MPAA Rating: R/Genre: Historical Mystery/Stars: Sean Connery, F. Murray Abraham, Christian Slater, Helmut Qualtinger, Elya Baskin, Michael Lonsdale, Volker Prechtel, Feodor Chaliapin Jr., William Hickey, Michael Habeck, Valentina Vargas, Ron Perlman, Leopoldo Trieste, Franco Valobra, Vernon Dobtcheff, Donal O’Brian, Andrew Birkin, Lucien Bodard, Peter Berling, Pete Lancaster, Urs Althaus, Lars Bodin-Jorgensen, Kim Rossi Stuart; Voice of: Dwight Weist/Runtime: 131 minutes
Among the many ingredients that can cause a slice of cinema to either succeed beyond all imagining, become a complete and utter catastrophe that should never be discussed let alone viewed, or just be like Magikarp from Pokémon’s Splash attack and simply have no effect whatsoever there is one that I don’t think we as filmgoers take into account as often as perhaps we should. That being the choices made in terms of the cast which is assembled to bring the assorted characters within the story being told to life. Of course, there are moments where an unusual casting choice is made that just reading the name of the actor beside the character that they’re playing is immediately sure to leave you with a feeling of impending doom. Or at least that’s what I would expect audiences to either feel or have felt when they see that Western icon John Wayne at one time took on the task of portraying Genghis Kahn (no seriously), Mickey Rooney decided to play an Asian man in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Emma Stone played a woman who is half Chinese and half Hawaiian in Aloha, or Jesse Eisenberg found himself not even remotely being able to fill the shoes of one of the most iconic DC Comics supervillains (Lex Luthor) in Zach Snyder’s Batman v. Superman among other examples respectively. At the same time though, there are also more than just a tad bit unorthodox casting choices that have also worked out incredibly well. I mean yes one of the most famous (albeit also tragic) has to be the casting of Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight, but I also think Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack Sparrow, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, and even Daniel Craig as James Bond would definitely fit this particular billing also to name but a few. Perhaps this is why when a friend of mine recently told me about a movie I had to check out where Sean Connery, not exactly a stranger to being unusually cast thanks to his iconic turn as Juan Sánchez-Villalobos Ramírez in the first Highlander film, played a Franciscan monk entangled in a murder mystery in 1320’s Italy. Yet while at first I thought my friend, who has a noteworthy history of being quite the practical joker, was giving me his best prank yet, I decided to humor him and look into this for myself. Imagine my shock then to tell you that not only was my friend being on the level with me (for once), but that the movie in question, and slice of cinema I happen to be reviewing for you today incidentally, known as The Name of the Rose is one that actually turns out to be not that bad all things considering? To be sure, it is not a perfect film in any way, but with the aid of solid efforts on both sides of the camera, The Name of the Rose is still one cinematic puzzler that manages to succeed in being both thought-provoking and fairly engaging in equal measure.
The plot is as follows: An adaptation of a 1980 novel of the same name by Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose gets its mysterious tale underway by taking us to a Benedictine abbey (or monastery if you prefer) located in Northern Italy in the long-ago year of 1327. It is here where we quickly meet our two main characters in the form of a Franciscan friar named William of Baskerville and his young apprentice Adso of Melk as they are just arriving at the abbey to take part in an important theological discussion on a vital topic within the Church namely that of if it should rid itself of all the wealth that it has managed to accumulate. Yet no sooner have they arrived than we do witness as an important request is made of them by the more than slightly on pins and needles Abbot in charge of the abbey. It seems that a young member of the congregation within the abbey’s walls has, for all outward appearances, taken his own life by taking a plunge from a tower to the rocks below and the Abbot would like William, known (or notorious dependent on the perspective of the individual talking about it) for being in possession of an incredibly deductive and analytical mindset, to covertly look into the matter to see if there is a more rational explanation beyond that of something a bit more….unnatural if you catch my drift. Yet as William and Adso begin their investigation, we see that (surprise surprise) not only do they find themselves being stonewalled by several key figures in the leadership hierarchy, but also that it isn’t long before more people within the monastery’s walls begin to start dying in a variety of mysterious ways thus sending the clergy even further into a panic. As a result, and despite William’s repeated insistences that what is going on is not tied in any way to demonic possession/the end of days, we soon see that a member of the Holy Inquisition, the judicial arm of the Church at this time in history, is swiftly summoned not only for the conference at hand, but to also find the guilty parties responsible for and put a firm stop to this matter by any means necessary. A decision that proves to be more than a tad bit on the problematic side for our heroes since not only does the member of the Inquisition who shows up, that being one Bernardo Gui, have a bit of unpleasant history with William, but because Bernardo’s also known for being the kind to always push his own theories with no regard for either any evidence to the contrary to say nothing of the possibility that there might be another explanation. Thus, and with time no longer their staunch ally, can our dynamic duo make their way to the heart of this matter, expose the guilty parties responsible for these atrocities, and (hopefully) avoid the iron clad wrath of Gui in the process? That is something that I will let you uncover for yourself….
Now right off, it should be said that the work done by the various departments operating behind the camera might not be the most flawless in the world in terms of what they bring to the overall slice of cinema, but even so there is no denying the more than admirable degree of skill and talent that each of them is still able to bring to the table respectively. Without a doubt in my mind, this starts with the work done in the director’s chair by Jean-Jacques Annaud (1981’s Quest for Fire, 2001’s Enemy at the Gates, and 1997’s Seven Years in Tibet among other entries) and this is definitely a well-done effort from him as a filmmaker. Indeed, there are a couple of things which Annaud contributes here which help his work ensure that the film is able to operate at the pinnacle of its respective ability. The first is that Annaud does an absolutely wonderful job of working alongside the team of 4 writers who helped to pen this film’s screenplay to ensure sure that, despite the complexity of the source material, this particular adaptation is both faithful to the spirit of the story while also making it as comprehensible as possible to a wider audience. Thus, it might seem like a streamlined take on the story and yes it can still be a bit confusing to some, but Annaud is at the very least able to ensure that the film keeps you invested from beginning to end without going off on asides that might cause you to doze off and miss something important. Along with that, we see that Annaud is blessed with a terrific gift of bringing a wonderful attention to detail and devotion to being as authentic as possible to the era the film is set as showcased by not only the authentic attire worn by the characters, but also by the fact that he filmed this in real monasteries in both Germany and Italy respectively among others. As a result, not only is the film given a welcome degree of realism, but it also helps to immerse you, the viewer deeper into the world the film is set in significantly more than if they had filmed this on a green screen. Along with Annaud’s work, this slice of cinema also features genuinely beautiful work from Tonino Delli Colli in the cinematography department. Indeed not only does Colli do a phenomenal job of conjuring up an ominous and mysterious atmosphere that reinforces both the setting and the mystery at the heart of the story, but he also expertly showcases the subtle aspects of the various settings in such a way that it brilliantly synchs up with Annaud’s directorial efforts in bringing a welcome degree of authenticity to the film. Last, but by no stretch of the imagination least, I would be amiss if I didn’t take some time to talk about the work done by the late yet great James Horner on this film’s musical score. Indeed, via a blend of both period instrumentation and rhythmic patterns, we see that Horner is able to give the film a truly evocative score that wonderfully reinforces both the setting and the thematic concepts the film is operating with. Suffice it to say that when you also take into account not-bad editing work from Jane Seitz (1984’s take on The NeverEnding Story) among others it’s clear that the work done by the teams behind the camera, although flawed, is still very much so a captivating treat for the mind, the eyes, and the heart in equal measure.
Alongside the skilled work done by the assorted units operating behind the camera, this slice of cinema is also able to work on the level that it is ultimately able to courtesy of the efforts of a solid and fairly well-chosen cast of talent in front of the camera as well even if the story gives more material to work with to a select few rather than the vast majority. Without a shred of doubt whatsoever, this starts with the lead performance given by the iconic Sean Connery and, once you wrap your head around the fact that he’s playing a Franciscan monk, he actually gives a solid performance here. Indeed as William of Baskerville, we see that Connery does a terrific job of presenting us with a character who is wise, incredibly intuitive, and also in possession of a delightfully subtle wit yet who also has no problem questioning church doctrine despite seemingly consistently facing criticism from the majority of his religious colleagues for doing so even though his motivations for doing so are, without going into spoilers, very much justifiable. Suffice it to say that it might not be his most widely known work, but there is no denying that this is still a wonderful addition to Connery’s filmography. Alongside the terrific work done by Connery in the lead role, this slice of cinema also contains an early yet undeniably effective turn from Christian Slater (1996’s Broken Arrow, 1994’s Interview with the Vampire, and Slater in the TV show Archer among others) in the role of William’s pupil Adso. Indeed Slater does a fantastic job of not only functioning as the de facto eyes of the audience in terms of his befuddlement and fascination at the unfurling mystery at the heart of the film, but also in providing his character with a welcome degree of both thoughtfulness as well as innocence which also effectively showcases for an audience the character’s transition from being fairly naïve about the world to acquiring a more immersive comprehension about just how complex things truly are, and can be, in life. Last, but by no means least, this section would be woefully lacking if I didn’t take some time to talk about the electrifying co-starring performance given by F. Murray Abraham in the pivotal role of Bernardo Gui. Indeed it might take a fair amount of time before he shows up here and yes the character is a tad bit underwritten, but there is no denying that Abraham still does a terrific job of bringing to life a character that is very much a intimidating nemesis for our characters to square off against in their hunt for the truth. Suffice it to say that when you also take into account fairly well-done work from such iconic performers as Michael Lonsdale (1998’s Ronin, Hugo Drax in the 007 outing Moonraker from 1979, and 1981’s Chariots of Fire), Elya Baskin (Peter Parker’s landlord in the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films), William Hickey (Uncle Lewis in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation and the voice of Dr. Finklestein in The Nightmare Before Christmas), and a completely unrecognizable yet undeniably potent performance from the always enjoyable Ron Perlman among others it’s clear that this slice of cinema might have some issues here and there, but overall the work done by this cast of talent definitely does everything it can in their collective power to help make up for those issues.
All in all and at the end of the day is The Name of the Rose an absolutely flawless cinematic whodunit? Sadly no though most assuredly not for lack of effort on the part of either the cast or crew who were involved in bringing the film to life. With that in mind, is this the worst cinematic outing made by any of the people involved in it on either side of the camera? Oh no. Not by a long shot. Trust me when I say that if you think this then there are a fair amount of entries in both Christian Slater as well as Sean Connery’s respective filmographies that would very much like to have a word or 20 with you and I can’t promise you that will be by any stretch of the imagination a conversation you will want to have let alone one you will wish to remember either. Sarcastic comments aside dear reader, I must admit that there are things about this slice of cinema which won’t exactly synch up with everyone. Indeed not only does this slice of cinema make some more than slightly pointed critiques about the church during this time period, but a fair amount of the characters in this aren’t exactly given a whole lot in terms of substantive material to work with to say nothing of the fact that the pacing in this can be a wee bit on the slow side. With that in mind though, there is also no denying that the work done in the director’s chair by Jean-Jacques Annaud is both solid as well as wonderfully detailed both in bringing the story to life and in its recreation of the time and place in which it takes place, the script isn’t too bad despite having a quartet of writers to its name, the score by Jack Horner is genuinely evocative and even moving at points, the cinematography is absolutely mesmerizing and significantly adds to the mysterious and ominous atmosphere permeating throughout the rest of the film, and the performances by the undeniably talented cast of individuals in front of the camera (with particular regard to the ones contributed by Connery, Slater, and Abraham) all manage to be fairly solid no matter how much or how little in terms of screentime they are given and despite the aforementioned lack of equivalent narrative material across the board. Suffice it to say then that it might not be the cinematic equivalent of a successful Hail Mary touchdown pass, but even so The Name of the Rose is one entry in the mystery genre of movie magic that, should you be able to synch up to its distinct wavelength, I promise you is definitely worth investigating time and time again even if does leave you with something to potentially ponder long after the end credits have begun to roll. Make of that what thou will dear reader. On a scale of 1-5 I give The Name of the Rose a solid 3.5 out of 5.
