The Name of the Rose - Review

                The Name of the Rose (1986) is a film which delves into the inner workings of a medieval abbey in the midst a crisis.  Set in 1327, the film follows Brother William, a monk of another order played by Sean Connery, and his apprentice as they investigate the death of a young monk to calm the minds of the frightened and superstitious local monks.  These two were summoned in preference to the ever-frightening, torturous, stereotypical walking death sentence that is the Holy Inquisition.  Almost Immediately, the two logically deduce from analysis of the scene that the cause of death was simply suicide, but they soon find that something more complex is happening as more deaths continue to occur.  The story begins to twist itself into a Sherlock Holmes-esque scenario as the protagonists leapfrog between clues and the potential criminals, but no understanding of motivation save for knowledge of the existence of a certain mysterious Greek book.  It culminates with a three party stand-off between the abbey's monks, William, and the Holy Inquisition in which this book must be found to truly answer who is to be rightfully punished.   

                The movie finds great success in many aspects of the film though some Hollywood flair managed to sneak its way in.  Particularly great was the entire presentation of the abbey's internal affairs, environments, and occupants.  Parts of the film were filmed outside of  a castle which had many features we might come to expect from studying Joan.  The sides of this, however, were not circular and instead consisted of many sharp angles, but this film was set nearly 100 years prior to Joan and perhaps these defenses were not state-of-the-art.  The monks themselves had clothing which, in general, was drab brown earthy robes and had the pious unkempt horseshoe haircuts.  On the arrival of the inquisition, more extravagant clothing consisting of white and red became prevalent as we would expect from the holiest of clergymen.  These men lived in buildings of stone and wood which the production crew lit appropriately with dim torches and gave subtle noises of creaking wood or footsteps which would be much more readily heard then than now.  The lifestyle of independence is made clear early in the movie as an animal is graphically butchered as a self sufficient people would have to do.

The protagonists investigation of the initial death in front of the castle.

                Not everything about the presentation of the monks is entirely believable.  A few characters of note are the hunchback and the creepy, pale, Uncle Fester look-alike.  Both appear as though they were put into the movie for nothing but misdirection of the audience and don't offer any historical value.  They're the slightly "off" outsiders which, to be fair, were grounded enough that they could be based off real people, but they were put in a context where they would sneak in and out of the scenes menacingly to give the protagonists someone obvious to point finger at.  The last of the non-conforming character base was the actual man who ran the abbey who was apparently blind in both eyes and adamantly faithful to the point where he refused to allow laughter in their work area.  Of course, with any of this character set, he has a pivotal role in the movie which, without spoiling the ending, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

                The film has some historic value which coincides with the Joan of Arc primary trial sources.  We see from Brother William a logic and reason based approach to answering the question at hand.  He does not ask question nearly as much as Joan's inquisitors, but instead relies most heavily on physical clues which he finds through searching.  Here we even get to see some possible cool old technology such as secret writing using lemon juice.  Many of these clues, as seen by other scribes of the time, were written in classical languages, specifically Greek.  Even with the reason as an integral part of the investigation, superstition still finds its way into the search.  Brother William at one point claims they are experiencing "Death by the book which kills or for which men kill", leading us to believe that it may be up in the air whether people are dying in a logical manner or if something more sinister and metaphysical is happening.

A great library is found during the investigation and
this appeared to be a form of the "wounded man".

                Upon the arrival of the Inquisition proper, the central theme of the movie shifts into a court-like manner where the inquisitors are accusing and seeking information through a "trial".  Just as with Joan, however, techniques were used to lead out answers which they sought.  Perhaps because the case had little political weight behind it, this team of inquisitors were much more inclined to gain answers through fear, pain, and torture rather than weighted questions and confusion.  In both cases though, there was a jury like construct to oversee the trial and some sort of ruling judge.  At one point there was even some sort of allusion to a higher court which unresolved issues could be brought to.

                They finally sentence to death multiple people by means of a burning pyre.  One of the individuals sentenced was a peasant woman accused of witchcraft.  This character, and those she represented and lived with, might have been the least believable part of the movie.  There was a brief side story of romance between her and the apprentice, but her limited ability to speak or even act in a human manner made it both awkward and confusing.  Her cognitive skills as a peasant were apparently equivalent to that of an infant or well trained dog.  While initially I thought she was another challenged character, comments were made suggesting she was simply one of the poor and uneducated peasants which lived outside the abbey in mud huts.  We learn through Joan that, at the very least, this character is not a good representation of much of the peasant class.  Joan was an articulate, spiritual and powerful peasant of which none of these traits were seen in any of the 'poor' class in this movie.            

In the few brief moments we see the local peasantry, a chicken defecates in this woman's eye.

She then hits her head on the ceiling.  

Classic.

                Overall, I think the movie is a wonderful Hollywood suspense or thriller for those who liked The Da Vinci Code or even something like National Treasure.  I do think it has more to offer than sheer entertainment value as the effort to create historical accuracy was obviously put forth.  In many ways this movie went above and beyond most others in building an interesting story in the confines of a not-so interesting place.  The end, to me, was not so brilliant with my take away for the primary motivation of the killer being something like, "When we laugh at god, the world descends into chaos", but the journey there was valuable and everything else wrapped up in a satisfying manner.

4/5 voices in my council approve.