The Name of the Rose | | Cast : | Sean Connery, Christian Slater | | Director : | Jean-Jacques Annaud | | Studio : | Warner Home Video | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned | | Released Date : | September 24, 1986 | | DVD Released Date : | February 08, 2005 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | June 19, 2005 | | Summary | A Wonderful Movie based on a Wonderful Book | Content
 | I never saw this film in the theatre. I saw it on TV many years ago and was enchanted with the medieval setting. I just recently got the DVD when I remembered the movie due to discussion of the book on an internet board I post on.
All I can say is that I am in awe of the work done by the director in bringing the book to the screen. The visuals alone express exactly the sense and the setting that Eco took pages and pages of info dump to allude to.
The size of the whole complex with small poorly clad men scuttling over it at the mercy of the weather accurately places man (in the understanding of the time) between cruel and capricious nature (i.e.: godlessness) and being dwarfed by the immense buildings dedicated to god, which represent his power and importance in the world, and the puny stature of man.
The dark interiors, lit only by fire highlight the fear, superstition and lack of education and outside contact that the average 'simple' person had. It made real the poverty and the terror and the precarious hold on life the people had, and how they would grasp at anything that promised safety and salvation. How it was so easy to believe in demons, and witches and other physical manifestations of their hard life. The strange look of the monks also represents the difficulty of surviving unscathed by disease, or accident.
At the ending of the medieval period the church had grown into a fat, rich, bloated institution more interested in temporal matters, and internal minutia (angels dancing on the head of a pin) than on acting as shepherds to god's flock.
The movie shows the Benedictine monks, the caretakers of the monastery and local flock, as those who started with a good heart, yet who uphold the status quo in fear rather than love. Because the times have changed, the flock's needs have multiplied, and the monks have not, they end up going through the motions of the religious life during the day, with venality creeping in during the dark hours: Greed, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Acquisitiveness, and Selfishness.
Rather than copy and disburse books to uplift the darkness they hide them away, and prevent the spread of learning; keeping the knowledge as secret treasure for the select within the monastery. There are gradations of the select within the walls, leaving the monks in competition to become 'more select', rather than focusing on the needs of their flock, and god's work. All they do is dump refuse through their sewer and make the people scramble like animals to survive.
This is the setting upon which the future role of the church and god's place in man's affairs is to be debated, in the guise of the question `was Jesus poor? ` Where the regular church people are too afraid of change, and being branded heretics, yet no longer can really believe in the simple answers and rituals of the past, or rely on their superiors for good guidance.
The papal delegation, the Dominicans, are rich, fat, and far above the ordinary life of the monks or the 'simple' peasants. They do not wish to give up the wealth, the life of luxury, the ability to satisfy every personal whim, and the temporal power over kings, states, and the simple peasants that the current state of the church bestows on them. Within their ranks is an Inquisitor, the judge, and jury they use to keep any who question them in line, with threats of torture, horrible death, and damnation. They use the Inquisitor to stamp out those who have drunk at the deadly cup of ancient knowledge and who are beginning to question and think for themselves.
The Franciscans are the group who represent change, the desire to be free of the trappings of the past, who want to minister to the needs of the people both physical and spiritual and leave power and wealth to Caesar. They are concerned about the good and bad of the knowledge that can lead one to sin, but they are not all the same and not all want the books hidden or destroyed. Some believe that using the reason god gave them, they will find more to worship the creator for. Though their oldest member, Ubertino shows that they come from the same past as the Benedictines.
The deaths and murders in the monastery are the outward manifestation of unease, sin, and the breakdown of real belief in the past solutions the church is preaching. Enter William of Baskerville, and his young novice, who represent the coming of the renaissance, the coming of reason, knowledge and enlightenment. They move within the rhythms of the monastery, while staying true to their own beliefs. They try to set the wrongs to right, and move the Benedictines to open their library and disburse the knowledge they hoard, while winning the dispute with the papal legation, and ultimately staying alive. In some they are successful, and in some they are not - much like life.
I can't give the movie 5 stars, because too little time and context was set up so that the viewer who had not read the book would understand what the debate stood for, and what the Greek book stood for. Without those clues, the movie seems a lot of to-do about some really trivial matters, yet they are still issues we are struggling with today.
This is a movie that you can watch over and over, and pick up and revel in all the details, as well as the wonderful performances. There are some who think Gui, and Salvatore are over the top, but in fact they are needed as they show real human passion escaping from the control of a repressed setting. The sex scene is also needed for the story and really rather beautiful.
The movie actually led me to read the book, and I think that those who complain about the movie being different don't understand that the movie must be visual, and that what they think is lacking in the story is mostly presented in the visuals. I agree with the director who said The Name of The Rose is a bestseller which most who purchase don't read, and that if you can read and understand the book, you can also understand and appreciate the movie. The quibble about the ending is really a matter of your preference for the tone, hopeful, or not.
The director's commentary and the documentary on the making of the movie are very good, as is the director's photo tour. The music, sets, lighting, and cinematography are magnificent.
|
| Rating | | | Date | May 16, 2005 | | Summary | Mixed Marks for Mideval Monastery Murder Mystery | Content
| The film adaptation of the Umberto Ecco bestseller is neither grand nor a total failure, but falls into that middle kingdom between heaven and hell. It's good points are some fine performances, especially by leads Sean Connery and Christian Slater, and Franciscan monk William of Baskerville and his novice (in every way), Adso. But acting is inconsistent across the cast with normally excellent supporing actors like F. Murray Abraham and Ron Perlman both overacting horribly in roles that are both under- and over-written.
The casting, based on appearances, is well-done, underpinning the plot themes of grotesqueness and humor. The film also is sinister, cold and dark, taking place largely at night in a mountaintop Benedictine monastery.
A series of murders occur but honestly neither the ultimate villain nor the motive are too credible. Ecco's dense, erudite style and countless little references also do not translate to the screen. One might also note that the monastery is amazingly silent and unrealistic. There certainly seems little of the canonical hours going on. "Rose" might be said to overly brutalize and despiritualize monastic life and Catholic Holy Orders in the same way that "Going Thy Way" romanticises and sentimentalizes it.
So, in a nutshell, a mixed review. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 14, 2005 | | Summary | AND JUST WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE ROSE | Content
| I first saw this visually impressive but overly stuffy movie when it came out in 1986. I wasn't all that fond of it then, and it was only at the urging of my wife who loved it to buy the DVD and watch it again. I still am not all that impressed. While Sean Connery's performance is vivid and convincing, the story itself is so pretentious and convoluted that I couldn't invest my total interest in it. Christian Slater makes an appropriately naive and heroic understudy to Connery's mastery; Ron Perlman infuses his role with an intense madness that makes his character compelling, but F. Murray Abraham acts like an Oscar gave him permission to gobble up the scenery in a cliche and underwritten role. The atmosphere is marvelously captured, but the pacing is slow, and the reason behind the murders is fairly ludicrous, even for a film set in the darkest of ages. I haven't read the book, but the movie certainly doesn't inspire me to do so either. Handsomely done but painfully empty film. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 15, 2005 | | Summary | A monastic Holmes, sort of | Content
| A complicated murder mystery set in a monastery in the 1300s, monks are being killed and Sean Connery, in a role very much in the style of Sherlock Holmes, sets about figuring it out. It finally boils down to an ancient Greek text, a comedy, that is hidden away in the secret library. I won't reveal any more than that. At 130 minutes it's way too long, and much of it has the feel of a hodge-podge. Filmed in Frankfurt and Rome; the library of hidden treasures was "burned" using special effects. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 12, 2005 | | Summary | A film about God, science, fear and laughter | Content
| Unfairly maligned, this well made but flawed atmosperhic adaptation of Umberto Eco's novel manages to capture the flavor of the book quite well. Someone expecting Eco's novel would be advised to look elsehwere; film is a narrative medium and Eco's complex novel had to be boiled down to the essential story at the heart of his penetrating look at Christianty in the middle ages. The film features an outstanding performance from Sean Connery as William of Baskerville (a nice tug of the forelock to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes) Franciscan monk who uses science to understand the mysteries of our world and in service of God.
William travels to a monestary with a young apprentice Adso of Monk (Christian Slater)to debate the issue of Christ's poverty with representatives of the pope. Just before he arrives a young monk is killed. William dives int trying to solve the mystery of the boy's death when he realises that the clues don't quite add up. Suddenly the body count increases as more and more monks mysterious vanish or die. What terrible secret is the murderer trying to hide? Just as William thinks he may have the answer inquisitor Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham) arrives with a quick and easy solution; it's the work of the devil. Bernardo hates William's passion for science believing him to be nothing more than a heretic in a monk's robe. William has little time because Bernardo will indict the monk of hersey if he can.
Director Jean-Jacques Annaud ("The Bear", "Seven Years in Tibet", "Black and White in Color", "The Lover") tackles the challenging material admirably recreating 14th century Europe in intimate detail. The gritty locations and creation of a monestary for the film (Annaud couldn't find the location he wanted so much of his budget went into building a 12th century monestary on location. The DVD box states in error that the film was shot at a 12th century monestary.)help impart a sense of realism to the movie. The diverse cast reflects (according to Annaud)the fact that monks from all around Europe would live in a monestary doing God's work and illuminating (illustrating) biblical texts. The final screenplay by Andrew Birkin (one among four credited writers "King David", "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc")manages to distill the important story points of Eco's novel and Annaud creates the world around it that was so skillfully portrayed in the book.
Featuring a sharp looking transfer, the DVD of "The Name of the Rose" looks remarkably good although some of the sequences are a bit too dark. The use of a high speed grainy film enhances the sense of gritty reality for the film and isn't a flaw of the transfer. The remastered soundtrack available in Dolby Digital 5.1 for the first time makes good use of the surround channels smothering the viewer in the atmosphere of the middle ages.
As usual Warner Home Video has done an outstanding job with the extras; we get an hour documentary on the making of the film originally shot for German TV. Unfortunately, the narration is in German so you end up having to read Connery and the other actors/crew members comments in the subtitles. It's an extremely well done documentary that captures the behind-the-scenes intimate moments frequently missed in these types of productions. There's also an exceptional photo video journey with the director. We also get the original theatrical trailer.
The best part of this DVD is the informative commentary track by director Annaud. He doesn't blather away but only speaks up when he actually has something interesting to say about a particular shot or share a behind-the-scenes story about the production. Annaud comes down hard on actor F. Murray Abraham noting that his Oscar win inflated Abraham's ego to such a degree that he was extremely difficult to work with during shooting. Abraham insisted that Connery had to arrive at the set first because Abraham was an Oscar winner and Connery wasn't. We also find out quite a bit of detail about the building of and location shooting of the sets and his unusual casting decisions. He extols the virtues of actor Ron Perlman stating that he was a delight to work with and literally made it a joy to come to work with every day. Likewise, he discusses the challenges of working with Connery who was much more established than Annaud at this time. Nevertheless, they had a marvelous time working together with Connery taking a keen interest in the production. Interestingly, Annaud had to fight for Connery in the role. After a series of flops, his star power had dimmed and Michael Caine and Albert Finney were first choices for the role by the studio. The low lighting and dimished budget proved to be a challenge to the director; he couldn't afford a dolly for the film nor could he afford the time to have his director of photography Tonino Delli Colli (a frequent Fellini collaborator)light the set for complex cameramoves. Annaud points out that many of the shots are static and those that aren't are simple pans. He also discusses actor Helmut Qualting a hero during who fought against the Nazi party during World War II. It seems Qualting frequently forgot his lines or would pause during the takes because he was in enormous pain during the shooting. He died shortly after completing his role.
An unusual mystery that doesn't focus on whodunnit but, instead, on why (were clued in early as to who the murderer might be), "The Name of the Rose" hasn't wilted with time but has actually bloomed. This rose has many thorns that make it a less than perfectly smooth mystery but given the challenges that director Annaud faced, it's still one that smells sweet. |
|
