the Name of the Rose

[Flangepart]

So just what IS the name of the Rose?
Murial? Debra? Elouise Throckmorton?

[odinn7]

Flangepart wrote:

> So just what IS the name of the Rose?
> Murial? Debra? Elouise Throckmorton?
>

Bob

[Wence]

The Name of the Rose is a great movie. A good mix of history and fiction. Even old and white-haired Connery is a great actor.
I watched it three times up to now and I´m sure I´ll watch it again when itcomes on TV.

[Mofo Rising]

peter johnson wrote:

> 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
>

**MASSIVE SPOILERS**
Well, it was not that Aristotle denied God, but rather in having written a book about comedy "the Philospher" elevated laughter into the realm of debate.  The blind Jorge hated laughter and believed that only through fear could God be venerated and law be maintained.  Laughter negates fear, but nobody takes it seriously (mug).  However, if Aristotle, who is the intellectual champion of the world wrote a book about it. . . well all higgledy-piggledy breaks loose.  At least, that's what Jorge thinks and is why he killed most of those people.

Neville wrote:
> most of the characters are defeated in some way.

I'll say.  Eco leads William into a real crisis of faith, not only in God but in the power of deductive reasoning.  "It's hard to accept the idea that there cannot be an order in the universe because it would offend the free will of God and His omnipotence."  It's a quandary only a professor of semiotics could love.  (Okay, I enjoyed it too, I just had to write that last line.)

My quibbles with the movie: Yes, the ending.  Silly.  Most of the movie is missing the complexity of the book for very necessary reasons, but there really was no need to rewrite the end to that extent simply for a feel-good ending.  Also, why did they turn Berenger into such a freak?  He's no angel in the book, but a bald, fat, self-flagellating, flaming pederast ?  Wha?

Two big thumbs up: Now this is a movie filled with ugly people.  If you see a finer collection of hideous looking people, let me know.  I can imagine the director just off camera yelling, "Bring me more ugly people!  By God, they must be in every frame!"

In conclusion, not a bad movie at all.  But the book is something else.  Read the book.

[Wence]

Mofo Rising wrote:
 
> Two big thumbs up: Now this is a movie filled with ugly people.
>  If you see a finer collection of hideous looking people, let
> me know.  I can imagine the director just off camera yelling,
> "Bring me more ugly people!  By God, they must be in every
> frame!"

Yes, it was cool that they showed most of the protagonists like they might have looked like in the middle ages.
Ok, we don´t know how the people of that time really looked like, but it was definitely no model show.