Daniel Deronda

Moviecut—Daniel Deronda

As a film of social and interpersonal dimension, Daniel Deronda is impressive. It is refreshingly easy to forgive that it is not an Ivory production complete with exquisite costumes, sets, and revelatory photography. There is an engaging account to make up for it. The series encapsulates the respective stories of the heroic Daniel Deronda and the spoiled aristocrat, Gwendolyn Harleth whose lives first intertwine at a casino. The first images of the roulette and the covert glances Gwendolyn and Daniel share transport us immediately into the Victorian period with its secrets, niceties, and excesses. It is the only period that such a film could take place. Their encounter is a chance one. She is called away, once she receives the news, to attend to her impoverished family; he is not a gambler. Yet, his return of the jewels she sold to provide money for her family lays the foundation of their relationship that lasts until the end of the series. Gwendolyn, despite her self-centeredness and arrogance, sees value in him that transcends her attraction. His generosity is an impression which deepens each time she sees him, and, to a degree, transforms her. Romola Garai masterfully registers the complexities of Gwendolyn Harleth, who is the more pivotal character. Her facial and vocal expressions continually convey the conflicts in her nature that on one hand consists of a superficial expectation of wealth, and on the other hand contains her desire to be a better person than she could possibly become. Gwendolyn's decisions, involving situations which are morally complex, result continuously in dichotomies that benefit some to the absolute detriment of others. She is haunted by these ambiguities, her uncomfortable reflections on her motivations, and her tragic belief in Daniel Deronda. That she often suffers as a result of circumstances and conscience, does not give her comfort. Yet the initial understanding of her lack of substance disappears. Her character is considered the most impressive ever written by Eliot, and Garai is award-worthy in capturing her. Hugh Dancy has the requisite gallantry and innocence of Deronda, who finds a social purpose in aiding the Jewish people in their pursuit of their homeland. His romantic interest in Gwendolyn is a fascinating aspect that gives the series its thrilling effect. One is compelled to wonder and hope throughout if they will have a future together.

The lead actress was really bad, annoying very bratty and i felt no sympathy or interest in her scenes. Overall the story was decent and watchable but I've seen better tv mini series from the time period.

If you're familiar with George Eliot and have read her books, you'll most likely enjoy this adaptation. But if you're a George Eliot purist, you may be dismayed by the film's romanticization of Daniel & Gwendolyn's relationship. I personally was okay with it and found it a forgivable artistic liberty, as it was handled delicately and tastefully and did not detract from the heart of the story. In fact, I liked the adapted screenplay for its restraint. If you're a Jane Austen fan but not familiar with Eliot's work, you might find this story lacking in wit compared to Austen's stories, or just too glum. But George Eliot herself was a very different woman from Austen. The Jewish subplot--something that is also present in Eliot's more famous 'Middlemarch'--is enough to make the two authors different, but the sociopolitical depth and soberness of Eliot's work also sets them apart. The casting was terrific all around (including the magnificently aging Greta Scacchi), and the costumes & scenery were perfect. ~NN

As a big fan of historical dramas, I was really looking forward to 'Daniel Deronda' being the next great drama to watch. Although I was intrigued about how the story would pan out... only to be disappointed. I didn't feel much chemistry between Lapidoth and Deronda, so I found their relationship quite unconvincing. By the end, I became bored and very unenthusiastic about watching it, and almost didn't bother to watch the ending! But, on a lighter note, I thought that Romola Garai's performance was brilliant. I also thought that the sets and costume were delightful, which, in the end, pushed my vote to a five, rather than a four!

The usual lush mini-series adapation from that reliable team, Andrew Davies and the BBC, of a literary property, this time George Eliot's almost forgotten last novel. Daniel (Hugh Dancy) is the gorgeous if slightly wet boy of mysterious parentage adopted by wealthy amiable old buffer Sir Hugo (Edward Fox). He falls in love with the wrong woman, the beautiful but self-absorbed Gwendolen (Romola Garai). She however is propelled into marriage with ace bounder (and Sir Hugo's heir) Henleigh Grandcourt (Hugh Bonneville). Daniel then becomes interested in Mirah (Johdi May), a promising singer of Jewish background, and through her ailing brother Mordecai (Daniel Evans) the Zionist cause (yes, hotting up as far back as the 1870s). Grandcourt meets a bounder's fate and Gwendolen is now free to marry Daniel, but guess what…? The costumes are great, the acting impeccable, the photography luminous but the story lacks punch. It is didactic rather than romantic, with metaphorical posters all over the place for women's rights and a homeland for the Jewish people. Hugh Dancy looks right for the part but Daniel is too much of a prig to be very likeable (though he has my sympathy when he discovers that Barbara Hershey, resplendent in a Venetian Palazzo is his mother – Greta Scacchi would not have been so bad). The most engaging characters are Grandcourt the bounder and his sidekick Lush (David Bamber – Mr Collins in `Pride and Prejudice') and yet we are meant to despise them both. Gwendolen is sympathetic to the extent she marries Grandcourt to provide financial security for her mother and sisters, but she is a real dork otherwise. Generally the characters lack the panache of say, Trollope's characters in `The Way We Live Now', or Eliot's own in `Middlemarch'. Perhaps Ms Eliot should have quit while she was ahead. The critics at the time (including Henry James) were baffled by the `Jewish' aspect of the story. It certainly was an outsider's view, yet it rings true today; here Ms Eliot was being prophetic, or was at least aware of the combination of repression, deprivation and myth that could give rise to a successful social movement. In 1876, the year the novel was published, it seemed most unlikely that Palestine would ever become a significant Jewish settlement. Daniel, desperate to find out about his background, finds a cause bigger than himself and eagerly throws himself into it. One has the feeling that Mirah, musically talented though she is, is going to be playing second fiddle. Anyway, I enjoyed Hugh Bonneville's Grandcourt, a terrific bounder, and David Bamber's Lush (Mr Collins turns bad). And of course, this is Sunday evening stuff, so one mustn't be too picky about the crummy plot and the unsympathetic principals. I usually find myself at this point thinking `I must read the book' (if I haven't already), but this time I don't think I'll bother.

Daniel Deronda has some good elements and characters. The Jewish element is unusual and interesting. Gwendolen is well played, but so unlikeable she risks sinking the ship. The villains are villainous and well acted, if a bit hackneyed. Unfortunately, the hero Daniel is not one of the interesting characters, at least as portrayed here. Whether another actor could have made more of the role I cannot say. The settings are great and the costumes are luxurious but very obviously costumes and not lived-in clothes. We are watching beautiful tableaux -- Victorian eye candy. The hair is awful, with many of the characters wearing absolutely rigid wigs that could have been sponsored by Elnet. The BBC has churned out so many of these period dramas, some of them truly excellent, but here the machine seems to have been set to autopilot.

I'm watching the British series Daniel Deronda every week on Swedish tv, and I will recommned it to everyone who fancies quality literary adaptations. The production values are impeccable, and the acting list very impressive. The one to catch your attention, though, is without a doubt Hugh Bonneville as the supervillain Grandcourt. He's everything a good oldfashioned villain from the 19.th century ought to be: suave, cool, arrogant, manipulative, morally corrupt, and with a razor sharp wit. In fact, he totally overshadows the meek and handsome, but oh so noble and earnest hero, poor Daniel Deronda! Hugh Dancy does his best, but it's hard work to make Deronda as interesting as Grandcourt! Likewise with the heroine. Romola Garai is beautiful to look at, but it's difficult to really care about Gwendolyn. She's such a silly, whiny, and cold person who would rather marry a man she dislikes than stoop to be a governess! It made me long to give her a good whipping! All in all, I think she and Deronda deserve each other, for being so awfully colourless and boring. I'd much rather spend the time watching the villain smirk, or wonder about miss Lapidoth's strange fate, among the Jews. As usual, being the villain pays off! Hugh Bonneville and David Bamber as Lush are the characters you remember! They really are perfectly selfish and dastardly mean!

It was interesting to read the various comments put up here about the screen adaptation of Daniel Deronda. I watched it at the time it was first shown on television and thought it was really excellent. Then shortly afterwards, I came across the novel whilst on holiday and having enjoyed the television adaptation, I began to read the book and couldn't put it down. After that I felt compelled to go back to watch the televised version again and felt that although, as with any screenplay, it could not include every detail from the original novel, it captured the essence of the book extremely well and that it was truly inspiring. In fact I even re-read the book shortly afterwards. I thought the acting was superb and would certainly take issue with other user comments about both Gwendolyn and Daniel. Daniel was supposed to be almost saint-like and consequently somewhat removed from the other characters, although he did care deeply about them. I thought that Hugh Dancy did this very well, as it was so difficult to portray such a character. I certainly don't think he was in any way "wooden". He apparently said that having read the novel at university, he found it fascinating and helpful when filming to refer constantly to the original novel for guidance, and that needless to say, it gave him a much greater insight into the novel than when he had first read it. (Actually it was through watching Daniel Deronda that I became a loyal fan of Hugh Dancy.) I confess that I found myself quite illogically drawn to Gwendolyn's character as she advanced through the story to such an extent that the end of the screen version always makes me cry. Obviously she was intensely annoying to begin with, but she pays for her immaturity and her selfish and thoughtless behaviour by the end of the novel. I thought she was a far more interesting character than Mirah, not that I didn't think that Jodhi May was excellent in that role, but I loved the sexual tension between Gwendolyn and Deronda - the fact that they almost kissed but never did, so that in the end, even though you sensed it was a relationship going nowhere, you really wanted them to get physical. Of course Deronda was too honourable to do any such thing! Ah! Therein lies the attraction of the character for me: such purity and honour, (and of course Hugh Dancy is beautiful...) but there's not too much of that left these days - I refer to purity and honour.

George Eliot was a truly excellent writer, but 'Daniel Deronda' was perhaps not her best work. This may go some way to mitigating the rather average results that emerge from this adaptation. Intended to be an insightful and complex tale of love, greed, selfishness, prejudice, maturity, and self-knowledge, the film (like the novel) proceeds more like two almost-unconnected stories, neither of which is wildly interesting. Tying the two plots together is Daniel Deronda, played by Hugh Dancy. Dancy walks his way through, somehow making most of his lines seem redundant. To be fair, acting out a novel that uses extensive narration and introspection can't be easy, but a more experienced actor might have been a better choice to tackle such a tough job. The character of Daniel is a young man on the path of self-discovery, with detours along the way for a bit of romance and a little aimlessness. His relationships with two women form the fabric of the story. The first tale revolves around the young, pretty, and petty Gwendolen Harleth. Played well, if not spectacularly, by the radiant Romola Garai, she is impetuous and selfish (though usually without intent), thinking that she is and must be the centre of attention. Garai plays her as someone who thinks that she has mastered the world around her, but is in fact nothing more than an indulged child. When her family is virtually ruined financially, she must choose between making a loveless marriage to maintain her high living, or quiet penury in the country. Naturally, she chooses the former. However, what she does not realise is that her suitor, Henleigh Grandcourt, is actually a cold, calculating sadist whose only interest in her is as an item of torment. Grandcourt is played by Hugh Bonneville, the one real stand-out in the production. Bonneville delivers an excellent performance as the deceptive, thoroughly wicked abuser. His Grandcourt is a flint-hearted reptile who first tricks Gwendolen with false kindness and then, when he has her in his grasp, begins to crush her with his cruelty. Plot two centres on Daniel's relationship with Mirah Lapidoth, a Jewish singer whom he saves from a suicide attempt. Mirah is played by Jodhi May, who is actually rather flat in her delivery. May seems to go in for the "hushed whisper" technique quiet a bit. I suspect the idea was to portray Mirah as a sensitive, troubled woman, but in the end she just seems dull and high-strung. Her search for (and eventual reunion with) her family draws Daniel down a path that he would probably not otherwise have visited, and it has a significant impact on his life. Good supporting work shores things up a bit, though the screen time is limited. The first comes from Edward Fox as Sir Hugo, Daniel's benefactor, a kindly old man of great wealth who acts as a sort of father to him. The always-excellent Greta Scacchi, looking strikingly haggard in character, is a ghost from Grandcourt's past who comes back to haunt his new bride. I rate it 6/10.