Fac ut Vivas

The Name of the Rose, was Valentina Vargas. A quick image search in google snagged me the picture below… among other things… if you catch my drift

She’s older here than when I first saw her in 1996 on the television. But I am getting ahead of myself …

Circa 1994 (or 1995?), one afternoon, while rummaging through my father’s stack’s of pocket books, I came across the pocket book below:

As the picture suggests, it is almost yellow with age. Now… with my limited faculties (and equally-limited imagination, then), my first thought was, it was an odd title and with its cover design, I mistook it for a romance novel that many girls (in our highschool) delightfully pass around each other. Ever the curious one (whose side-interests include divining ways to make some sense out of the jigsaw presented by the female psyche [1]), I began to read it — I didn’t think it would be such a colossal intellectual undertaking. I was wrong, of course. It was well that I didn’t choose its subject matter for my English class term paper, instead, I chose Plato’s Republic [2]. Only the muses will have any idea of the amount of work it would have taken me just to write a coherent synopsis of Eco’s novel.

Years later, it remains as one of my favorite books. Weird as the some of passages may have sounded to my 14-year old brain [3], the main narrative was structured enough, to make for a straightforward reading. Eventually, after reading and re-reading it time and again in the interim, the shadows cast by these obscure passages gradually diminishes. With a lot of help from the internet, mostly from Wikipedia, plus some notes made from other books [4], they become more meaningful.

Then, in 1996, while surfing across the tv channels, I came across a broadcast of the rare 1986 [5] film Name of the Rose by the French director Jean Jacques Annaud. Notwithstanding the fact that it is a common pitfall to expect a perfect transmutation of a novel into a different (and often limited) medium, e.g. film, M. Annaud was able to pick a thread to follow and still render a faithful adaptation of Eco’s work [6]. Of course, Umberto Eco would likely prefer to remain silent about M. Annaud’s choice of the film’s focus, but nonetheless, that may have been his point [7]… that the reader would to form his own conclusions, deduce some form of meaning. Needless to say, like so many films sorely lacking a bona fide audience that day, it was a commercial flop in the US. In Europe however, I learned it has achieved a  cult-status.

But, back to our story in 1996…

Unfortunately, the prevailing stance of the television censures of the day was to censor anything that: shows too much gore/violence/sexuality, has verbal expletives, contains controversial materials that are political/religious/moral/or supernatural  in nature. Thankfully, enough of the story remains intact, apart from the poor transitions between the scenes [8] — The tell-tale marks of poor editing.

So why was I intrigued by the film? Because If I would do a summary of Eco’s novel, this film-vision of the book would probably be my bet.  Maybe It also helped that the female character, who oddly enough, doesn’t have any spoken dialog, was eye-catching, with an appeal akin to those inspired by a woman of a wild yet sensuous nature [9]… and lest anyone doubts this assessment, by his own admission, the POV character was bewitched, that many years later, even as an old man, he cannot forget [10]. Plus, it was one of the Sean Connery’s better films  in the post-James Bond era.

Immediately, I sought a copy from every nook and cranny known to me. But I’ve searched in vain.

Two years later in 1998, while taking up social science 2 during the summer term, our professor once posed a question regarding Aristotle’s now famous “Lost Book”. This was obviously a reference to Umberto Eco’s novel. She (our professor) was prepared to give extra credit to anyone who was able to elaborate on it. Flashes of the movie’s scenes came to my mind as I delivered my answer in class the next day and got the extra credit [11].

But the spectre of the “lost film”, loomed large. I wanted to watch the film, uncut and in its full glory. It felt like a large hole in your mindscape that gnaws at your subconscious wanting to be filled. Meanwhile, a copy of the film was in Limbo that was worse than limbo.

In 1999, I got into a conversation with my biology lab professor about our favorite books. She [12] had a mysterious reaction when I told her about Eco’s book. She said:

“Some books should not be read. They… get through you, somehow…” (her exact words are lost to memory).

I remember pleading a passionate case for the book, but she held her ground, and so, without compromise, we ended up in the usual manner: respecting each other’s opinions [13].

Time passes, yet again.

In 2005, I’ve began to seriously reckon the merits and advantages of wikipedia. Though professors still frown on the practice of including it in your bibliographical entries, one must recognize that it is increasingly being seen as a mature and reliable resource due in no small part to the efforts of dedicated editors and self-regulation by the web community.

With only wikipedia and IMDB at my disposal, I was resigned to the fact that I will only get to read about it and never experience it again. I’ve renewed my search efforts for the nth time and I have failed…. yet, again.

Time passes.

A few nights ago in 2007 (25th of October), I managed to obtain a copy through channels that were, well, in this country, illegal [14]. It felt like it was 1996 all over again. This time, no censures, no oddball commercial advertising — Just me and that wonderful piece of film-making achievement that has kept me company during the long nights that followed that fateful moment.

… But it requires additional work. When it came to me, the english subtitles were missing. The existing ones were either incomplete or horribly mangled. This afternoon, I’ve begun the process of “correcting” all these and perhaps making improvements. Then what would follow is the process of remastering it. It’s gonna take a while to finish this little project of mine, but only because I would be away next week and could only continue when I get back.

By today’s standards, would be products of my efforts would be paltry comparison, but nevetheless, I wouldn’t have it any other way — Not after waiting this long.

And thus, to that ominous line, written several years ago:

Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus (Of the rose of the past, we have only its
name)

We are now able to fashion a reply: Not only do we have her name, We have seen her again and have embraced her magic onscreen as if we had also been there — In our minds, we have filled the great yawning void that has haunted our dreams and memories for a long, long time.

temporis ars medicina fere est

————————

Notes

[1] I heard from a friend that one needs only to pick up a copy of Cosmo-magazine to achieve the same feat.

[2] … which, surprisingly also was too much work for the limited time that was allowed, considering the wealth of themes in Plato’s philosophies. In retrospect, I  did manage to defend my term paper successfully, that my panel gave it a perfect score. Unbelievable.

[3] We must excuse Umberto Eco for these. His expertise on semiotics and medieval times haunts the pages of the book many times… A lot of times.

[4] … notes especially those pertaining to the sentences that often appear in a foreign (if not archaic) language.

[5] … 10 years! Good God! How time flies! Mind you, the internet as we know it today wasn’t an available (accessible) resource then.

[6] … this is due in no small part to the fact that he had numerous consultations with Umberto of Bologna.

[7] … Mr. Umberto Eco remarked on this at length elsewhere… It is also interesting to note that the narrator (in the book’s Prologue), including the POV (point of view) character in the book/film, also leaves it up to the future reader to find any meaning in his ‘testimony.

[8] Censorship. Bloody Hell.

[9] My apologies to womankind! … I must tread lightly or suffer censorship myself!

[10] DOM.

[11] I suppose I wasn’t the only one familiar with it. It was possible in the intellectual climate of the University that the book would have a significant following among the bibliophiles. There was one, indeed, but I beat him to it by: a) raising my hands faster than anyone as soon as the professor fished for answers, b) giving a more “thorough” and “complete” elucidation.

[12] Yes it was a she… and she was also eye-catching… Probably the prettiest (and cutest) professor, I’ve seen in my day. Lest anyone might think I had evil designs on her, she was  Opus Dei, and therefore ultra-conservative. But she’s really pretty.

[13] … And I love her for that.

[14] … It seems prudent not to make any mention of my source for reasons that are pretty obvious…