The Name of the Rose
|
Our Price: $17.89 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.38 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Name of the Rose
Movie Review: The Name of the Rose: A Dark, Semiotic, Medieval Mystery.
Summary: 5 Stars
The Name of the Rose: A Dark, Semiotic, Medieval Mystery.
By
James Zaworski
"The Name of the Rose" is a film based on the novel written by Umberto Eco, and it stars Sean Connery, F. Murray Abraham and Christian Slater, put out in the late 1980s. I first saw and enjoyed this film with my father and eldest brother in the early 1990s. It is a murder mystery set in a dark and dank abbey in the mountains of northern Italy in the 13th century. The film was given lukewarm reviews and had commensurate box office sales in the United States, but was critically and popularly acclaimed in Europe and the rest of the world.
The Plot.
William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) and his apprentice (Christian Slater), are just arriving at the abbey in the mountains of northern Italy when William begins seeing signs that a monk has recently passed away, as he spies the fresh grave in the graveyard from his window. This William is a real sleuth, and definitely has the powers of observation, logic and reason on his side. The abbot is a bit shocked that William knows about this death, where a monk apparently fell out of, or was pushed out of, a window from a bell tower. William investigates, and concludes from the `crime scene' that this was a suicide and not a murder. The monk in question went up into a tower in the middle of the night, in a hailstorm.
Most of the monks in the abbey are hideously ugly or grotesque, except for a few "beautiful boys" who tempt the others with `unnatural caresses'. Sometimes there are bouts of self flagellation to punish the sinful desire of the flesh.
As William and sidekick explore the abbey (they are Franciscans and are part of a delegation that is to be part of a debate against a papal delegation about some issues of Christ's poverty and the church's poverty), they meet other characters such as a hunchback named Salvatore, who tried to kill William, his master Remeggio, a fat monk (both were formerly of the heretical Dulcinites, who believed in the poverty of the church and slaughtered fat bishops and priests and gave their property to the poor), an old blind man named venerable Yurgi, his sidekick Malackea, a handsome Greek translator, and a good natured herbalist.
Soon, the Greek translator is found dead, and his body has been plunged into a vat of pig's blood. When taken out and examined, it is noted that his index finger is black, as well as his tongue. Now the real murder mystery begins. William soon finds tracks in the snow of someone that dragged the body to the kitchen, and concludes that he was murdered. A counter theory is proposed that these are two of the trumpets, signs of the apocalypse in the Book of Revelation. It is predicted the next murder will be in water, the third trumpet.
Well, the third victim, a corpulent and nearly albino monk who was flagellating himself earlier, is found in a bath of water, confirming the apolcalyptic predictions but also William's prediction that the killer has struck again, as the victim has a blackened tongue and finger.
The papal delegation arrives and they bring a special guest: Bernardo Gui of the Inquisition. William had sparred with this chap before, disagreeing in a heresy case, and was tortured and forced to recant his decision.
In the mean time, William's sidekick gets laid by a peasant girl who scrambles up daily to the abbey to trade sexual favors for a bit of food. She gets caught with Salvatore this time by Bernardo, in `flagrante delicto', as it were, with a black cockerel and a black cat. This proves, to his mind, that she is a witch.
William again contests the decision, and knows that the key to the whole mystery is a book written in Greek that men will kill for, or that the book itself kills. William and sidekick manage to get into the library, but encounter a labyrinth. They had found a clue in the form of a parchment with Greek written in lemon juice that gives the secret hiding place of the book. Just as they arrive, the old blind Yurgi is there with the book, and gives it William to read. William knows this is the lost book of Aristotle, on comedy. He is wearing a glove, and does not get poisoned when he would normally lick his finger to turn the page. Frustrated by this, Yurgi grabs the book and escapes, eating the pages as he goes. They ask him why is he afraid of a book? He says that laughter kills fear, and fear is needed, because we need to fear God. If we laugh at God, all will be chaos. At that point, they catch up with him, and he starts a fire in the library. The library goes up in flames, William is trapped inside and tries to save as many books as possible, then, as the hunchback and master and girl are about to be burned at the stake as heretics, the crowd of peasants saves the girl, and Bernardo gets killed as well.
William escapes the flames and he and sidekick ride off, and the whole account was written by sidekick when he was an old man.
Review.
The acting in the movie is excellent. Sean Connery puts on a convincing performance, and Christian Slater's debut is also very good. The directing is good as well, and the feel of the dark, and dank "Dark Ages" are brought to life in this dimly lit film. No sunny days, no blue skies, only cloudy and cold days in a mountaintop abbey are displayed.
I've read Umberto Eco's novel "The Name of the Rose" after seeing the film based on the novel. This is one of the few movies that remain quite faithful to the book. Of course the book is more detailed and quite long.
Movie Review: "Matted" widescreen didn't bother me; I love this film!
Summary: 5 Stars
I've been reading the pre-reviews of this DVD release with great interest. Some reviewers reported that it would be released in a standard pan-and-scan version, but the technical details on Amazon specified anamorphic widescreen. As it turns out, neither is apparently correct. The DVD case states that the film is presented in a "`matted' widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition, enhanced for widescreen TVs." I'm not sure exactly what this means, but since the director contributes both an audio commentary and an "all new photo video journey", I have to assume he was aware of the format in which his film would be presented on DVD. The DVD is not labeled as a "director's cut", but it's hard to believe he would have made such enthusiastic contributions to this release (he clearly loves the film) if he had been concerned that it was being butchered in its DVD incarnation.
In fairness to those who object to the format, I must confess that I never saw the film in the theater (it received terrible reviews, which I foolishly believed at the time). So my only prior exposure to it has been in full-screen TV presentations, which have also been cut to remove potentially offensive scenes. Thus, this release is so far superior to any I have seen that I am simply grateful to have it on DVD.
Regardless of the technical details, the video transfer struck me as being exceptionally clear and free from video noise or other problems often found in a film of this vintage. I did not notice any obvious cropping, either. One reviewer who actually has seen the DVD and still is unhappy with the format, complained about Sean Connery's head being lopped off at the top of the frame. I did not notice this, and viewers should keep in mind that close-up shots often require cropping. As for the assertion that the film had a claustrophobic feeling, that certainly was not the case in the many gorgeous panoramas of the mountains surrounding the abbey, or even of the grounds of the abbey itself. Many of the interior shots did have a closed-in feeling, but I attributed that to deliberate decisions by the director and design producer (the latter, by the way, is the same many who did production design for "Gangs of New York" and "Cold Mountain"). The monastery was a confined environment with small cells and long narrow common rooms, and it is appropriate for the cinematography to reflect that sense of confinement.
The audio track, remastered in Dolby 5.1, was generally quite clear, making good use of directional effects as well as the subwoofer.
As for the film itself, one of the main criticisms made when it was first released was that it did not adequately portray the novel upon which it's based. In a brief comment from Umberto Eco, the author of the book, he refers to the film as "the director's baby", and the book as "his baby". Clearly, this was not a collaborative effort between Eco and the film's director. In any case, it's a criticism that may be valid, but does not therefore mean the film itself is unworthy. I read the book and loved it, but I also love the film. The old cliché that a film can never be as good as a book is true, up to a point, but it's about as valid as saying that a photograph is never as good as the real-life subject it portrays. In both cases, the question should be "Is it a good film (or photograph) on its own merits?". In this case, I believe that it is.
The director uses a cast of supporting characters whose faces could have been from a Fellini film or a painting by Heironymus Bosch. In general, their facial quirks are consistent with their personalities. There is a gritty realism in the film, particularly in the scenes involving the common folk living in abject squalor and poverty, while the monks live in relative luxury. The film does not romanticize the medieval era, and it portrays a church that has become corrupted by the pursuit of power and wealth.
Sean Connery is totally believable as the visiting monk who begins an investigation of a series of grisly murders in the abbey. A young Christian Slater is convincing as Connery's novice; the director talks about the fact that Slater was in total awe of Connery and how this enhanced the dynamic between the two actors. Slater does have a somewhat befuddled expression on his face during the first half of the film, but that is exactly the sort of response one would expect from a young kid encountering the bizarre characters and equally bizarre incidents that keep popping up. It is also a perfect foil to Connery's sometimes aggravating self-assuredness.
For those who saw the film in its theatrical release and find the DVD format to be a disappointment, I certainly understand. But for the rest of us, I see no point in waiting to view this excellent film until such time as it may receive its ideal DVD release. I recommend it without reservation.
Movie Review: more than just an excellent medieval thriller
Summary: 5 Stars
At last this great film has been released on dvd.
A medieval monastery may not sound like a setting for a thriller, yet this is what Arnaud achieves. In the film (and in the book on which the film is based, sometimes losely) Brother William of Baskerville (played by Sean Connery), a Franciscan monk, is asked by the abbot of an abbey in North Italy early in the 14th century to investigate a suspicious death. During William's stay in the abbey, more suspicious deaths happen, which all seem to be connected. Although the monks seem inclined to blame the devil or other supernatural forces, William is the prototype of a rational person putting the pieces of the puzzle together. Thus William finds that the deaths have something to do with one or more books which are being copied by monks in the library of the monastery. But he is not allowed to see the books in question.
This is where this film starts to transcend being merely a very good thriller. The action happens early in the 1300s at a time when there is no printing yet and all manuscripts have to be laboriously copied, a process which can take years and obviously limits the distribution of books to extremely few (it was not untypical for a royal library in the Middle Ages to have only 10 books...). The typical place where books where copied was in monasteries.
Yet here comes the rub : from the 13th century onwards a number of writings by Greek philosophers, in particular Aristoteles (repeatedly referred to in the film), are being rediscovered in Europe (often via muslim scholars in Spain) after having been lost for more than a thousand years. Aristoteles had advocated that there is a rational anwer to everything. Aristoteles' main philosophical opponent (although he was a pupil) was Plato who argued that the human soul was separate from reality. Saint Augustine (354 - 386 A.D.), who probably shaped Christian beliefs more in the first millennium than anyone, had relied heavily on Plato to emphasise that what mattered was the soul, that trying to give a rational explanation to events was tantamount to denying that God created the World. The result was a Christianity which for more than a thousand years was averse to rational scientific discovery. Until Thomas Acquinas (1225 - 1274 A.D, - who is mentioned directly and indirectly in the film) wrote possibly the most influential book of the second millennium in the Western world, the Summa Theologica. The book, soon endorsed by the pope (who was a family member...) argued that there was nothing wrong with rationality, because the more we research the more we would find out how well God made the world and as a result we would be even more in awe of the Creation (it only took a few centuries for the Church and science to clash anyway, but by then the genie was out of the bottle).
The film The Name of the Rose depicts this most crucial of all times in Western civilisation when knowledge about rational Greek philosophies started to seep through where books were copied - in monasteries and other centers of knowledge - but was kept unknown or was fought in a futile rearguard action. This is where the latent conflict resides : the Church initially believed it had nothing to gain from rationality, a philosophy which would seek its own answers instead of accepting as gospel the Church teachings. William of Baskerville has clearly already been converted to rationality and is the prototype of the new rational Western man, but the authorities of the abbey, who have locked away copies of manuscripts by Aristoteles in a secret tower in the abbey, are resolutely hostile to its dissemination. William stands for science, rationality and fairness, while the old guard stands for superstition (belief in witches, that burning cleanses the soul etc...), inquisition etc...
If you want to know how and why the dark middle ages evolved into renaissance, this film, apart from being a damn good thriller and also probably the most authentic depiction of medieval life (Arnaud apparently went as far as extracting tooth filling from some actors to make them look more real medieval...), will give you the best introduction.
A must
Movie Review: ...stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus...
Summary: 5 Stars
Viewers may arrive to Jean-Jacques Annaud's film from different directions, and, consequently, have various opinions. For those who Umberto Eco's book was so good that they couldn't get enough of it, Annaud may be a little disappointing--it may be argued indeed that the film conceded too much to the movie-goer's taste and deviated from the book. Let's save this polemic for other fora...
For those viewers who like at least one of the following: (1) a good 'whodunnit' movie; (2) a credible transposition of the medieval church environment (i.e. Western European / Catholic) in film; (3) an intriguingly good film that captivates an open mind, regardless of educated props and such, this film is indeed an event. To the first point, suffice it to say this film keeps the plot the same as in the book--and a lot has been written about the latter. In support of the other points, I should say Annaud's film is an audio-visual delight that strives for authenticity and manages to achieve it quite well. The monastic environment where everything takes place is elaborately recreated with means such as the wonderful chorals performed by the actors themselves, medieval-styled clothing (make and fabric), lighting, replicas of medieval books, and so much more. Plenty of food for imagination!
There is one exception one may take from the approach in which the film's author decided to cast the characters. Despite their having distinct physiognomies, one may say, they are distinctively ugly. A matter of taste or maybe commerce? The two overlooked (indirect) advantages of such casting are well worth mentioning. Most actors were far away from mainstream, and they speak in an English accented by their own tongues. What a suggestive allusion to an environment in which Latin was spoken with accents!
The added benefit of this DVD, relative to the tape versions, comes with the inclusion of an interview with the director and details about how the film was made. One's appreciation of this film can only increase upon learning the details that went into making the film. I found only one aspect lacking: the quality of the digital image shows the film's date by missing digital remastering. Most probably, the producer of this version was tentative about its success--I hope they will reconsider and put more resources into it. Given its list-price, this DVD is well worth the money though!
...the rose of yesterday remains [only] through its name...
Movie Review: A dark gripping tale - a 12th century murder in an abbey
Summary: 5 Stars
Through the narrative of Adso (Christian Slater) at an old age, he recalled the enigma about the death of a young monk, illustrator Adelmo, in an abbey which took place at his youth. His then teacher, the intelligent William of Baskerville (Sean Connery), lent his previous onerous experiences to lead the investigation. Through the dialogue with his teacher, Adso learnt how wisdom, combined with acute observation and a wealth of knowledge, could eventually unravel the intriguing mystery. Sean Connery was superb; he was worldly and convincing as the wise teacher just as Christian Slater was young and innocent. The teacher was as shrewd as Sherlock Holmes but he was as loving and understanding to his protégé as he possibly could. They made a fine couple.
The creepy darkness and secretive air evoked by the whole film is visually enhanced by the abbey on a snowy mountain, the awesome library towers, the road that winded its way down the mountain and many strange images. The cast of the strange monks was so well chosen that they still leave vivid images in my mind after more than 20 years since I first saw it. The abbot, the old Venerable Jorge, the blind prophet Ubertino, the black Greek translator Venantius, the fat self inflicting assistant librarian Berenger, the stony libarian Malachia, the hunchback Salvatore.
Apart from the murder mystery, Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham, Amadeus) of the Inquisition represented the power which brother William was up against. The whole film evokes the thrill of discovering a dark secret in such dangerous waters, an era and hierarchy that even brother William could barely survive with all his wits. It also accentuates the essence of the mentor tradition in that era, building up a continuum of knowledge through William, then through Adso and so on.
What the movie lacked - lush colors - it more than made up for with its mix of danger, mystery and colorful portrayal of hideous human nature. It paid off handsomely to use unfamiliar faces for the mysterious characters; a wide pool of talents to choose from rather than limited to the existing big box office guarantee. A suspenseful tale back to its basics, with no frills (no overpowering special effects, computer animation and stars), it excels at the captivating story plot, wonderful cast and acting. A truly successful adaption of the Umberto Eco's novel, in spirit at least.