the Name of the Rose

[lester1/2jr]

      I was really into this for some reason.  It had Sean Connery and Christian Slater at some abbey in the middle of Europe in the dark ages.  There was actually a good nude scene featuring the only woman (girl really) in the cast!  But mainly it's a detective story about some mysterious deaths with a sub plot about the inquisition and fun stuff like that.  brutal!

[Mofo Rising]

I'm in the middle of the book, which is really good but dense as hell.  I'm guessing the movie doesn't have long digressions into the state of the Catholic church.  Heck, I've even got another book that translates the non-english phrases in the book for me.  I've heard that Umberto Eco wrote the first hundred pages of book just to scare off readers who wouldn't enjoy the book.

I saw the movie, but that was about 10 years ago.  I'll probably watch it again when I finish the book, which won't be soon.

[peter johnson]

Brilliant film/brilliant book --
Sir William of Baskerville . . . Now if this isn't tipping the hand on the very first page that this is going to be a Sherlock Holmes/detective story, I don't know what else would . . . maybe the scene 3 or 4 pages in wherein Brother William uses Holmes' techniques of observation to convince the monastic guards that he's just worked some kind of miracle, re. the missing horse.
It's Mediaeval Conan Doyle!!
Rather than be put off, I think if you're any sort of bibliophile you're immediately sucked in, rather than repelled, in the first 100 pages.
Loved the film -- been too long since I saw it.  Yes, it was, of necessity, stripped down, but I thought they got the bare-bones jist of Eco's philosophical argument pretty damn good for a 2 hour picture.
Hell, if they were shooting the book for real, it would be Lord of The Rings 9 hours again.
peter johnson/denny crane

[Scott]

Yep, this is a very good movie. It's a murder mystery set in medievel times with monks, libraries, and forbidden romance. Really enjoyed this film.

[Neville]

It's a neat film, but I couldn't enjoyed it. I saw it first as a kid, and couldn't barely remember it, so I took my time with the book, which is very particular but very rewarding, and then felt the movie was too different. Most of the backgorund is ditched in favour of the murder mistery, and even it felt to me quite difficult to follow.

SPOILERS ON BOTH BOOK AND MOVIE FOLLOW

The worst part was the ending, which clearly betrays the book and any reasonable History notion. The ending in the book is very, very good precisely because it deals with everything in a very realistic way: nothing (or little) is solved, and most of the characters are defeated in some way. Instead, the movie tries too hard to provide a happy ending at any cost, and it is simply ridiculous.

[Gerry]

Count me as another fan of the book.  It wasn't an easy read, but well worth it.  The ending of the book is much better than the ending of the movie.

[lester1/2jr]

what are the differences?

[Neville]

SPOILERS GALORE.

In the book, the inquisitor Bernardo Gui imposes his fanatism over William, stopping his investigation and punishing whoever he thinks responsible. The members of the abbey, afraid to enrage Gui, give him full support and deny William any merit on the solution on the mistery, leaving his position in the church at stake. William solves the mistery in the last minute, but can't avoid many of the main characters (including the young prostitute who Adso is in love with) from being killed and the abbey burned to ashes. Is it clear that the church, from now on, will abandon any attempt to rationalise the world and that dark times arise for the free-thinkers like William. He and Adso are separated.

In the film, William solves the mistery in the last minute but cannot help some main characters from being killed and the abbey being burned to ashes. Adso's love interest, though, is spared, and the villagers revolt against Bernardo Gui's inquisitorial regime and kill him, thus earning, we are led to imagine, some freedom in the future. Adso, despite being tempted again by the young girl he loves, decides to follow path with William as his teacher. We are led to believe that freedom will reign in the region, and that William is somehow victorious.

[LH-C]

<>

Really? I got the idea and feeling that things were going to continue as they had been going - very badly, and that whatever victory William had was personal and almost inconsequential in the end.

[Neville]

(assuming you speak of the movie)

SPOILERS AGAIN (Don't say I didn't warn you).

It may be the way you say, after all I'm offering my own interpretation of the ending. However, if it is the way you say, why killing the character of Bernardo Gui? It seemed to me they did all they could to transform it into a happy (or at least less thraumatic) ending. Not to mention the whole thing about sparing the life of the young prostitute, which makes the following events in Adso's life not as a result of fate, but of a personal decision.

[lester1/2jr]

I'vebeen listening to some "early music"  the type featured in the movie.  One called "gothic voices" (hehe) and "voices of the blood"  all written by a woman named hildegaard van bingen.  I'd highly recommend them.

[peter johnson]

Yes, I love old Hildegard -- she was quite prolific --
I spent some time in Bingen a while back -- lots of folk over there keep her music alive -- all "von Bingen" means is "from the town of Bingen".

* * * *
Yet another thing I love about the board is how much people here read -- now I know I have to re-read this book.  My memory of it, apart from the Sherlock Holmes references, is that the plot hinged on the destruction of Aristotle's Meditation on Comedy, and that his was a mechanistic analysis that denied God, so it was the physical fact of the existence of the book itself more than the philosophical underpinnings that drove the murders.
Not to say anyone's analysis here is faulty -- I say:  I have to read this again -- Thanks for the tips!
peter johnson/denny crane

[BoyScoutKevin]

You remember the both the book and the film, better then I do, Neville. While I enjoyed the film, the book was better (IMHO) Lord knows the filmmakers tried, but, when you have a book that runs 500 to 700 pages (depending upon the edition) and is so complex, you cannot fit all that into a two-hour film (more or less.) The book cries out for a television miniseries. Though, I did like the casting of Sean Connery and Christian Slater.

Which is my way of getting around to saying, if you enjoy medieval murder mysteries, then you might also enjoy "The Reckoning," which is based upon the book "Morality Play" by Barry Unsworth.

A defrocked priest (Paul Bettany) comes upon a troupe of traveling actors (lead by William Dafoe.) He travels with them to the next town, where they come upon a deaf-mute woman being tried for the robbery-murder of one of the local teenage boys. Several who have disappeared that year.

As in the case of all such things, the woman may not be guilty, and the town may be sheltering something much worst then a murderer or even a serial killer.

While inferior as a mystery, the killer becomes known, when the bite marks are found, it is superior , at least the film is, as an intellectual discussion  on the . . .

nature of guilt vs. the nature of redemption
reason vs. religion
the old religion vs. the new religion
doing what is politically expedient vs. doing what is correct
the duty of a man, both as dutiful son and dutiful father (etc.)

Which arguments still resonate to this day, some 625 years later.

It is also, for those who have an interest in the history of medieval plays and players, a wonderful look how medieval plays were written, staged, and acted.

* * * out of * * * *. Check it out.

[Neville]

Thanks, I'll check it out if I ever have the oportunity. Sounds interesting, and it's always good to see Willem Dafoe in something deeper than, say, "Speed 2".

[BoyScoutKevin]

I think you'll enjoy it, Neville. One thing I did forget to mention, much of the film was apparently shot at an abandoned gold mine in Spain. Maybe you'll recognize it.