2002 seems an eternity away from our perspective at the end of 2020. The 20th century has truly disappeared over the horizon, and TV adaptations of ' great ' 19th century books. As a child I used to read ' Classics Illustrated ' and still have a fondness for them as nostalgia. I feel the same way over adaptations like ' Daniel Deronda ' and I considered at the time it was shown on the BBC that it was a refreshingly good choice. Not only did it address heterosexual marriage ( there was no homosexual marriage then ) as more of a torture chamber than one of marital pleasure, but it also addressed Judaism. Romola Garai is a good actor and I have always liked her. She plays Gwendolyn extremely well, but Hugh Bonneville looks too bad in a sadistic Tory way for an independent woman like Gwendolyn to want him. Casting could have been more dangerous in choosing the then cute Hugh Dancy instead. A Jekyll and Hyde situation would have been more enjoyable to watch. It could also have stretched his acting. Andrew Davies does a good job with the novel and taking more risks with the novel such as the above mentioned casting would have made it, in my opinion, more unexpected. The scene when Hugh Dancy rescues a dark haired woman from drowning is one of the best and the Jewish element is well handled bringing out the anti-Jewish nature of the times in just one telling line. As for the archery scenes and ball scenes they are painting by numbers and are the usual visual clutter of such adaptations. To sum up it is one of the best of a genre I do not really care for. Like the ' Classics Illustrated ' adaptations these miss out on the one essential thing that is most relevant and that is the prose of the author. ' Daniel Deronda ' is imperfect as a novel but the prose evokes pictures in the mind much more potent than what is seen in the monotonous sameness of these BBC versions.
Review of Daniel Deronda
