Skip to main content

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose
(1986)

(SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “a nice movie”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “I hate this book and I hope you hate it too”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “superior” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Annaud was a self-confessed medieval buff. He ensured authenticity was everything for his production, right down to grotesques out of Bruegel (and Bosch and Dore). I found this aspect entrancing on first viewing; the creation of an entirely immersive, foreboding world of centuries past. There’s a sense of danger and hesitancy everywhere, of fear of saying or intimating the wrong thing, even before F Murray Abraham’s inquisitor Bernado Gui rides in.

William: The only evidence I see of the devil is everyone’s desire to see him at work.

Presiding over the proceedings is Sean Connery, in the second of his 1986 career-resuscitating roles (the first being the also medieval, partly, Highlander). His William of Baskerville may have been modelled after Sherlock Holmes by Eco – hence the name – but there’s a vulnerability here we don’t see in the infallible Baker Street sleuth; William, we learn, was previously subjected to a charge of heresy by Gui and imprisoned (he recanted his “crime”). As poised and authoritative as Connery is in the role, he lends William an air of regret and failure, and of being unable to stand up to the ignorant dolts who would condemn the entire world to a state of regress.

Intrinsic to this is the nature of the murders themselves; they revolve around a rare text, one monks at the Benedictine abbey are keen to read, inevitably losing their lives as a consequence and frequently with blackened fingers. Their ranks are populated by such striking visages as Ron Perlman (with added hunchback as Salvatore), William Hickey (Ubertino de Casale) Michael Habeck (obese Berengar) and Feodor Chaliapin Jr (the blind Venerable Jorge de Burgos). Along with one-time Bond villain, the recently deceased Michael Lonsdale as the intimidated abbot. Christian Slater is very good as William’s innocent novice Adso of Melk, absent the ticks and grin that would characterise his roles from a few years hence. That he doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb is a commendation (in contrast to Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, where everybody does).

Life in 1327 Italy is unforgiving enough without the hotbed of repressions, dark thoughts, dark deeds (sandals in the snow!) And then Gui shows up brandishing torture and burnings at the stake. It’s been suggested that Annaud opts for a “preposterously happy ending” but I don’t think it’s really such a sore (or black) thumb. Yes, it’s unlikely that the peasant girl should escape the stake (she earlier initiated Adso, so she gets a sympathy vote). Additionally so that Gui should meet an unfortunate end at the hands of revolting peasants (falling off a cliff and then getting impaled no less; I can only assume Joel Silver was taking notes). But in context of the grisliness going on, the first comes merely as a relief and the second just seems par for the course. I wouldn’t overstate the sunny turn.

William: All three died because of a book which kills, or for which men will kill.

William’s rational man riding a sea of superstition and ignorance makes for a powerfully compelling screen hero, the sort you’d like to see on further adventures (his learning enables a broad philosophy, betraying an easy-going tolerance of other viewpoints, such as in his assessment of Adso’s carnal encounter). As it is, the rising body count proves him right, but it’s the exploration of the labyrinth that really seizes the attention and imagination. It’s presented as an almost Escher-esque warren of stairs and disorientating, deceptive distances, above, below and around. It’s here that Aristotle’s Second Book of Poetics has been hidden, a rather innocuous volume for so much slaughter (Eco’s little joke – Jorge, behind it all, considers laughter a sin (“Can we laugh at God? The world would relapse into chaos”).

William: Have you ever known a place where God would have felt at home?

In William’s debates with his fellow monks, and up-against it attempts to invoke reason, there’s a powerful sense of a world of easily-buried truth and more so history. So making The Name of the Rose feel like a very relevant and current movie. Arbitrary rules and verdicts are enforced to maintain a prevailing narrative, and the punishment for speaking out is such that few ever do; if denounced, they tend to recant quickly. William’s yen is for “spiritually dangerous books”, but it may as well be for simple truth in a world gone mad.

The Name of the Rose didn’t muster much business in the US, but still made the equivalent of $182m (inflation-adjusted) globally. It’s that rare latter-day hit with a seamlessly integrated international cast. It also fetched Connery a BAFTA in the same year he snagged an Oscar for The Untouchables. It’s undoubtedly true that the subtleties of Eco’s novel are frequently lost (for example, Annaud’s camera seeks out the significance of the celestial orb used to kill Severinus, yet we’re aren’t to know its relation to the Seven Trumpets of The Book of Revelation). I’m of the view that the cinematic world Annaud conjures is so rich, so atmospheric and evocative, it more than makes up for any populist shortfalls. And no, I’m not going to watch the TV adaptation.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.