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

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.