Loved the Series


Sorry to see it end.
John Turturro was marvelous as William of Baskerville. He embodied the humility that didn't come through so much with Sean Connery's portrayal of the character. Yes, he had intellectual pride, but seemed more concerned with people, and caring for the unfortunate along his way. He was a kind and protective mentor to Adso, and even though a former inquisitor, had left behind the hardline extremist zeal with the title. He had learned not to deal in absolutes. William embodied the Franciscan ideal in many ways.
Damien Hardung was appropriately innocent and inquiring as Adso of Melk. Christian Slater portrayed those qualities as well, in the film.
It was sad, as William commented at the end that the scent and and beauty of the rose departs, leaving only the name without any associations to assist the imagination. Adso remarks earlier when he finds the book of Occitan poetry that he had gifted to the girl,who had escaped leaving it behind, and who was his first and only love, that he had no name to call her. In his case, Adso had the associations, but no name. Not sure, but perhaps the rose in the title was meant as the symbol for the girl.
It has been awhile since I read the book. Because this was a series, it was able to go more into the political and doctrinal disputes current at the time, than the film.
I still think that James Cosmo was not as effective at portraying the chilling sinister asceticism and misplaced zeal as Feodor Chaliapin Jr. in the role of Jorge de Burgos and that Rupert Everett came across more as venal and petty, not as fiery as F. Murray Abraham's Bernardo Gui.
Unless I missed it, the ultimate fate of William of Baskerville in the book was left out of the series. I will leave that to future readers to find out.
Beautiful cinematography. Very well done.

reply

This indeed was a very well done series! I loved it more than the movie to be honest.

reply

Yes, the Jorge of Burgos in the movie was more fanatical than the one in the series. And Bernardo Gui in the movie was fiery and wicked while in the series he was sinister and malign. But I think they were equally effective. They were variations on a theme.

The series was able to delve deeper into the political and religious issues of the time. But it did this by introducing several different story lines that I don't think were present in the book, or in the movie. I have mixed feelings about this. The series gives the viewer more insight into the historical perspective of what was happening. But the movie better represented the atmosphere of mystery and foreboding within the monastery.

reply