薔薇の名前　1986仏・伊・西独　ジャン＝ジャック・アノー監督

〈impressions〉

Finally

I watched it. I saw it for a while before, but I stopped it because it was dark.

This time, I rediscovered it because of Aristotle's logic.

I got the original (Japanese translation) from the library recycling many years ago, but I don't have a habit of reading novels, so I'm decorating it.

Sean Connery is cool.

I managed to understand the story, but it's almost Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones can laugh and enjoy it (Speaking of which, Sean Connery also appeared), but I knew it was the original by Eco, so I thought it was bad. Since it was a work when Eko was alive (or rather, in her early 50s), she must have known the content of the movie.

I was interested in Eco, but I think I have hardly read it. As far as I can see in this movie, his biblical studies and semiotics do not seem to go beyond the scope of "natural history" at all. Of course, there is no denying that it is a movie (or the original novel) as "entertainment". The charm (magical power) of books (or letters) is well depicted. However, it is not as good as Atsushi Nakajima's "Character" and Toh Enjoe's "Character Whirlpool" (I wonder if anyone will make it into a movie or drama). Sure, the name "Aristotle" comes up, but the logic is barely mentioned.

Maybe it's because I don't understand enough. From my point of view, Eko seems to discover something beyond "logic" in love (or love). It may be "ethics" or "emotion". The main character (William), the church, and the youth represent each. And each may represent the aspects of Eko's "philosophy and linguist," "Bible study," and "novelist."

Logic, ethics, emotions (with spoilers)

Eko is also a human being, so he would have wanted to come to terms with these three aspects. It is a "novel" that has the potential to cover all three. The young man breaks up with the girl and breaks up with William and grows older. Most people live with some compromise between these three. But without those conflicts, it wouldn't be a "novel". Everyone is worried about that. So most novels, dramas, and movies are variations of these three elements. That's why you can sympathize with it.

"Most" means "most of the West". This is because the main "logic" (which is the root cause of the conflict with the other two) is the SAE (Average European Standard Language) linguistic structure itself. I don't think Eko, a linguist and semiotician, didn't know this, but if he knew that there was a "rose name" as a "logical criticism", he could be somewhat convinced. increase. But that critical perspective cannot be read from the film. That cannot be covered by the "excuse" of "open text." It's just saying, "If you criticize, read all my books first." After the work, is it "Please tell me after seeing my way of life"? It's just an escape from responsibility.

It is not possible to elaborate on how the young man lived after this story. This youth's way of life is probably the way of life for readers and viewers. He cannot live in "logic" or "ethics", nor can he live in "emotion". Sincere is the "hero". The protagonist opposes ethics and says he "doesn't understand" his emotions. Isn't it necessary to have an attitude of dismantling that paternal logic?

Trinity

I feel that there are many cultures that consider the number "3" to be special. I also like it. In Christianity, "God, child, spirit" is said to be "trinity," but I cannot apply "logic, ethics, and emotions" to this. However, it is clear from John's Gospel (1 chapter 1.1) that God is "logic." When Japanese people hear "the Trinity", they think that there is no superiority or inferiority (I want to think), but Westerners have clear superiority or inferiority. The same is true for the "trinity" of "father, mother, and child." There are obvious advantages and disadvantages. The dialectic of "correct, anti-go," which is the reverse of that, is a combination of Christian culture with the theory of evolution (progressive thought). As a result, the bottom will merge with the top. The child is "discovered".

In (at least) such a society, the linguistic structure creates logic, which creates culture (society), or ethics. There is a trend that the culture creates emotions. "Emotions" are at the bottom. The conflict between the lower and the highest is what is called modern civilization. Simply put, it feels like "parents are important, but children are newer (have a future)." This feeling is not so old in Japan, Europe and America. Even if there are regional differences (country differences, cities and regions, etc.), it may be about 100 to 300 years at the most. We don't even know the feeling of our parents' days. As we get older, we get "I don't understand the thoughts of young people." I think that there is no choice but to "interpret" both the senses of parents and the senses of children.

"Logic with emotion" "Emotion with logic" ... It is meaningless to "interpret" or "criticize". First, understand this flow. And to know where "logic" comes from. If this flow is "special", find other possibilities.

Actually, I also bought "Foucault Pendulum". But don't you read it? For Eco, this movie is enough for the time being. He wanted to read Aristotle's turmoil.

 

　中世イタリアの修道院に、イギリスの修道士がやってきた。彼は、おりしも発生した連続殺人事件を調査することになるが……。ウンベルト・エーコの暗喩と象徴に満ちたミステリアスな同名小説の映画化作品。画面の雰囲気造りといい、錯綜したストーリーの展開といい、ゴシックの香り高い重厚なドラマである。