THE NAME OF THE ROSE

Confession time. This is one of the rare cases where I actually decided to watch the film instead of reading the book. Umberto Eco is a great writer. The book is a great book. I just couldn’t read it for some reason. My mother faithfully proclaims I probably was not in the mood for it. It could be true. And I should probably try and read the book again someday if only because it is such a classic. Oh, and because I enjoyed the story so much. With a director like Jean Jacques Annaud (whose filmography is short but consists of films like L’amant, Seven Years in Tibet and my particular favourite, Ennemy At the Gate) and starring Sean Connery no less, the film is a fine substitute. But I come from a family of academics you see so… Ehm. Moving on.

It is the year 1327, and the political atmosphere is tense. There is a rift between the catholic church and the various religious orders, especially the Franciscans monks, on the matter of whether or not the church should actually rid itself of wealth or not. The matter will be decided in a debate between representatives of both sides in a Benedictine monastery – neutral ground as it were. The thing is, the monastery is playing host to rather more sinister happenings than the debate. Days before the debate is about to take place, a murder, which turns out to be the first of a series of murders, takes place in the monastery. As the unexplained, violent deaths pile up, the monks are convinced that true evil roams the monastery and that the end of the world is nigh. One monk, William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) one of the Franciscans who had arrived for the debate disagrees. He is pretty sure the murders can be explained in a lot more worldly and logical fashion, however proving this – without causing a massive political scandal in an already tense atmosphere – is going to be tricky. Very tricky.

Now, as I said, I am not sure about the book. The film however, has a “double layer” thing going on. There is a very interesting debate about religion and the church, although this does not become evident in the film until the second half, when more of the Franciscan order and the representatives of the Vatican get together. It will ultimately tie into the finale of the film and play a large part in the conclusion but it is not first and foremost. I think this is a good thing, especially in this day and age when religion is such a touchy subject. The film reels you in, in the first half, with a good old fashioned murder mystery, with a good old fashioned protagonist /detective at the helm, looking for the murderer. And the whole mystery is so well set out that honestly, by the time you get to the religion part of things you are just too curious about the whole story to get completely disinterested with it. William of Baskerville is my favourite kind of detective. I admire him especially because, unlike the CSI’s of present day murder mysteries, he is NOT armed with a plethora of technical gadgets, just his mind, his rationality. And the explanations he finds make complete rational sense. They are actual things you could see with your own eyes. Unlike, for example, the modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes (the Benedict Cumberbach – Martin Freeman version). Now, there as well Sherlock Holmes uses almost only his mind. But he has to be a genius and a bit of sociopath to achieve what he achieves. Martin Freeman’s Watson sets this off very nicely, you cannot be a normal person, no matter how bright and well educated, and achieve what Holmes achieves, you have to be special. Not so with William of Baskerville. He is observant, yes. Intelligent, yes. Well read, definitely. But by no stretch of the imagination is he “superhuman” like Holmes. You could actually aspire to be him. And this makes him far more approachable and easy to identify with. We even have the character of Adso – his novice (a very young Christian Slater!). Adso is learning, a bright lad with faults like the rest of us. He serves the purpose of “being explained to” in our place from time to time, but also, we can easily identify with him too. And aspire to be like Baskerville one day.

Lastly, can we see this as “the victory of the mind and the rational over the superstition of religion” as it were? Why yes. But what is the fun of a philosophical debate if it isn’t meaty enough to chew on? And I mean, come on, there’s a juicy murder mystery thrown in too! How can you possibly resist?