NAME OF THE ROSE, THE (Name der Rose, Der) (director: Jean-Jacques Annaud; screenwriter: Andrew Birkin/ Gérard Brach/Howard Franklin/Alain Godard/based on the novel by Umberto Eco; cinematographer: Tonino Delli Colli; cast: Sean Connery (William of Baskerville), F. Murray Abraham (Bernardo Gui), Christian Slater (Adso of Melk), Elya Baskin (Severinus), Feodor Chaliapin Jr. (Jorge de Burgos), William Hickey (Ubertino de Casale), Michael Lonsdale (The Abbot), Ron Perlman (Salvatore), Valentina Vargas (The Girl), Michael Habeck (Berengar), Peter Berling (Jean d'Anneaux), Helmut Qualtinger (Remigio de Varagine), Volker Prechtel (Malachia), Dwight Weist (The Voice of Adso as an Old Man), 1986- West Germany / Italy / France)
Reviewed by Dennis Schwartz
William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) and his novice, Adso of Melk (Christian Slater), arrive in 1327 in a remote Benedictine abby of northern Italy. The abby is a gloomy place with secret passages and dark corridors; it is located on top of a steep hill, and the first news these two Franciscan brothers who are guests of the abbott (Lonsdale) hear, is that one of the monks mysteriously died. So begins this gothic mystery, based on Umberto Eco's witty novel.
William is an intellectual, possessing a razor-sharp wit, with a Sherlock Holmes approach to deducing mysteries in a rational manner, and a dark secret from his past. He is asked to investigate by the abbot, what turns out to be a series of murders. Everyone could be considered a suspect in this monastery, a place that is dedicated to eliminating laughter and any joy there is in life, all in the name of keeping God as someone to be feared. For the monks, without fear there would be no reason to believe in God. All the monks look grotesque and devilish, their tonsured heads make them look as if they were hired straight from a Fellini film. They are a superstitious lot and believe that the devil is responsible for the crimes.
When his dumbfounded novice is revolted by this place, William wryly comments, "Have you ever known a place where God would have felt at home?"
The story is chaotically told, making it difficult to keep track of what exactly is happening. After one monk is found dead at the base of the tower, William thinks that is a suicide. When another is found in a vat of blood, another drowned in a wine vat-- and all of the victims bear an ink stain on their forefinger and tongue, he knows these new deaths are murders. Through this real monastery, which looks as if it were designed by the artist M. C. Escher, William of Baskerville stealthily moves about this labyrinth, proudly showing off to his novice the great wealth of knowledge he has accumulated. The best scene in the film was when William and his novice were lost in this maze, where banned books were secretly stored and kept out of circulation to the rest of the monks and to the world. They are looking for a Greek book about comedy written by Aristotle, in this secretive library, which William gleefully says, is probably the greatest one in the world.
If only the telling of the story wasn't such a clumsy venture and the identity of the killer so easy to solve, this could have been a more enjoyable film. Sean Connery is charismatic and though an odd choice to play the lead, if you can suspend your disbelief in him as a book lover to the extreme, and see him more like a modern sleuth, then his characterization seems to be a humorous one. Though, I still think this part would have been better served by someone who was a bit more quirky. He reminded me too much of his James Bond persona, which was a definite clash with the medieval scenario he was placed in.
The story picks up steam when the Grand Inquisitor (F. Murray Abraham), played with a relish for wickedness, arrives to solve the mystery. It turns out he had a conflict with William many years ago over an inquisitional matter. It then becomes a duel of wits between the narrow-minded inquisitor and the rational William, who is faced with the danger of being accused as a heretic himself, as William challenges the Grand Inquisitor's decision to hold a trial for those he believes are innocent.
All the evils of the church: its greed, its arguments for getting rich while its worshippers remain poor, the Inquistion, the monastery as a place for superstition to flourish, the doom and gloom of monastic religion, are all portrayed with accuracy. But the weakness inherent in the film, is in the dullness of the characters (looks aside) and the story itself is bereft of the wit the author gave it in its printed word. When the powerful apocalyptic finale comes and the monastery is in flames, it is too late to save the film. Just like William saved only a few valuable books from the fire, the viewer can cherish only a few scenes that were irresistible, and thereby may come away only somewhat satisfied.
The film has a voiceover (Dwight Weist) from the novice now grown to be an old man, who remembers the lessons his master taught him, but he even has a more vivid image of the filthy wench (Vargas) who deflowered him, the only time in his life he experienced such earthly pleasures.
REVIEWED ON 3/8/2000 GRADE: C+
Dennis Schwartz: "Ozus' World Movie Reviews"
http://www.sover.net/~ozus
ozus@sover.net
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DENNIS SCHWARTZ
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews