returning the rejected.
It was not without trepidation that I began to watch Jean-Jacques Annault’s The Name of the Rose. I did not quite imagine how to film long quotes, how to accommodate a complex detective story, a love line and theological disputes in two hours of screen time, and in general doubted that Eco place on the screen.
I got an answer to my doubts about halfway through the film, realizing that Anno’s film was not a film adaptation at all. There is such a special category of works “based on motives”, when the author of the production takes the name from the original, and a couple of general plot moves, but he does not care about the original. So I'm not going to criticize The Name of the Rose as a sloppy film adaptation - how do you reproach writers and directors with the lack of similarities they didn't seek? And it is not only and not so much about the plot differences (the book in the screen can not accommodate, and just the recomposition of the plot I welcomed), as about the ideological component - Anna is interested in completely different problems than Eco, and quite differently he looks at the era described.
So, Franciscans (sic!) Wilhelm and Adson arrive at a Benedictine monastery, where there will soon be a debate about the poverty of Christ, related to the fact that the Pope intends to declare the Franciscan order heretical. Wilhelm notices that a monk has recently died in the abbey, and tries to conduct an investigation, although everyone here is sure that this is the work of the devil. While the monks take the latter from the slaughtered peasants who are dying of hunger, William discovers that the cause of the incident is a book stolen from a closed library, and two more murders occur in the abbey. Meanwhile, Adson has an interesting adventure with a local peasant woman in the monastery kitchen. In the monastery are the papal and Franciscan delegations, as well as the Inquisitor Bernad Guy, who was once a colleague of Wilhelm.
Books, laughter, and the relativism of values seem to care very little about Anna. Why do you want to film Eko is a mystery to me, but... One way or another, it is noticeable that this line burdens the director, that it slows down the action and is not emotionally charged. In fact, The Name of the Rose is a film about exploitation, social inequality, the horrors of the Middle Ages, and ecclesiastical despotism. This is somewhat reminiscent of “Hammer of Witches”, but Annault’s film is not trying to be historical, and therefore almost Gordon’s “Well and Pendulum” comes to mind. All the monks of the abbey are emphatically, Boschovishly ugly; we are repeatedly and for a long time shown dirty, mostly ringed peasants carrying food to the abbey or greedily devouring waste. At the same time, in a strange way, the history of Dolchin and the debate about poverty are also not paid too much attention: the latter boils down to the fact that thin Franciscans in gray canvas cassocks sit opposite fat papal legates in scarlet robes and exchange a couple of historically incorrect phrases.
The film is much more visual than textual. Anna loves the frozen general plans of landscapes - and they are very beautiful, it should be noted, the spectacle is really fascinating. Beautifully mounted search in the library (here is a maze of stairs in the style of Mauritz Escher). But there are almost no long monologues in the film, and there are also detailed dialogues. The vivid, somewhat exaggerated picture of inequality deserving of combating it, and the ultimate catastrophic punishment, seems to be the main message of the film version of The Name of the Rose. This film is in a certain sense very European and festival – personally, I often do not like such a movie.
Of the actors, first of all, Ron Perlman. Salvator is perhaps his best role; the image came out very convex and memorable. Fyodor Chaliapin Jr. is very good in the role of (completely, by the way, canonical) Jorge from Burgos – unfortunately, the role is much reduced, and therefore we are not given to enjoy his game fully. Sean Connery plays an ironic-sad weak intellectual very convincingly, and no worse is the young Christian Slater sensitive, naive and touching young man.
There are good finds in Anno’s production (for example, how Avicenna’s reasoning about love is woven into the narrative), there are very strong scenes and shots (especially Wilhelm in the burning library), the film is simply, as I said, very beautiful visually. But for me personally, it lacks depth and thought, it seems flat to me. And not even in comparison to Eco's novel.
To begin with, it is impossible not to compare this film with the novel of the same name by Umberto Eco, when the book has already been read. The novel appears to the reader holistic. It conveys the atmosphere of the late Middle Ages, not only a way of life, but also a way of thinking. The film fails to convey many of the nuances of the novel. In addition, in the film, important storylines of the novel, as well as the characters are either completely removed or cropped.
The first and main disadvantage of the film is, oddly enough, the plot. I don’t know why it was necessary to steal it. The novel really had a great plot: tense, gradual, logical and multilevel. Perhaps this story is just not suitable for a two-hour film adaptation. Even three hours might not be enough. The fact is that the viewer does not have time to feel the intensity of passions and that tension in such a short time. However, the 6-7 hour mini-film could have been much more successful and better, and the story went the same way as the book - one day in the abbey would have been devoted to one episode.
The second disadvantage is that the film simply cut off all dialogues and philosophical discourses between the characters. Thus, the film tells little about the thinking of medieval man. The debate about Christ’s poverty was portrayed in the film so inconspicuously that it was even offensive. Wilhelm's reasoning is also very jerky and rude, while in the book he reasoned just fine.
The third disadvantage will be inexpressive acting. Sean Connery is not very convincingly playing the cold-blooded and ironic Wilhelm, and it’s not about Connery’s acting abilities, rather the type is not his. I would rather introduce him as Michael Tsezensky. The same thing with other actors, everyone plays quite well, however, the accents of the characters are shifted, but it is necessary rather to blame the director, who, frankly, did not even try to convey the atmosphere that conveys the novel.
What the film can be praised for is the beautiful scenery, as well as costumes.
For people who haven’t read the book, the film will be interesting and even good. Those who have read the book, I can advise you to look at your fear and risk, because after watching you really understand why Umberto Eco did not like the film adaptation.
6 out of 10
Umberto Eco is the founder of the literary genre called historical detective. And no Dan Brown is good for him. It seems that behind each of his plots there is a long and painstaking scientific work. The Name of the Rose is the best of his works. The book is complex, fascinating. Someone will see in it just a detective about the Middle Ages, someone will get a bunch of interesting facts about that era, plunge into its atmosphere, and someone will see a more complex philosophical canvas of the work: the author’s reflections on the theme of the election of an educated person, the confrontation and interaction of the spiritual and secular. Actually, the detective line is only the surface of the iceberg. If you abstract from the entourage, you realize that William Baskerville is not a product of his time. It is filled with modern ideas that are many centuries ahead of the era described. What is one deductive method worth? Brother Wilhelm is a collective image. This is a detective who is always late and finds himself at the scene of a crime a few seconds after the worst has already happened. The film takes place almost in the spirit of Agatha Christie, only instead of a closed English mansion - a medieval European monastery.
I really liked the screening. Dark Middle Ages in all its glory. The abbey is the center of advanced thought, which is carefully guarded as a sacrament. Monks are a brotherhood of the enlightened. The atmosphere is historically correct and quite consistent with the original source - the book. It is quite natural that some storylines remained behind the scenes, but this did not distort the main idea.
Jean-Jacques Anneau is a director who has several worthy works, for which I have infinite respect. He has a fine directorial taste.
Sean Connery played the role brilliantly! He is very similar to the image from the book: wise, ironic, insightful, generous. For Christian Slater, this is the first, if I am not mistaken, big role in the movie. Probably the best thing for me in his career. Very accurately conveys the soul throwing and insophistication of his hero Adson. And the actors for the role of monks were selected very successfully: significant such persons. Excellent makeup and decorations.
I recommend to everyone who likes the Gothic entourage, mysterious plot and movies with meaning.
It would seem - Sean Connery in the title role, director - Jean-Jacques Anno, who has repeatedly won various film awards, at the heart of the film - a beautiful, in my opinion, novel by Umberto Eco. But! For some reason, all these pieces were not meant to fit together. As the film adaptation of "The Name of the Rose" - not only does not reach the level of the book, but simply fades in its shadow. It seems to me that the director has moved away from the very essence of the work. Echo isn't even close.
The abbey itself, which according to the author's plan should inspire awe, reverence and should fascinate with beauty and wealth, in the film causes only disgust - dirt, dirt, dirt and once again dirt. With black tones, which, of course, are designed to emphasize the creepy and mysterious things that are happening in this place, a clear overkill. The atmosphere is distorted. The characters are distorted.
Many points are omitted, that is understandable. But among all the others, the author decides to make almost the longest and most important of all scenes - the sex scene. The Inquisition looks unconvincing. The idea itself is getting smaller. And then, almost all the philosophical reasoning that led William and Adson to the solution was removed from the film. That is, the director violates the logical chain of investigation. And if you haven't read the book, it's hardly clear what's the point. And how did they know what they knew?
What an ending. Hmm. No comment.
In general, I think it is not surprising that Umberto Eco, after watching The Name of the Rose, did not give anyone permission to film his books. From a deep philosophical novel that reflects the era and captures the unconventional course of thought of Wilhelm (medieval Sherlock) and his student, we see a gloomy middle-level detective.
For the cruel disappointment:
In the film “The Name of the Rose” there are many details that are designed to excite negative emotions in the viewer. The first thing that causes disgust is the nasty medieval atmosphere of the picture. Grayness, abomination, cold, dirt – all this is deliberately put on the foreground. Followed by the monks, who are depicted in this tape lustful, selfish and, of course, mean. The question immediately arises: why did these people take tonsure at all? Or maybe they are just some ideological runners or, worse, losers, hiding from people who can not get along with? The second option seems the most true. In the process of getting acquainted with this film, interesting in all respects, a gratifying thought naturally appears in my head: how good it is that I am not a Catholic monk and how wonderful it is that it is already the twenty-first century.
The duet of the elderly Sean Connery and young Christian Slater is impressive to say the least. Wise and experienced mentor William, a little suffering from the sin of pride, with a slight irony teaches the young Adso the basics of righteous life and at the same time, making fun of the stupidity of the monks, investigates the mysterious deaths that occurred in an Italian monastery. This is how you can briefly describe the story of this tape. And Rosa is the name of the wild, unkempt, but beautiful girl with whom he fell in love and with whom, at the behest of the flesh, William’s disciple slept.
But the most tragic thing in this tape is the monastery, which is not a place of repentance and selfless reflection, but a shelter for the scum of society (mentally, wretched, crippled and outcast).
No one can say exactly how the Western reclusives and ordinary people lived during the ruthless inquisitions, but what we see in the films, with full confidence, can be called a real lawlessness.
10 out of 10
I completely disagree with the director’s view of the storyline, and the truth of the film made a soap opera with a love melodrama is lost the deepest religious meaning and historical unwittingly, but undoubtedly in the film stunning scenery and perfectly recreated the atmosphere of the Middle Ages but still absolutely lost the main idea of the book.
Sean Connery is handsome, as in any of his work, the rest are mediocre.