When you think about Umberto Eco’s medieval murder mystery, you probably see Sean Connery’s face. It’s unavoidable. For most of us, the Name of the Rose cast starts and ends with that 1986 Jean-Jacques Annaud film. But here’s the thing: casting a 14th-century monastery thriller is actually a nightmare. You need actors who look like they’ve lived on nothing but gruel and prayer, yet they have to carry the intellectual weight of a semiotics professor.
Honestly, the distance between the 1986 film and the 2019 limited series is massive. It isn't just about the budget or the runtime. It’s about how different actors interpret William of Baskerville—a character who is basically Sherlock Holmes in a wool habit. One version gives us a rugged, aging James Bond. The other gives us John Turturro’s twitchy, cerebral intensity. Both work, but for totally different reasons.
The 1986 Iconography: Connery, Slater, and the "Ugly" Monks
Jean-Jacques Annaud had a very specific vision for his Name of the Rose cast. He didn't want "Hollywood" monks. He spent months scouting for faces that looked like they belonged in a Bosch painting. He wanted crooked noses, missing teeth, and eyes that had seen too much penance. This is why the movie feels so lived-in.
Sean Connery was not the first choice. Far from it.
Umberto Eco was reportedly horrified at the idea of James Bond playing his Franciscan friar. Columbia Pictures even pulled out of the project when Connery was signed because his career was in a slump at the time. Yet, Connery brought a physical presence to William of Baskerville that grounded the movie’s high-concept philosophy. He was a man of action who happened to be a genius.
Then you have a teenage Christian Slater as Adso of Melk. It was one of his first big roles. Looking back, he’s almost distractingly American in a sea of European character actors, but that Wide-eyed innocence actually serves the story. He is the audience surrogate. When he's terrified by the library or confused by the complex theological debates between the Franciscans and the Papal legates, we are too.
- F. Murray Abraham as Bernard Gui: Fresh off his Oscar win for Amadeus, Abraham played the inquisitor with a terrifying, quiet stillness. He didn't need to scream to be the scariest person in the room.
- Ron Perlman as Salvatore: This was Perlman’s breakout. He played the hunchbacked, multilingual outcast with a level of pathos that’s hard to find in a "monster" role. He spoke a "Babylonian" mix of Latin, Italian, and French that Perlman handled brilliantly.
- Michael Lonsdale as the Abbot: He brought that weary, bureaucratic weight to the monastery’s leadership.
The 1986 film succeeded because it leaned into the "grotesque." It used the cast to highlight the physical decay of the Middle Ages. You can almost smell the parchment and the unwashed wool through the screen.
👉 See also: When Was Kai Cenat Born? What You Didn't Know About His Early Life
The 2019 Shift: John Turturro and the Slow Burn
Fast forward to 2019. The world didn't necessarily need another adaptation, but the eight-episode miniseries allowed for something the movie couldn't do: it let the book breathe. This time, the Name of the Rose cast had to sustain interest for eight hours instead of two.
John Turturro didn’t just star as William; he was a driving force behind the production. His William is much closer to the book’s version. He’s leaner, more academic, and arguably more arrogant. While Connery felt like a mentor who happened to be a monk, Turturro feels like a man whose brain is constantly five steps ahead of his feet. It’s a jittery, fascinating performance.
The dynamic with Damian Hardung (the new Adso) is different, too. Hardung’s Adso feels more like a student of history than just a confused kid. Because the series has more time, we see the ideological struggle within Adso more clearly. He isn't just following William around; he’s trying to decide what kind of man he wants to be in a world that’s literally on fire.
Rupert Everett as Bernard Gui was a bold choice. He plays the inquisitor with a flamboyant, aristocratic menace that contrasts sharply with F. Murray Abraham’s ascetic version. Everett’s Gui feels like a politician. He’s a man who understands power as much as he understands scripture.
Why the Supporting Cast Matters in a Mystery
The strength of any Name of the Rose cast lies in the monks. If the secondary characters feel like background extras, the mystery fails. You need to believe that any of these men could be a murderer or a victim.
In the 1986 version, Feodor Chaliapin Jr. played Jorge of Burgos, the blind librarian. He was ancient, eerie, and looked like he was carved out of old wood. His performance set the bar for the "villain" of the piece. In the 2019 series, James Cosmo (who many know as Jeor Mormont from Game of Thrones) took on the role. Cosmo brought a more physical, looming threat to Jorge.
✨ Don't miss: Anjelica Huston in The Addams Family: What You Didn't Know About Morticia
The 2019 series also expanded the roles of the women, specifically the "Occitan Girl" and the character of Anna (played by Greta Scarano). In the original film, the female presence is almost entirely symbolic—representing temptation and the "earthly" world. The series tries to give these characters more agency, though some purists argue this deviates too much from the claustrophobic, male-dominated atmosphere of Eco's monastery.
Comparing the Two Visions
If you're trying to decide which version of the Name of the Rose cast is "better," you’re asking the wrong question. They serve different masters.
The 1986 cast is built for cinema. It’s about faces, shadows, and immediate impact. It’s a Gothic horror movie disguised as a mystery. Annaud knew that with Sean Connery, he had a lighthouse that could pull the audience through the murky plot.
The 2019 cast is built for a deep dive. It’s for the people who want to hear the actual theological arguments about whether or not Jesus owned his own clothes (a major plot point that the movie mostly brushes over). Michael Emerson as the Abbot in the 2019 version is a perfect example of this. Emerson, known for his roles in Lost and Person of Interest, brings a specific kind of intellectual anxiety to the role that fits a long-form series perfectly.
The Casting of "The Girl"
One of the most controversial parts of both productions is the casting of the peasant girl Adso falls for. In the 1986 film, it was Valentina Vargas. Her performance was almost entirely wordless, relying on raw, animalistic energy. It was meant to be a contrast to the overly-intellectual, repressed world of the monks.
In 2019, Antonia Fotaras took the role. Because the series had more time, her character was given a bit more backstory, though she remains a largely silent figure. The chemistry between the Adso and the Girl is the emotional core of the story's sub-plot, and both casts managed to make a potentially "creepy" dynamic feel like a genuine, tragic awakening for the young monk.
🔗 Read more: Isaiah Washington Movies and Shows: Why the Star Still Matters
Realism vs. Stylization
There’s a weird myth that the 1986 movie is more "realistic" because it’s dirtier. Honestly, that’s just a stylistic choice. The Middle Ages were colorful! People liked bright dyes and gilded manuscripts.
The 2019 Name of the Rose cast exists in a world that looks a bit more "polished," which actually aligns with some modern historical views of the wealthy monastic orders. However, the 1986 cast feels more iconic because it leans into the grime. When you see William Hickey as Ubertino of Casale in the movie, he looks like a walking corpse. It stays with you.
How to Watch and What to Look For
If you’re diving into these for the first time, watch the 1986 film first. It’s a masterclass in atmospheric casting. Pay attention to how the camera lingers on the faces of the background monks—men like Volker Prechtel (Malachia) who have faces you just don't see in modern cinema anymore.
Then, watch the 2019 series to see the nuance. Watch how John Turturro uses his hands. He’s always fiddling with things, examining lenses, or touching books. It’s a very different kind of "expert" performance than Connery’s.
- For the 1986 Film: Look for the interplay between Connery and F. Murray Abraham. Their scenes together are a masterclass in subtext.
- For the 2019 Series: Focus on the political subplots. The cast handles the complex "Dolcinian" heresy storyline, which the movie almost entirely ignores.
Ultimately, the Name of the Rose cast in any iteration has to bridge the gap between a brutal past and a modern detective story. Whether it’s the ruggedness of the 80s or the intellectual rigor of the 2010s, both versions managed to find actors who could make 14th-century Latin debates feel like a matter of life and death.
To get the most out of your viewing experience, start by comparing the first meeting between William and the Abbot in both versions. In the 1986 film, it’s about establishing authority and the physical space of the monastery. In the 2019 series, it’s a verbal chess match that sets the stage for the political intrigue to follow. Pay close attention to the eyes of the actors—in a world where everyone is hiding a secret, the eyes do more work than the dialogue.