MovieChat Forums > The Name of the Rose (1986) Discussion > DIVINE JUSTICE!!!! HALLELUJAH MY BROTHER...

DIVINE JUSTICE!!!! HALLELUJAH MY BROTHERS!!!!

posted 16 years ago by arqfalzone
3 replies | jump to latest

Just a thought. Did anyone actually watched this film? took a nice look a the ending? Did anyone who read the book actually liked this film?

For god's sake, i can't believe nobody noticed in these forums. THE FILM SAYS EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE BOOK SAYS.

The conclusion of the book is that order doesn't exist, everything is chaos. Through a true path we won't necesarilly arrive at a true end, as Marx liked to think. I admit that that point may be parcially seen in the movie: a case was resolved (reached a "true" end) through a false path (the erronous investigation).

But this conclusion that everything is chaos also implies that there is no divine justice or order on earth: the bad guys don't die, the pretty and innocent girl is burned to death. THAT WAS THE FREAKING POINT. Instead we see Bernardo Gui having an action-movie-bad-guy-death. And the girl stays alive!!!!!! And she lives happily ever after!!!!!!!! How much more nice order can you get?

And for those who wanted to know Eco's opinion, after the movie was made he refused to have any more of his writings adapted, and i can see why. Though he added that he heard Kubrick had plans to adapt his Foucault's Pendulum before his untimely death. He would have accepted that.

[–] mobile707 16 years ago

It is true that the death of Gui and the survival of "the girl" makes a profound shift from the book to the movie, although I would not equate "survival" with "happily ever after."

In defense of Annaud -- really, in defense of movies -- I can understand why he made these changes. This movie represented a huge financial investment on the part of a lot of people (that's part of the reason why it's in English: the chance to put the film in US/British theaters was cited as justification for the high budget). And the subject matter was -- to say the least -- a bit more complex than Crocodile Dundee or Top Gun (big hits from 1986). So I would guess that, with some awareness of these considerations, Annaud wanted to give the audience a good, strong dose of Eco's vision and philosophy (and I think he succeeded in that), but felt that the audience couldn't tolerate a full, 200-proof serving from start to finish. So the bad guy was killed, the girl lived, and the core message of Eco's book was, admittedly, altered. But it was not, I think, twisted beyond recognition.

[–] Alfabeta 13 years ago

The handling of Gui's character is the only real problem with this movie. True.

As for the girl, you don't get the happy ending because they do not end up together and just because she survives doesn't mean she ends up living happily ever after. She had to whore herself out for food and now she can't even do that since the place burned up.

You could argue (based on narrator's last lines) that director included his own version of world order into Eco's chaos - God may or may not exist but in the end love is the only place where narrator might have actually felt God (or something godlike in its power).

You have every right to be angry, of course. However, Eco is a snob. He hated the movie? Fine. Demand to have full control over the next adaptation's script in your contract. Done. His books should've been adapted 20 years ago. They were smart and there were enough smart film makers out there.

[–] student_points 13 years ago

i fully agree with you on everything alfabeta