Daniel Deronda (2002) User Reviews

Plot problems

[laraineryan-195-701640 · 7/10 · 6 March 2017]

This was well done, but it was distracting how easily Daniel found Mirah's family. She was going to kill herself because she was hopeless. How many synagogues would there have been in 1870s London? Yet Mirah gives up. Daniel finds them right away. Mirah is not very bright.

I have not read this book, so maybe she comes off better there.

I also wonder that Gwendolen did not at least seek a second opinion about her singing. Or have more confidence in it so as to persevere in spite of one negative opinion.

Ms. Glasher was not very smart either. She would have to convince a whole series of potential fiancees not to marry Grandcourt, and eventually he would get smart and get one to marry him without her being able to get to them. So useless. And Grandcourt was supposed to be so calculating, yet he let her get the diamonds to Gwen directly with that note, fully on notice that she would try to do it that way. Then again, maybe he thought that was a good thing as he is sadistic.

A slice of Victorian life

[=G= · 7/10 · 26 December 2004]

"Daniel Deronda" is a worthy knock-off of George Eliot's novel of the same name which tells of a young Englishman's search for meaning and purpose while enjoying a life of property and leisure. As with most Victorian period costume dramas out of the UK, this film is sumptuously appointed and well represented by the players and places as it meanders through the usual multiplicity of relationships from aristocrat to pauper with a Jewish thread for distinction. "Daniel Deronda" conjures a range of characters from a stoic martinet to a spoiled beauty to an attractive Jewess and beyond with love, greed, envy, guile, and death all swirling around the Deronda character as it manages to sort itself out with a coherent story arc and a more or less happy ending. A "should see" for anyone into Victorian flicks. (B)

brilliant production

[raymond-15 · 8/10 · 22 November 2006]

The title gave me no clue to the absorbing romantic Victorian drama that was to follow. Said to be George Eliot's last great novel, it exposes in no uncertain manner the pitiful life of the Victorian woman, hardly more than an obedient slave and forced to respond to her husband's demands.

Hugh Bonneville stands out among the excellent cast as the nasty Henleigh Grandcourt who revels in watching women squirm under his aristocratic power and Romola Garai is perfect as Gwendolen who marries him, not for love, but to save her family from economic ruin.

Hugh Dancy in the title role of Daniel has immediate appeal with his handsome good looks touched with both shyness and sadness as he ponders over his past life and the unsolved mystery of his mother's identity.

After Daniel saves a woman from drowning in a river, the story takes an unexpected turn and concentrates on the Jewish problem of a permanent homeland. Daniel is much attracted to the woman he has saved and through his efforts to help her some mysteries of his own life are revealed to him.

The sets, costumes and photography capture exquisitely life in England in the Victorian era. Quite apart from the romantic drama, there is much to ponder over in this story. Thankfully to-day women have gained a degree of independence, though not entirely, and the Jews are still uncertain about the boundaries of their homeland.

I can recommend this film which is in 4 parts. Set aside a full evening to watch the story unfold. It's quite long (205 minutes) but a brilliant production.

Read This Before Getting Your Little Heart Broken

[iskelseykristin · 7/10 · 22 March 2013]

Daniel is not in love with Gwendolyn. Don't ever believe it! He never was in love with Gwendolyn. I have no ideas why the filmmakers decided to push that angle, which has clearly led many a viewer astray, leaving them tragical and mystified when he chooses Myrah. I was dumfounded that they would seem to make the Dan/Gwen romance the central one, BUT IT'S NOT! In the book, which everyone ought to read anyways, Dan is interested in Gwen as a beautiful woman who is reliant on him, whereas she, as a self centered individual, believes that she means more to him than she really does, and does love him, as far as she is capable. He loves Myrah throughout, but can never tell his love as she can only marry a Jew. He is freed to love her upon the discovery of his heritage, not obligated to, as some have inferred.

The book is of course far more complicated, and they took many liberties with the storyline in the film, but this issue of the love triangle really seems to derail many viewers enjoyment who believe the films unnecessary love triangle red herring. Don't get attached!

But read the book! George Elliot is an incredible writer, and the Dan/Myrah love will satisfy any romantic.

"I don't love her any more than she loves me. That's not the point."

[KatharineFanatic · 10/10 · 18 April 2003]

Having never read George Eliot's novel, I came into the film with only what I know based on the information friends have given me. The film is utterly exquisite. The costuming alone will have Anglophiles like myself crying from sheer envy, and there's enough archery, riding, and balls to weigh out the seriousness of the film, which is essentially two plots woven into one. An utterly heartless and wretched marriage for a spoiled young Gwendolyn in the form of the evil Grandcourt, a landowner whose sole pleasure lies in torment. Be it his wife or dogs, our heartless villain never takes greater pleasure than in dangling something before them and tearing it away again, only to feed it to someone else. We see a kind of barbarism in this act, be it with the family spaniel or his impoverished, abandoned mistress.

The second plot line, which I found slightly less interesting, was about the film's lead, Daniel Deronda, a presumed illigitimate boy who has been raised a country gentleman. One day while out boating he saves a Jewish singer from drowning herself, and sets out to discover his own true identity through finding her family. I don't know why, but I found myself itching through these scenes to get back to Gwendolyn and her pathetic plight of enslavement to her husband. A second viewing, once I knew the course of the characters, settled me a bit.

The acting is very stellar. There's not a weak link in the cast, although I have to say seeing Barbara Hershey seemed a little out of place in this Victorian paradox. The film makes numerous contrasts between good and evil, selfishness and humility, lies and deception. It's actually quite an achievement, and I was pleased at the amount of restraint showed by the filmmakers. The sexual tension between man and wife will go over most younger viewer's heads, something for which I'm grateful. It's rare we get a wonderful Victorian bodice ripper where the bodice stays on.

Adequate

[William_Ponsonby-Cole · 23 June 2003]

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.

Time changes all things

[jromanbaker · 7/10 · 16 November 2020]

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.

Exquisite Adaptation

[sydneypatrick · 9/10 · 5 June 2003]

This was one of the more exquisite costume drama adaptations I have seen, with attention to detail absolutely striking in an archery scene that sets the bar for the entire series. Like the novel, it is polarizing in its two stories in one - people seem to either love/hate Daniel's plight or love/hate Gwendolyn's.

Personally, I found Gwendolyn equally annoying in both novel and film. Hugh Darcy, as the eponymous hero, was pretty to look at and delivers a fine, if unremarkable, performance.

But it is Hugh Bonneville as the dastardly Henleigh Grandcourt who took my breath away! He is flawlessly reprehensible, stealing every scene he was in and when he wasn't in a scene, I couldn't wait to see him again! It was terrific seeing Hugh Bonneville in such a role, as he's usually cast in the "very nice guy" roles (Bridget Jones Diary, Iris, Tipping the Velvet, etc). Although he's fine in such roles, as Grandcourt he made my skin crawl with his morally bankrupt, wealthy and pugnacious swagger. LOVED him!

What this series could have used more of was Jodhi May and Greta Scacchi. In difficult supporting roles, both women shine as, respectively, a searching, haunted Jewess and a scorned, bitter mistress. Barbara Hershey makes an appearance late in the series in a pivotal plot device that I won't reveal lest some unsuspecting viewer be bitter with me, and in a limited role gives a performance that reminds us why she became famous in the first place (and at least for this viewer, made me forgive her 'Beaches').

Overall, this adaptation is very enjoyable and recommended viewing for fans of the genre.

Well produced, well written but miscast

[Laight · 6/10 · 8 July 2023]

Even many George Eliot fans, people who swear by Middlemarch, haven't read Daniel Deronda -- it simply isn't as good as most of Eliot's output. Still it's a major novel and deserves adaptation. Here the prolific writer Andrew Davis does a good job trying to compress a lot of plot into a relatively short series. Some of it is well done, some of it not so much.

The bigger issue is the cast. Romola Garai does her usual excellent job as the selfish but beautiful heroine -- why didn't she become a bigger star considering she's like a much more beautiful Meryl Streep, and as good an actor? But Hugh Dancy is poorly cast as the title character. Instead of being brooding and introverted, Dancy comes across like a pretty fop, wearing lots of nice clothes and smiling a lot. He's done some good work but this is not what you should judge him by.

Worse is Hugh Bonneville as the evil villain -- Bonneville is an excellent actor but his sweet plump face isn't the right visage for one of the English novel's most dastardly men. Just doesn't work. Still, given the beautiful costumes and sets, Garai's excellent performance, and the intelligence of the script, the show is worth watching -- if you can stand two male leads.

Don't Judge "Deronda" Based on the First 15 Minutes

[hfk · 10/10 · 11 April 2004]

The first time 'round, when PBS initially offered up "Deronda", I watched the first 15 minutes or so and was so disgusted with Gwendolynn that I changed channels and didn't think twice. Second time 'round, based on reviews here at IMDB, I gave it a bit more time and I'm certainly glad that I did. "Deronda" is a powerfull, beautiful, bit of television. I'm a conservative by nature and, on a regular basis, I'm sickened by the politically correct preaching that's often pushed by PBS and Network television. Daniel Deronda like, say "Prime Suspect", is story-telling with a liberal slant that is both legitimate and thought-provoking. I thoroughly enjoyed the story, and the lush production. I'm surprised by the nit-picking about "wooden" acting: I found the acting excellent, particularly compared to the endless trash television that's pumped into the idiot box these days. perhaps this is trite, but "Deronda" actually inspired me, uplifted me and, at least as far as I'm concerned, that's one of the most significant hallmarks of great art. Don't miss it.

Hugh Dancy brought both the character and the novel Daniel Deronda to life for me.

[prowse-1 · 10/10 · 8 January 2006]

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.

Good but quite disappointing!

[TheReviewPerson · 5/10 · 15 May 2012]

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!

Excellent production of Evans' last Victorian novel

[SimonJack · 9/10 · 13 October 2012]

Mary Anne Evans finished writing "Daniel Deronda" in 1876. It was the last of several novels she wrote under the pen name, George Eliot. She was 57 at the time and would live but four more years. Among more than 40 fiction writers of the period, Eliot was one of the great chroniclers of 19th century English society (Georgian-Victorian).

"Deronda" is also the last of Eliot's books to be scripted for a movie. This rendition by the BBC in three parts is excellent. For the fairly recent filming - 2002, the film makers were able to capture the England of the 1870s very well. The cinematography was excellent, as were the script and direction. The acting was first-rate by the entire cast. As some others have mentioned, Hugh Bonneville excelled in his role of a shrewd, mean, heartless "villain," under the guise of a calm, but indifferent gentleman. Romola Garai and Jodhi May were perfect in their roles, and Hugh Dancy was superb in his slight reserve and humility, matching the character in the book. Edward Fox was on the mark in his supporting role, and all the rest of the cast were terrific.

My rating is down one point from a 10 only because of the slight disjointedness in the film. Others have commented on the appearance of two films together, and the difficulty of interweaving them. It wasn't a distraction, but it was noticeable - as though the script should have given us smoother connections between stories. But this is a tremendous film and most enjoyable foray into Victorian England.

I have to give Eliot kudos for one more thing that no one else seemed to comment on. That was the dialog around the table during the Jewish meal. Mordecai said that the Jews would not reach an end to their low esteem until they had a land of their own - in the eastern Mediterranean. What great foresight by a writer 75 years before the worldwide emigration of Jews to the Holy Land after World War II, and the establishment of modern Israel in the late 1940s.

I compliment the BBC for putting Eliot's great books on film, starting in the 1990s. Anglophiles and all of us who enjoy great movies and stories, will cherish these films for years to come. They are a great way to expose the young generation of today with some of the great literature and history of 19th century England.

The world would indeed have loved to have more of Eliot, Charles Dickens, Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen, Anthony Trollope and Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson). Most of them lived a little to a lot longer than the average age of life expectancy at the time. In 1850, that was 40 for males and 42 for females. Trollope (1815-1882) lived to be 67. Eliot (1819-1880) lived to be 61. And Carroll (1822-1898) was 66 when he died. Dickens also beat the average age of death, living to 58 from 1812-1870. But Austen (1775-1817) and Bronte (1816-1855), lived to only 42 and 39, respectively.

Excellent adaptation despite the slight departure from the book

[Nooshin_Navidi · 8/10 · 11 September 2010]

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

No "Middlemarch, but still pretty decent

[DorotheusBrooksham · 10/10 · 4 January 2003]

"Daniel Deronda" is the only novel George Eliot wrote after "Middlemarch", and it's also the strangest novel she's ever written, because one can never figure out whether the two story-lines are actually two separate novels put into one book. One continually has the impression on reading the book that the two story-lines could exist independently of each other. Mind you, she did the same thing with "Middlemarch", only here the two story-lines, those of Dorothea Brooke and Tertius Lydgate, are interrelated and interwoven ingeniously, which is one of the reasons why Middlemarch is such a masterpiece of structure. But I digress. In "Daniel Deronda" this relation is far less apparent, which makes it a lesser novel than Middlemarch, structurally speaking, but not necessarily a less fascinating one. One story-line is about the beautiful, vain, spoiled and idealistic and free-fought Gwendolen Harleth, one of Eliot's great, great heroines, who is forced to marry Henleigh Grandville to save her father from financial ruin. Grandcourt is also one of the most fascinating characters in Eliot's canon, for he seems to be the only one of her characters who is truly evil and who is not redeemed. He intents giving in to all of her caprices and wants at first and after due time to basically enslave her. The other story is that of Daniel Deronda, who is of Jewish heritage and starts a quest to find out more about it and in doing so meets the young Jewish idealist Mordecai, who dreams of a homeland for all Jews and who lectures Deronda on being who he is and on being true to his heritage: Jewish. In the book George Eliot seemed to have wanted to juxtapose Gwendolen's vanity and spoiledness with Mordecai's idealism, with Deronda being the only link between the two story-lines. He tries to bring some relief to Gwendolen's life of her oppressive marriage to Grandcourt. Which puts him in the strange position of being something of a mentor to Gwendolen and Mordecai´s disciple. But does it work on the small screen? Yes and no. I´ve always found Gwendolen´s part in the book far more interesting than Mordecai´s and I really had to struggle through it, it being quite tedious at times. Also I think Eliot was in a bit over her head in dealing with such issues as heritage, especially Jewish heritage. But she meant well. Mordecai's role on the mini-series is much diminished for the sake of the love-story between Deronda and Mirah. Which is probably a good thing, but it still didn't quite work. It just will not get interesting, perhaps this is because I am not Jewish. The most interesting part is Gwendolen. This story is the George Eliot I know and love. Most of Eliot's normal themes are recur here. The tension between ideals and the rules of society, selfishness and vanity, and the role of women in the Victorian marriage. All these themes are touched upon. Gwendolen's, played by the stunning Romola Garai, oppression by Grandcourt, played by the chillingly brilliant is her criticism of the roles of men and women in marriage. Women were basically slaves. And Gwendolen's redemption and spiritual rebirth is basically George Eliot saying that you can't be idealistic all your life and that you have to adhere to society's rules if there's going to be any chance of you being happy. The acting at times seemed a bit wooden, not in the least by Garai and Dancy. But Bonnneville was absolutely brilliant in it. He is truly evil. Mary Ann would have been proud. All in all I´d say this a pretty good adaptation of the novel. I give it a 7 out of 10.

You want to change the ending? you then ruin what George Eliot intended!

[winles · 10/10 · 15 May 2011]

We could all find endings to novels that we would like to change,but this is to set us up as a better writer than the author.

Contains possible Spoilers:~

The whole point of Daniel Deronda is to contrast the unloving Grandcourt and Gwendolyn

with the loving Daniel & Mirah.

It is also to show how the upper class society of England at the time was empty corrupt and without feeling. Where the oppressed,poor and faithful Jewish society was the opposite.

To have ended the novel by putting Daniel with Gewndolyn would have completely ruined the whole point of the story. The point being Gwendolyn starts to see her redemption by not having Daniel(or anything she wanted) and Daniel realising just how shallow and selfish Gwendolyn was. As a subplot Daniel finds his Jewish ancestry and realises just why and what feelings he had for Mirah. Change the end to Daniel with Gwendolyn and you completely destroy the whole construction of the plot,and as such there is no novel. We cannot always have happy endings (in a novel as in life) and we try and alter them to our peril. Do we really think we are a greater author than George Eliot? Perhaps we should try changing Dickens,Hardy or Gaskell? If you answer yes then your ego is bigger than your intelligence.

Lush adapation of a lesser Eliot novel

[Philby-3 · 7 July 2003]

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.

A routine product of the BBC machine

[pawebster · 5/10 · 17 December 2004]

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.

Period Romance with Substance

[lasker_98 · 10/10 · 1 July 2008]

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.

Villainy pays off

[ingemann2000 · 26 January 2004]

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!

Hugh Dancy as Daniel Deronda a Gentleman Who Cares

[Gloryous · 10/10 · 21 February 2006]

I really liked this movie. I was quite impressed with Hugh Dancy, he is very handsome, and is the kind of man that makes women's heart flutter. In this very intricate story of a young man wealthy, well-read, knowledgeable and interested in helping others, he admires one young woman from afar. She is beautiful and knows it and flirts with all men. Daniel is the only one that knows how to listen to her. She thinks all men are in love with her. She however has a secret that keeps her from ever being truly happy. Daniel is a caring man, and finds a woman and takes her in and helps her, the movie centers around the young beautiful woman and her exploits and how she is perceived by Daniel. He is quite a catch but the one who does end up catching him, will surprise all of you.

Barbara Hersey plays his Mother and shows her versatility in playing a much older woman. I was surprised at how well she played the part. Very believable.

The cast is just amazing. I felt as if I was spending time in the 1800's. I recommend this film I believe it is a classic like that of any Jane Austen story. I thoroughly enjoyed the story.

beautiful!

[aura772 · 9/10 · 29 May 2010]

I never read or heard of the novel and out of boredom and curiosity I decided to watch the movie, given that Hugh Dancy and Romola Garai star in it. I loved Hugh Dancy in "David Copperfield", I was 10 or 11 when the movie aired on TV and I watched it every year. I watched Romola Garai in "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights" and I wondered how she would be like in other films.

"Daniel Deronda" is something I never thought I might encounter. This is more than entertainment, this is culture, something more directors and producers should try to achieve. If they were to make this movie with Zac Efron and Miley Cyrus in modern America, people might be interested. - Joking, after the failure of "Clash of the Titans 3d" the last thing we'd need is more of Hollywood's appetite for destroying culture! I can't talk much about the plot of this movie since every line and every meaning is still spinning in my head. It's a great story about self-discovery, kindness, life's way of giving everybody a little bit of what they deserve. Of course, I'm rather one to think life doesn't give us anything we are getting everything based on what we have decided.

In all aspects, an outstanding adaptation

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 22 December 2013]

Daniel Deronda is not quite the masterpiece that Middlemarch in book-terms, it's still a compelling read once you stick with it with a story that is beautiful and harrowing and characters that are not strictly likable initially but grow to root for. This adaptation as a stand alone and adaptation is outstanding. The only debit for me was the ending, with Daniel making his decision too abruptly and too hastily, a decision that didn't ring true from personal perspective because the chemistry between Daniel and Gwen was stronger and more developed than his and Mirah's(though theirs was hardly non-existent). The mini-series does look great too, the colours have so much warmth, the photography oozes with fluidity, the costumes are evocative and beautifully tailored and the scenery and locations enough to take the breath away. The music is suitably understated with plenty of charm and also some haunting parts too. Writing-wise, Daniel Deronda is very literate and the intelligently written dialogue is adapted with real fluency and grace, capturing all the themes and contrasts(very heavy, risky ones too like good and evil, lies and deception, prejudice and self-discovery and selfishness and honesty/humility) of the book beautifully, understated and not crass. The story is close in spirit to the book, while lengthy and taking its time to develop- necessary as there's a lot in the book, length and details wise- it is still movingly and hard-hittingly told. The characters all translate well in the adaptation, they're every bit as interesting and not distorted in personality at all. Gwen in particular is a complex character to pull off, a lot of people seem to dislike her and understandably, she does frustrate you to begin with but you do feel sorry for her by the end. The acting along with the way the mini-series looked and was written is what makes Daniel Deronda so good. In particular Hugh Bonneville who does bring some wit but essentially Grandcourt is a real evil piece of work, it's very easy to hate him but not in a pantomimic sense. Hugh Dancy characterises compassionately and gently, his moments of anguish genuinely poignant in alternative to underplayed while the contempt Daniel keeps within him is not overplayed. As said earlier, Gwen is a difficult character to pass off credibly and Romola Garai does that and it brilliantly comes off, very deeply felt and honest without ever feeling forced. Jodhi May is affecting and beautiful and Edward Fox comes off well as the benevolent benefactor. The direction is admirably restrained, refraining from being overly-languid or overly-complicated, which either way would have spoilt the impact of the story. To conclude, really outstanding in all aspects apart from the ending which only really feels like a small blemish in comparison. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Ok

[darkdementress · 5/10 · 25 June 2021]

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.

Eliot serves up a different, yet still savory dish

[ivorybigsis · 10/10 · 21 March 2010]

Kudos to Andrew Davies who continues to spook me out with his grasp on the mores and idiosyncrasies of English society of yesteryear. (I think he is secretly utilizing a time machine) The casting is flawless; Bonneville's character is almost intrinsically wicked. Although he illustrates that he is a man who understands financial investments, his dearth of understanding of the necessity of genuine emotional investments becomes his undoing. It may seem simplistic, but one hand does wash the other.....I expected Scacci's spurned mistress to have more sympathy for one as blinded as indeed she was when still young and alluring. Greta is formidable as a woman facing the aspect of Grandcourt's ultimate disloyalty, as she herself was disloyal to a spouse who must have trusted her to some degree... Daniel Deronda himself is much more than highly likable; he is a hero of the first order......This film is truly worth watching.