The folllowing sample essay on The Name Of The Rose Movie discusses it in detail, offering basic facts and pros and cons associated with it. To read the essay’s introduction, body and conclusion, scroll down.
Differences from the movie to the book can make a huge difference in a arson’s outlook toward It; if the plot has drastic changes then the movie is rarely better than the book. Set in 1327, The Name of the Rose by Umber Echo will grab your attention from the first sentence and keep you entertained throughout the novel. The movie, which Is Introduced as a “palimpsest” of Umber ECHO novel has many drawbacks from making It as spectacular as the novel Itself. The Name of the Rose has two main characters, William of Basketballs and Dads of Milk.
Dads is the first character to be introduced, but it is Dads in the future calling the events of William and his six days spent at the Abbey. William and Dads are brought to the Abbey to participate in a debate with a papal legation over the poverty of Christ as well as the status of the Franciscan order. However, upon their arrival, Addled, a young illustrator of the manuscripts, had been murdered and they are asked to help investigate the crime. During prayer the next morning, another body is discovered; Venetians, a young translator of the manuscripts, was found in a vat of pig’s blood.
Why Books Are Better Than Movies Essay
William and Dads begin looking for a book that they believe both Addled and Venusians were reading. The only people allowed in the library are the librarian and his assistant, which makes the Investigation even harder. Bernard, the librarian’s assistant, goes missing on the third day. Continuing the Investigations, William deciphers a code that Venetians had left behind, which will help William and Dads get further into the library. On the fourth day, they found the Finis African, which is the room where they believe the book is hidden.
The fifth day Severing, the herbalist of the Abbey, was found dead and the book that William had trusted him tit has been stolen. Malachite, the chief librarian of the Abbey, is blamed for the taking of the book. After Malachite died in prayer on the sixth day, it seemed as though William was going to solve the case, but the abbot then informed him that he did not want him investigating the crimes of the Abbey anymore. William and Dads find Jorge, a blind elderly monk who knows a great deal about books and the library, with the book In the Falls African and discovered the truth behind all of the murders.
Jorge refused to let the book be read by anybody and ate all of the poisonous pages, knocked over a lamp and started the library on fire. When the library started on fire, there was little hope for the Abbey ever being as admired as it once had been (“The Name AT ten Rose”). When a book is created into a film, there are always details of the plot that are changed. The film The Name of the Rose, directed by Jean Jacques Unhand, has a similar plot as the novel but gives Off different effect.
As said by David Wisteria, “While the novel was a satisfying and complex mystery that inspired the intellect, the film is a satisfying and complex mystery that inspires indigestion” (Wisteria). This statement makes clear the difference of movies and books; Books can give more in depth details about the characters, setting, and emotions while movies create a picture to see the details. I personally like reading books better than watching movies because of the detail the books give.
In the book, Dads of Milk is a Benedictine novice whereas in the movie he is a Franciscan novice; the whole story can be altered when changes in the plot are made. With the novel being lengthy, it is hard to fit every single event into a movie without it being multiple hours long. One hinge that was cut out of the movie is a long dream that Dads had towards the end of the sixth day. Another thing that is obsolete from the movie is how the Abbot clearly assigns William to be the investigator of the murders that have been happening in the Abbey and the Abbot tells William that the difficult is forbidden at night.
I think knowing that William is in charge of the murder case is key to understanding the plot, but if that is not shown in the movie it may be difficult for some viewers to understand what is happening until the movie progresses. To help reduce the Engel of the movie, the main characters discussions about the time period and heretics was drastically cut down; also dialogue concerning comedy and religion is nonexistent in the film. Little changes like these can change the major effect of a story and it can sometimes even change the whole story itself. The Abbot himself is a strange character, both in the film and the book.
He never seems to know what is truly going on, and he seems to change sides of the murder cases throughout the story. In the book, the Abbot becomes the sixth victim by Jorge trapping him in a ethereal, ultimately suffocating him to death; in the film, the Abbot Just stops making appearances. There could be many reasons why the Abbot Just stops appearing in the film: money costs, the movie would have been too long to make him a victim also, or the actor himself had health problems. Another character that never even makes an appearance in the film is Benny of Pascal.
Benny was also a suspect in the murders and even helped William and Dads in the investigation for a short period of time. As the library is burning, Benny is suspected to die from running in and having he floor of the library collapse. Jorge is another character who keeps things interesting. The history of the Abbey librarians, who traditionally become Abbots later on, is cut out of the film. By cutting out the history of the librarians and the history of how Jorge was chosen for this position, Gorge’s motivation for revenge is cut down drastically.
Gorge’s speech that is given in the book about the apocalypse and the ruin of the Abbey because of its pursuit of knowledge is cut down to merely an exclamation in the film, due too panic of Malachite’s death. The most notable change room the novel to the movie was the ending. In the novel, Bernard Gut, a Judge in the Inquisition, does not die and he takes Remixing, the cellarer of the Abbey, Salvatore, member of a heretical cult, and a peasant girl, from the village below the monastery, with him and his escorts.
Remixing is taken to Avignon, which is the seat AT ten pope, Tort Nils trial Detour en Is Turned. Ass tan Bernard Gull will burn the girl on the way and that Salvatore, who is forgiven, may or may not be burned as well. The film has Remixing and Salvatore being burned at the stakes by Bernard Gut. Bernard Gui is then killed by the peasants and is not able to burn the girl, who escapes during all the chaos of the library burning (“The Name of the Rose”). Not set out to please a vast crowd of book buyers, Umber Echo wrote The Name of the Rose to amuse him with a tale of church politics and murder.
As Said by Peter Burke from History Today, “The Name of the Rose is worth reading for the literal sense alone, as a well constructed thriller, though even here intellectuality makes its appearance in the form of references to Cowan Doyle. The book can also be read as n allegory, a book about structuralism” (Burke, Peter). There are many different ways to look at the book, as pointed out by Burke. Not expecting his novel to be a best seller in Europe and the United States, Umber Echo was shocked when in 1983 he found out his book was going to be turned into a movie.
Elaborate sets, dim lighting and misty landscapes, created by director Jean-Jacques Unhand, gives the movie a kind of atmosphere that had no single mood. Announced as a “palimpsest” in the opening credits, shows how Unhand used plot synopsis to create this film. As Vincent Canny of The New York Times says, “As Brother William, the voice of reason in an age of superstition, Sean Concern does his best to find the film’s proper tone, which should have been provided by Mr.. Unhand and the four people who wrote the screenplay. Mr..
Concern doesn’t have an easy time of it” (Canny, Vincent). With this review, I think most people were shocked with the popularity of the book, thinking the film would have been much better. Other reviews have some similar and some different opinions of the film. For instance, Mac from Time Out New York says “The monks themselves are marvelous, a gallery of grotesques straight out of Burgher, and if the film has faults, they are quibbles: the murder mystery is solved too soon, and rather too much plot is crammed into the available space. ” (Mac).
I agree with what Mac has to say, I think that the novel is too lengthy with too many important details to be left, making this a recipe for a disaster when trying to create a film. I also agree with Mac when he credits the monks on being marvelous and “a gallery of grotesques straight out of Burgher” because the monks were very well depicted in he film. Sheila Benson from The Los Angels Times says, “From the moment the credits announce that Jean-Jacques Naiad’s film is ‘a palimpsest of Umber Echo’s novel,’ you know that you’re in for a heavy cultural weather” (Benson, Sheila).
This clearly states that Benson agrees with Canny and Mac when they say, too much plot for too little time. From the beginning, Unhand had many challenges when he took on the responsibility of fitting a 500-page novel into a two-hour film. There was no question that there would be changes in the plot, with the characters, and minor detail changes. Even though the movie was a palimpsest of the novel, Unhand still made his point and created a decent film.