[ Home | Contents | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Chase mel99
Date: 11/9/99
Time: 9:25:37 AM
Remote Name: 130.68.108.138
Whenever a real book, and by this I mean a work of literature and not one of Danielle Steele's paperback trash-fests, is converted to the medium of film. In fact when one art form is ever transferred to another, there is always some compromise to be expected. "The Name of the Rose" turned out to be a surprisingly good interpretation for Hollywood's general slash-and-burn standards. I feel that the film did ignore some rather key aspects of the novel, largely glazing over the poverty issue and its place within the battles inside and outside the Church. The medieval mystery story is what draws the audience in, so that is what is focused on in the film version. This somewhat betrays the heart of the novel however. Eco follows a modernized version of the medieval literary theory, presenting an intriguing murder mystery to provide himself with an audience and then using this forum to explain the people of the period and the problems of that world, showing that they are actually quite similar in their ways. The film version does little to instruct its viewer, it serves almost exclusively to please. In this way, as the novel is the wheat kernel, the somewhat worthless chaff containing the vital fruit of truth, the film ends up as chaff alone. There is always a trade off in the conversion of book to film however, so the film does have positive elements that the book cannot bring to the table. The characters are much more vivid in the film due to some wonderful performances. F. Murray Abraham gives Bernardo Gui a guile and hatefulness that is seen if dimly in the book. And for the ladies, Christian Slater shows his ass onscreen. Bon apetit. Personally, I must be biased as i believe Sean Connery could not give a subpar performance if he tried. So indeed, the film is not the book it is based on. It is its own entity, while borrowing from another work.