Recently, I acquired an old "guilty pleasure" of mine on blu-ray, the movie "The Name of The Rose" from 1986, directed by J.-J. Annaud starring Sean Connery, in one of his best performances, and a very young Christian Slater. I had read the novel around the same time and had found it dry and "boring" (I was just a young lad) but this "alien" medieval world really seemed to come alive in the movie adaptation. I like historical movies, where you have a chance to be the "fly on the wall" in a period you will never be able to other than read accounts of and Annaud, im my opinion did a great job, giving the movie this feel. As is the case with very "wordy" and world building novels, Lord of The Rings could be another example, is that it has to be condensed someway or another to fit the format of the movie feature. So corners have to be cut. The real point is though, what corners are cut and how.
After watching the 1986 movie I got the urge to google for a "remake" ... since these are so popular now (Disney anyone?) and stumbled on a recent TV series basically doing just that. Even if I mostly avoid TV series in my "movie" watching, I was slightly surprised that this one had gone under my radar. Being a huge fan of this story which has been dear to me for more than three decades I watched it in one sit-through. Here are my comments and review of it.
The plot is quite complicated. Both from a specific ground floor view, but also in a larger sense of the disturbances in the political and religious movements of the time. We are talking early 14th century and we have an emerging awakening of the renaissance, the rediscovery of the ancient texts, not least those of philosophers like Aristotle. At the same time the state and christianity is both battling each other while also merging into a unique mix of a fascistic sort of symbiose (the inquisition), to control the mind of the "poor", tithe-paying "public". In this cauldron of intrigue and power manipulation, franciscan friar William of Baskerville and his novice Adso of Melk, arrive in an unnamed remote benedictian abbey in the northern mountainous regions of Italy to participate in a debate about the interpretation of Christs understanding of poverty.
Basically it is the same plot and story in the new adaptation as presented in the 1986 movie, except it is more detailed and better fleshed out in many parts. When I think about it, most important aspects of the plot is present in the old movie and it stands to its testament that it managed to make something even remotely cohesive out of a plot this complex, while maintaining a mainstream appeal.
The mainstream appeal is partly remained except that at times it takes a good deal of time to make many of the philosophical arguments that are in the book, but naturally avoided or toned way down in the movie adaptation. This is one of the best aspects of the new series, the better focus on the logical arguments and the obvious "Sherlock Holmes'ean" style of William while appearing as what I would call the best "casting choice" for the role of a representation of Aristotle.
John Turturro is the obvious key actor and mostly he delivers a William I am very sympathetic to, not least his subdued, wise sage, stubborn intellectual philosophers type person he portrays. At times he feels a little too subdued and too little emotionally there in the story between him and his novice, from which the structure of the series suffers a bit. Adso, even if he has placed front and center on the poster, is mostly a side character there only to make a "romantic" inflated sidestory possible and not the "Dr. Watson" he is really supposed to be.
And that is possibly the greatest problem here. Both the casting of Adso, he looks like a millennial social media junky who has wandered into the wrong film set. He does not really feel like a part of the setting or the story at all. I feel this is both due to the casting and the direction. This is close to a disaster for the series as a whole, as he is a key figure, and the inflation of the "girl" and "Xenia the warrior princess" side-stories into something way more than I remember from reading the novel (even if I admit that I do not remember much of what I read).
What does save it though as I said is Turturro´s memorable performance and those performances of those who play Salvatore, the idiot deformed heretic and his "patron" Remigio. Wisely, the casters chose some decent actors for those roles and it pays of in my opinion. The memorable performance of Ron Perlman in the original movie can still stand alone as the new one has a less weird attitude and a more humorous one, all due to the actor's memorable performance.
There are a few nudges at the original adaptation here ad there, and in particular I am pretty sure that the guy who plays the glass maker (crystals etc.) in the new series is the same actor as the one who played the greek translater Venantius in the 1986 adatation, just 40 years older now :-)
The inquisitor Bernardo Gui, played by Rupert Everett, and solidly if predictably evil as he is supposed to. Overall I find it a solid effort that stays true to the story and manages to make it all a worthwhile experience, while I have to pretend that I don't experience the girl sidestories as they drags it all down and takes focus away from the intricate historical, philosophical and detective work aspects that are infinately more interesting than teenage millenial hormone gynocentrism.
It comes recommended
6/10