Struck with a bit of nostalgia, the dearly beloved and I chose a movie we’d both seen in the theater back in the day. I read the book, which, as always, was better than the movie, though I liked the movie.
Plot:
William of Baskerville (Sean Connery), a Franciscan monk, and his assistant, novice Benedictine monk, Adso of Melk (Christian Slater), arrive at an unnamed Italian abbey high in the mountains to attend a conference debating the question on the Christian role of laughter. William has come ahead of the Franciscan and the papal delegations.
The Abbot (Michael Lonsdale) pulls William aside and describes a problem he wishes his help with. William is known for his knowledge and ability to solve puzzles as a former investigator for the Inquisition. A young manuscript illustrator has died after falling from the top of a tower. There is no access to the roof. There is a glass window, but it cannot be opened and shows no sign of damage. It appears something supernatural is at work. Can William find out what happened and put the brothers at ease?
William and Adso examine the tower and the landscape. William surmises the illustrator died by suicide by jumping off a nearby structure. His body rolled down the hill and landed in front of the tower where it was found. No murderer would carry a body up the stairs, and what other business would the illustrator have up there? Tragic but not supernatural.
The question seems answered until a Greek translator (Urs Althaus) is found headfirst in a great vat of pig’s blood.
“This one, I grant you, did not commit suicide,” William tells Adso.
After the body is cleaned, William notices the man’s tongue is blackened, as are the fingers of his right hand—hardly everyday symptoms of drowning, even in (ICK) pig’s blood.
Jorge de Burgos (Feodor Chaliapin Jr.), a blind, elderly monk, sees signs of the Apocalypse in these deaths. Some of the monks fear the world is ending.
William and Adso visit the scriptorium to see the desks where the two dead men worked. William enjoys the humor the illustrator put into his work. Berengar, the assistant librarian (Michael Habeck), described as “moon-faced,” blocks them from examining the translator’s desk. Nevertheless, William finds a piece of parchment with cryptic (and hidden) writing he believes contains directions to the hiding place of a forbidden.
The next day, the herbalist Severinus (Elya Baskin) finds Berengar’s body submerged in a bath. His tongue and fingers are also blackened.
William gives his explanation of the deaths to the abbot, which doesn’t show the abbey in an especially happy light. He hands the abbot the paper he found. The abbot burns it. He says he has no choice but to call in the Inquisition.
The Inquisition and William have history, in particular with the Inquisitor Bernard Gui (F. Murray Abraham), who once imprisoned him and tried to burn him at the stake.
Thoughts:
The opening of the movie is narrated by a much older Adso (Dwight Weist), looking back on the extraordinary incidents that occurred at the abbey he hesitates to name even after all these years.
A couple of homages to Sherlock Holmes appear. First, William’s place name—Baskerville—brings to mind the Conan Doyle novel The Hound of the Baskervilles. At one point, while examining the clues to the demise of the unfortunate illustrator, William says to Adso, “Elementary!”
One of the strengths of the movie is the visuals. Some of the interiors were shot at the Eberbach Abbey in Rheingau, Germany, now used as a cultural center. The interiors are stunning.
The “forbidden” book is a lost book of Aristotle, a second book of his Poetics, that deals with comedy as a teaching tool. This is indeed a lost book, though what it contains is not known. Supposedly, this book causes a problem for the devout because the Bible does not say Jesus laughed, and the Rule of St. Benedict, which governs the lives of the monks in the abbey, warns monks against being given to quick laughter.
On one level, The Name of the Rose is a murder mystery in a medieval monastery. However, there are layers beneath this. Themes include faith versus reason, knowledge versus ignorance, and the power dynamics both within the church and over the people.
Two of the Benedictine monks are former heretics, having belonged to the heretical Dulcinian group, which the Church has banned. Many of its members, including its founders, were burned at the stake. Such a group did exist and was treated about as well as one might expect. The threat it posed to the Church was in forcing its teaching of Christ’s poverty on the wealthy clergy.
Power to the people, baby!
One of the former heretics, Salvatore (Ron Perlman), is half-mad, speaking a gibberish of mixed languages, more an object of pity than fear or condemnation. He also helps (with some inducements) William and Ado gain access to the library.
The question is also posed with the “forbidden” book of Aristotle: are there books that should be forbidden, kept from the unwashed masses, or out of school libraries? Are societies poorer for banning books? Or are people kept safe when the wise and holy keep dangerous books out of their reach?
One drawback is belittling the deaths for comic effect—a small complaint but there, nonetheless.
This is an interesting, entertaining, and engaging movie.
The Name of the Rose is available (…with a whole slew of ads…) on Tubi here: It can also be watched on subscription services like Prime Video or rented on YouTube.
Title: The Name of the Rose (1986) (original title, Der Name der Rose)
Directed by
Jean-Jacques Annaud
Writing Credits
Umberto Eco…(novel)
Andrew Birkin…(screenplay) &
Gérard Brach…(screenplay) &
Howard Franklin…(screenplay) &
Alain Godard…(screenplay)
Cast (in credits order)
Sean Connery…William of Baskerville
Christian Slater…Adso of Melk
Helmut Qualtinger…Remigio de Varagine
Elya Baskin …Severinus
Michael Lonsdale…The Abbot
Released: 1986
Length: 2 hours, 10 minutes
Rated: R
Reviews of Old and New Stories. Mostly Old 
Cool 👍 i might consider, I remember seeing trailers for that back in the day
Cool! I hope you like it if you watch it.
yes, I enjoyed the book and movie too —
Glad you did. This was a while ago, but we decided to watch the movie for old time’s sake.
I have not seen this movie. I did not know about it. Based on your review and the trailer it seems to be very suspenseful. Great review by the way. I had not yet visited the United States in 1986, which is probably why I did not hear about it until now.
The original novel was in Italian. The English-language movie was made by West-German, French and Italian film production companies. (Yeah, it was long enough ago that West Germany was still around) I wanted to include in the review that it one a couple of BAFTA awards, but it was already so long, I had to cut some things out. Nevertheless, I don’t think it was that popular a movie at the time. I saw it because, well, I’m a geek and I’d read the book. I remember telling people while was reading the book, “It’s a murder mystery in medieval, but it’s better than it sounds.”
Well, I went on, didn’t I? 🙂
Thank you for all that information. In 1986 I was watching Swedish movies and some American action movies but that was it. But I did not watch many movies at all since I was in Swedish army at the time. So that’s why I missed this one.
That would do it. 🙂
I liked the fact that the had come to the conference to debate the role of laughter in Christianity. I’d never heard of this movie.
It is one of the little ironies in the movie.
I’m not all that surprised you haven’t heard of it. I don’t think it was all that popular when it came out. I saw it because I read the book. My friend Thomas in his comments also mentioned that he’d never heard of it, but at the time it came out, he was serving in the Swedish army. My guess is you weren’t in the Swedish army—though I could be wrong. 🙂