The Name of the Rose

This is a DVD so the purpose is obvious. I was happy to find a new copy available. It was an important book and a beautifully made film with Sean Connery and a very young Christian Slater in his first role. Some tough scenes but then the Medival era could be a cruel and vicious time. Those in power would do anything to keep it. Connery's character wanted to improve the lives of the those under that power. Very noble and advanced thinking.

I never saw this film in the theatre. I saw it on TV many years ago and was enchanted with the medieval setting. I just recently got the DVD when I remembered the movie due to discussion of the book on an internet board I post on.All I can say is that I am in awe of the work done by the director in bringing the book to the screen. The visuals alone express exactly the sense and the setting that Eco took pages and pages of info dump to allude to.The size of the whole complex with small poorly clad men scuttling over it at the mercy of the weather accurately places man (in the understanding of the time) between cruel and capricious nature (i.e.: godlessness) and being dwarfed by the immense buildings dedicated to god, which represent his power and importance in the world, and the puny stature of man.The dark interiors, lit only by fire highlight the fear, superstition and lack of education and outside contact that the average 'simple' person had. It made real the poverty and the terror and the precarious hold on life the people had, and how they would grasp at anything that promised safety and salvation. How it was so easy to believe in demons, and witches and other physical manifestations of their hard life. The strange look of the monks also represents the difficulty of surviving unscathed by disease, or accident.At the ending of the medieval period the church had grown into a fat, rich, bloated institution more interested in temporal matters, and internal minutia (angels dancing on the head of a pin) than on acting as shepherds to god's flock.The movie shows the Benedictine monks, the caretakers of the monastery and local flock, as those who started with a good heart, yet who uphold the status quo in fear rather than love. Because the times have changed, the flock's needs have multiplied, and the monks have not, they end up going through the motions of the religious life during the day, with venality creeping in during the dark hours: Greed, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Acquisitiveness, and Selfishness.Rather than copy and disburse books to uplift the darkness they hide them away, and prevent the spread of learning; keeping the knowledge as secret treasure for the select within the monastery. There are gradations of the select within the walls, leaving the monks in competition to become 'more select', rather than focusing on the needs of their flock, and god's work. All they do is dump refuse through their sewer and make the people scramble like animals to survive.This is the setting upon which the future role of the church and god's place in man's affairs is to be debated, in the guise of the question `was Jesus poor? ` Where the regular church people are too afraid of change, and being branded heretics, yet no longer can really believe in the simple answers and rituals of the past, or rely on their superiors for good guidance.The papal delegation, the Dominicans, are rich, fat, and far above the ordinary life of the monks or the 'simple' peasants. They do not wish to give up the wealth, the life of luxury, the ability to satisfy every personal whim, and the temporal power over kings, states, and the simple peasants that the current state of the church bestows on them. Within their ranks is an Inquisitor, the judge, and jury they use to keep any who question them in line, with threats of torture, horrible death, and damnation. They use the Inquisitor to stamp out those who have drunk at the deadly cup of ancient knowledge and who are beginning to question and think for themselves.The Franciscans are the group who represent change, the desire to be free of the trappings of the past, who want to minister to the needs of the people both physical and spiritual and leave power and wealth to Caesar. They are concerned about the good and bad of the knowledge that can lead one to sin, but they are not all the same and not all want the books hidden or destroyed. Some believe that using the reason god gave them, they will find more to worship the creator for. Though their oldest member, Ubertino shows that they come from the same past as the Benedictines.The deaths and murders in the monastery are the outward manifestation of unease, sin, and the breakdown of real belief in the past solutions the church is preaching. Enter William of Baskerville, and his young novice, who represent the coming of the renaissance, the coming of reason, knowledge and enlightenment. They move within the rhythms of the monastery, while staying true to their own beliefs. They try to set the wrongs to right, and move the Benedictines to open their library and disburse the knowledge they hoard, while winning the dispute with the papal legation, and ultimately staying alive. In some they are successful, and in some they are not - much like life.I can't give the movie 5 stars, because too little time and context was set up so that the viewer who had not read the book would understand what the debate stood for, and what the Greek book stood for. Without those clues, the movie seems a lot of to-do about some really trivial matters, yet they are still issues we are struggling with today. This is a movie that you can watch over and over, and pick up and revel in all the details, as well as the wonderful performances. There are some who think Gui, and Salvatore are over the top, but in fact they are needed as they show real human passion escaping from the control of a repressed setting. The sex scene is also needed for the story and really rather beautiful.The movie actually led me to read the book, and I think that those who complain about the movie being different don't understand that the movie must be visual, and that what they think is lacking in the story is mostly presented in the visuals. I agree with the director who said The Name of The Rose is a bestseller which most who purchase don't read, and that if you can read and understand the book, you can also understand and appreciate the movie. The quibble about the ending is really a matter of your preference for the tone, hopeful, or not.The director's commentary and the documentary on the making of the movie are very good, as is the director's photo tour. The music, sets, lighting, and cinematography are magnificent.

To enjoy

The Movie - For some reason or other, I am rarely aware of symbolism and hidden meanings. However, when I saw this film, I recognized that there was something here that went far beyond the murder mystery story. My feeling was so strong that I was prompted to buy and read the book! In fact, I will be using the same review for the book.Other reviewers have provided in depth descriptions of the film, so I will keep mine brief. I evaluate films and plays, actors and actresses, based on the BELIEVABILITY of the script, roles, scenery, costumes and ACTING. Here, Sean Connery, forever James Bond in my 65 year old mind or a submarine captain in HFRO, BECOMES a 13th century Franciscan monk! (Of course, this comment speaks volumes about Connery's acting ability!) His novice, a 15-16 year old Christian Slater IS a novice monk full of questions and the exploding emotions of a male on the verge of manhood. The casting, direction and acting, in general, were superb! The costuming, including what must have been a TERRIBLY itchy natural wool monk's robe for Connery, and the scenery and structures were done to perfection. The lighting and camera work were also, in my opinion, done perfectly.However, IF you read the book BEFORE you see the movie, you MUST understand that the director, Jean-Jacques Annaud, as stated in one of the DVD's special features, NEVER intended to duplicate the book. He wanted to create a movie based on the book, but DIFFERENT. Umberto Eco, author of the book, similarly comments! Do NOT expect the movie to duplicate the book. BUT, enjoy the movie for what it is!The movie is, primarily, a murder mystery - and well done at that! The book, which I purchased through Amazon.com and have read, is a murder mystery on its face, but a MUCH deeper discussion of theology and philosophy. A description of the battles for power between the Papacy and royalty as well as corruption at the highest levels of The Church. These issues are barely mentioned in the movie. In fact, the basis for the conclave and negotiations between Franciscans and the Vatican are a very minor aspect of the movie! Although, the movie does visually provide context for the idea that the monks lived well from what the Church extracted from the peasants, who lived in squalor. There is one scene in which the monks open a sluice gate in the Abbey, high above the "village" of the peasants. The monks pour their GARBAGE through the sluice gate down to the starving peasants who provided the monks' food in the first place.BTW - Be sure to watch ALL the Special Features of the DVD. They are well worth the time.The Book - As noted above, I first saw the movie based on the recommendation of an instructor in a religion course. In my sixth decade, I have developed an interest in the history of Christianity. While the movie barely alludes to differences in philosophy between various Christian religious orders, the book delves into these issues with gusto. Differences in philosophy between Franciscans and Benedictines, for example, are explored in the book. The concept that the Vatican felt threatened by monks who professed a belief in POVERTY based on THEIR interpretation of the Christian bible are also explored.The book discusses questions of Church infallibility. Many philosophical contributions of "infidels" and Greek authors, such as Aristotle, are mentioned and discussed. Did Christ laugh? Is laughter evil? Jorge, the old, blind monk, says that Christ did NOT laugh. Connery's character responds asking how Jorge knows this. Jorge observes that the Christian bible never says that Christ laughed. Connery's character retorts that the Christian bible SIMILARLY does NOT say that Christ did NOT laugh!The larger question concerns poverty and how Christ lived as contrasted with the wealth of the Church, "stolen" from the peasants. I believe that this issue stands today in the face of opulent houses of worship (of ALL faiths) created from tithing from people who can barely afford to care for their own families!The book is 502 FASCINATING pages. Unfortunately, it is scattered with bits and phrases of Latin. Fortunately, Adele Haft has written "The Key to the Name of the Rose," which I have purchased by not yet read!I highly recommend BOTH the book and the movie with the understanding that they are, BY INTENT, quite different!

Mich nerven diese Angebote auf amazon, wo man sich tief ins Kleingedruckte reinlesen muss, wenn man nach der Suche "Der Name der Rose Blu-Ray" ein Ergebnis angezeigt bekommt.Das ist Kundenvera*****.

The Name of the Rose is a 1986 Italian-French-German mystery historical drama film directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, based on the novel of the same name by Umberto Eco. Sean Connery stars as the Franciscan friar William of Baskerville, called upon to solve a deadly mystery in a medieval abbey, and Christian Slater is his apprentice Adso of Melk.Not a bad adaption of the book by Umberto Eco, the only thing that lets this down is the happy ending and the other themes missing from the adaption which hopefully were coved in the TV series early this year and is also available on DVD, but I actually found it quite entertaining in just for the guts and gore.

I was curious to see how this story would translate to a movie.I have to say, I enjoyed it way more than the actual book. Excellent production values and a stroke of geniusto caste Sean Connery as the Franciscan monk - he made the role his own (as always) but was completely believable in the part. Great direction, good supporting caste.Made the whole thing more realistic and thereby all the more horrific - bad time for humanity (is there any other kind).

This is a true story from the 13 hundreds found in Melk under the abbey in the 18 hundreds translated into German from latin. Found or refound in the 1970s and converted into English and everybody freaked out when reading it, and made this film, which is sort of like the book. But as usually the book is loads better. The original Sherlock Holmes from the colourful darkage.

The disc cannot be recognised by UK blu-ray players. Interestingly, the packaging does not specify to which region it belongs, but the disc itself has the number "6" on it, suggesting it's actually a DVD from China, considering blu-ray regions are A, B or C while DVD regions are numeric 0-8.