The name of the rose movie

  • Thread starter Thread starter vince2paul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vince2paul

Guest
Has anyone watch it?
Is it a good movie to watch?
I believe the actor is Sean Connery & Christian Slater.
Thanks.
 
I watched this movie some 13 years back [around spring 1994 +/-] I re-call that the book was better [surprise there 😃 ] It has adult themes [both the book and the movie. Umberto Ecco [or Eco] I believe was the author.

As I remember, you get the Hollywood [for the life of me I do not know how to spell the city - ??? hope its correct - guess I don’t care if it is] shock value and little deep meaning. Its a murder mystery set in a medieval monastery. You get themes of self flagelation etc. The cinematography is dark as in - shot in the dark - if you get my meaning. But I thought the movie was okay. Don’t know if you can figure it out without reading the book though. In that way I think it would be like the Hunt for Red October, without the book it is hard to realy understand why the captain defected…
 
I read the book and saw the movie. The book was much better than the movie. The movie wasn’t bad, but from what I remember they left too much ouy.
The book is worth read if you don’t mind it being a difficult read.
 
I didn’t read the book . But the film brought up some
interesting ideas about Faith and laughter. What place
does laughter have in scripture and in our relation to God.
The shortest verse in scripture is " He wept." In all the
translatons and selecting the Canon of our Faith where is
“He laughed”. I’m not being irreverant. I’ve often struggled
with my Faith because of my perception that most religion
lacks so much Joy. If our goal is to embrace that Presence.
That presence which is Love. Pure. Omnipotent Overwhelming
Love. Why don’t I/We experience more Joy in our lives. 😛
 
It is a good mystery flick. The sex scene is very grafic :bigyikes: It could have been toned down :yup: but you’ld have to understand the director. He allowed the actress to “have her way” with Slater. It was a planned ad-lib on her part and Slater’s mother (he was 16) who was on the set, approved 😦
 
It is a good mystery flick. The sex scene is very grafic. It could have been toned down, but you’ld have to understand the director. He allowed the actress to “have her way” with Slater. It was a planned ad-lib on her part and Slater’s mother (he was 16) who was on the set, approved 😦
 
Never read the book, watched the movie and liked it. Decent mystery
 
The little of it I could stomach looked like warmed-over Agatha Christie tacked onto an “I learned history from romance novels” view of the Middle Ages. Everyone I’ve talked to about it says it’s pretty anti-Catholic.
 
Hastrman said:
The little of it I could stomach looked like warmed-over Agatha Christie tacked onto an “I learned history from romance novels” view of the Middle Ages. Everyone I’ve talked to about it says it’s pretty anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
Umberto Eco, the author of the original book is an atheist with anti-clerical sentiment. He is also a self-professed philosopher specialising in the study of meanings.
 
It’s a brilliant book, and a so-so movie.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
I haven’t read the book yet, but the movie was profoundly anti Catholic. I can’t believe there are so many Catholics who are saying it is good. A lot of historical inaccuracies. For example the type of torture employed in the movie was never done by the Church. Sometimes by secular powers when they co-opted their local inquisitions, but never by an Inquisition under the direct authority of the Vatican as the movie portrays.

In fact it suggests that if one gets in trouble with the Inquisition enlightened secular emperors may be able to help if they have the power. In reality the situation was reversed. The original Inquisition was set up to give people some protection from secular authorities and mob violence. The worst Inquisition the one that everyone thinks of when they think of Catholic abuses was the Spanish Inquisition, however even here the abuses were all carried out at the behest of the State and not the Church.

But we all know that if a lie is repeated enough times it starts to take on the weight of truth, and this movie is yet one in a long line of Hollywood’s frequent and incessant repetition of such lies. Implanting into people on an unconscious level that they are predisposed in their bias to swallow even bigger lies directed at the Church.

I focus on the Inquisition but there are many other falsehoods subtlety portrayed in this movie, such as the Church really having nothing better to do than sit around an argue about whether Jesus “owned the clothes on his back” while the populace starved. All of these are modern myths and falsehoods. Lies that have been repeated enough for long enough that people are too comfortably convinced they are true to investigate the reality for themselves.

The Church has never been against reason or laughter, and Scholatic theologian didn’t really sit around an argue how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. In fact I would that laughter and reason are the most Christian things in the world and one only finds their deepest effect in the Church. Any Catholic who believes this film is good just demonstrates how little they know of our faith and should get better Catechized.

I know Umberto Eco is an atheist himself but he is also an historian so I am interested to see if themes were as prevalent in his book as they were in the movie or if Hollywood added their anti-Catholic perspective to more balanced and historically accurate book.

Evil is allowed in the world by lukewarm Catholics, and it so it was so terribly sad to reminded exactly how many lukewarm “Catholics” there are in the world. Why are so many Catholics so completely ignorant of their own faith?
 
I haven’t read the book yet, but the movie was profoundly anti Catholic. I can’t believe there are so many Catholics who are saying it is good. A lot of historical inaccuracies. For example the type of torture employed in the movie was never done by the Church. When “torture” (again not the devices used by secular authorities which are the ones which are always portrayed) was used it could not exceed 15 minutes, it could not cause gross bodily harm, and only rarely was someone allowed to be subjected to such enhanced interrogation methods more than twice. In fact the rules set by the Church were more severe for the Inquisition than the rules set by the U.S. Government in its war on terror, and the reason why the Church employed them was far more of an important than just protecting people’s material lives from terrorists. So whether you agree with the U.S gov’s use of enhanced interrogation methods or not, understand the Church used even less drastic means and this occurred in a different age when secular authorities really were using the awful torture devices you see in movies like The Name of the Rose.

Now that is not to say that secular powers didn’t co-opt their local inquisitions, but never by an Inquisition under the direct authority of the Vatican as the movie portrays.

In fact it suggests that if one gets in trouble with the Inquisition enlightened secular emperors may be able to help if they have the power. In reality the situation was reversed. The original Inquisition was set up to give people some protection from secular authorities and mob violence. The worst Inquisition the one that everyone thinks of when they think of Catholic abuses was the Spanish Inquisition, however even here the abuses were all carried out at the behest of the State and not the Church.

But we all know that if a lie is repeated enough times it starts to take on the weight of truth, and this movie is yet one in a long line of Hollywood’s frequent and incessant repetition of such lies. Implanting into people on an unconscious level a predisposition to hold a bias that then allows them to go and swallow even bigger lies directed at the Church without resistance.

I focus on the Inquisition but there are many other falsehoods subtlety portrayed in this movie, such as the Church really having nothing better to do than sit around an argue about whether Jesus “owned the clothes on his back” while the populace starved. All of these are modern myths and falsehoods. Lies that have been repeated enough for long enough that people are too comfortably convinced they are true to investigate the reality for themselves.

The Church has never been against reason or laughter, and Scholastic theologians didn’t really sit around an argue how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. In fact I would assert that laughter and reason are the most Christian things in the world and one only finds their deepest effect in the Church. Any Catholic who believes this film is good just demonstrates how little they know of our faith and should get better Catechized.

I know Umberto Eco is an atheist himself but he is also an historian so I am interested to see if themes were as prevalent in his book as they were in the movie or if Hollywood added their anti-Catholic perspective to more balanced and historically accurate book.

Evil is allowed in the world by lukewarm Catholics, and it so it was so terribly sad to reminded exactly how many lukewarm “Catholics” there are in the world. Why are so many Catholics so completely ignorant of their own faith?
 
I liked the movie because I like movies set in that time frame.
I hope to read the book some day.
 
I think it’s a great film - wonderfully atmospheric, intriguing plot and some captivating characterisation. It has an impressive ensemble cast too, not just Sean Connery and Christian Slater. For me the sex scene was not particularly graphic, but tastes vary hugely on that sort of thing.

I don’t agree with Devoted_to_Jude’s opinion about the film being “profoundly anti-Catholic”. The film portrayed Catholics that were variously enlightened, compassionate, cruel and misguided. In short, a variety of people. In portraying the events that unfolded at one remote monastery associated with one clerical debate involving a particular group of clergy, I don’t think that the film says anything very much about the Catholic Church at that time or in the present day. I enjoyed it as a great story without looking for a real or imagined message.
 
Nixbits said:
I think it’s a great film - wonderfully atmospheric, intriguing plot and some captivating characterisation. It has an impressive ensemble cast too, not just Sean Connery and Christian Slater. For me the sex scene was not particularly graphic, but tastes vary hugely on that sort of thing.

I don’t agree with Devoted_to_Jude’s opinion about the film being “profoundly anti-Catholic”. The film portrayed Catholics that were variously enlightened, compassionate, cruel and misguided. In short, a variety of people. In portraying the events that unfolded at one remote monastery associated with one clerical debate involving a particular group of clergy, I don’t think that the film says anything very much about the Catholic Church at that time or in the present day. I enjoyed it as a great story without looking for a real or imagined message.
Click to expand...
I do not want to derail the thread - but I agree that the movie was not anti-Catholic … The Church is made of people many who have failed to live the Christian life well 😦 and vastly more who have 🙂 … and movies reflect that - if one focuses only on the portrayals that illustrate the worst - its anti-Catholic … 🤷 at least to some.

In the mid 1990s the Vatican issued a list of the 40 All Time Best Movies … many people were astounded at one American movie on the list because it was thought to be anti-Catholic … II had seen the movie and it was one I have watched over and over again - I had bought it I liked it so well … I had always though that it depicted - extremely well the very Best of what it means to be Catholic [the people of God - the Church - at her best] AND the very Worst [the people of God - the Church - at her worst] … that movie was “The Mission” … its story line and plot very transparent and easily told …

While the movie “The Name of the Rose” did not deliver that sense as well … the story line is much too complex and as a mystery the good, the bad and the ugly are not readily transparent … the book was a much better medium - I have read it twice … and enjoyed it both times. … the movie I have only seen once … after seeing this thread open up - I am thinking of reading the book and then immediately watching the movie … which was not the case … it had been years between when I first read the book and saw the movie … then many years before I read the book again.
 
Nixbits said:
The film portrayed Catholics that were variously enlightened, compassionate, cruel and misguided. In short, a variety of people.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I’m always amazed at people who think that all people at all times (except our own, of course) were all equally devout.
Nixbits said:
In portraying the events that unfolded at one remote monastery associated with one clerical debate involving a particular group of clergy, I don’t think that the film says anything very much about the Catholic Church at that time or in the present day. I enjoyed it as a great story without looking for a real or imagined message.
Click to expand...
Spot on again! Keep in mind, too, that the time period of the movie is during the Avignon papacy, when the French monarch attempted to control the popes and the Church, not a particularly bright time for the Church.
 
I saw it years ago, when Christian Slater was an A-lister, because my friends were into C.Slater movies.
I recall it was interesting and had its moments but overall was a little dull and formulaic.

As for the sex scene, I don’t remember it being graphic as much as being uncomfortable. It certainly wasnt titilating.

I didn’t pjck-up on the anti-Catholocism, but I don’t care much about that since I know that they Church has both sinners and saints, and many disagreements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top