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.




Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.