"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.
Reviews
3 Reviews
Holiday Affair
(1949)
Broken hearts are mended
19 December 2002
'Holiday Affair' is a truly wonderful film centered around a woman who's husband died in WWII living alone with her son, played by Janet Leigh (the woman that is) and a dreaming drifter played by Robert Mitchum. They meet and after a few shakes and bruises along the way, on both sides, in the end get and stay together. A then 20-year old Janet Leigh plays her insecure, scared and mourning Connie Ennis with a subtlety and a maturity beyond her years. And film-noir icon rough, tough and brooding Robert Mitchum pulls the role of the lucid and warmhearted drifter off as effortlessly as he did his Jeff Bailey in 'Out of the Past'. The man was a genius. The story as well is told with such maturity and wit for those days, when one considers all the sleek and easy traps of sentimentality and mushiness one could have fallen into in making these kinds of films. 'It's a Wonderful Life' has not been as fortunate. Another reason why this film has aged so infinitely well, is the well-drawn, 3-dimensional characters. As opposed to, again, 'It's a Wonderful Life', where some of the characters almost fade into caricature. Here we see REAL people as it were. Real people with real problems. Especially in Leigh's character, such as getting over the loss someone dear to us and how to move on and not be scared after that. But also in Wendell Corey's character. A man in love who knows she's not in love with him and who tries to hang on at any cost. But he's not depicted as a jealous, malevolent, crazed Iago-type character who does everything and anything to prevent her and Mitchum from coming together, nor does he play an overly-good, almost idioticly noble character who "just wants her to be happy" and who therefore gives her up. No, he plays a reasonable, slightly torn up man who sees the end is nigh for him and her, who's willing to fight but when he sees the battle is lost gives up graciously, a predicament which the otherwise somewhat wooden Corey conveys onto the screen wonderfully well. This, plus the little boy who for a child-actor performs amazingly well and the fantastic, almost over the top (but not really) ending, might make this into the best Christmas-movie ever made. Yes, EVER made! Leave not this film unseen! 10/10.
It's Only TV... But I Like It
(1999–2002)
Redundant and not that funny
26 October 2002
This show's not really that funny. For some reason the BBC can't enough of these shows with a host and two teams composed of three people who think they're amusing and in most cases are amusing. This is just the latest one in a long line of these shows and quite frankly the least funny of them.
Jonathan Ross is a good presenter, and he can be quite funny as he's shown on 'They think it's all over', but one does grow tired of the constant homosexual innuendo's aimed at Julian Clary, who does his fair bit of them as well. Plus the show in itself is really not that funny, the games try to be more amusing than they really are, because in actuality they're forced and silly. And there doesn't seem to be any chemistry between the host and the team-leaders, or between the team-leaders themselves for that matter. Phil Jupitus is also quite funny on 'Buzzcocks', but for some reason here he isn't. All in all, I think this show is just a tad bit too much from the BBC and quite redundant, to be honest. They're just milking the same old formula again and again until the point they can't do it anymore. I think with this show that point's been reached. 4 out of 10. (sowwy Jonathan!)
Jonathan Ross is a good presenter, and he can be quite funny as he's shown on 'They think it's all over', but one does grow tired of the constant homosexual innuendo's aimed at Julian Clary, who does his fair bit of them as well. Plus the show in itself is really not that funny, the games try to be more amusing than they really are, because in actuality they're forced and silly. And there doesn't seem to be any chemistry between the host and the team-leaders, or between the team-leaders themselves for that matter. Phil Jupitus is also quite funny on 'Buzzcocks', but for some reason here he isn't. All in all, I think this show is just a tad bit too much from the BBC and quite redundant, to be honest. They're just milking the same old formula again and again until the point they can't do it anymore. I think with this show that point's been reached. 4 out of 10. (sowwy Jonathan!)
Tell Your Friends