Newsnight Review discussed the TV adaptation of "Daniel Deronda".

"Daniel Deronda" on BBC One, adapted from the book by Andrew Davies.

(Edited highlights of the panel's review)

Watch the whole programme

MARK LAWSON:
The newspapers are going to compare "Dr Zhivago" and "Daniel Deronda". Is it better or worse?

EKOW ESHUN:
My vote is for "Dr Zhivago". "Daniel Deronda" is a parody of a period drama. It is a psychological novel. It's about the intensity of dark and light and good and bad that are fought out within the characters. Here we see the surface of the characters. We see their faces but nothing of what's going on inside their minds. It's very old fashioned.

By comparison, "Dr Zhivago" was modern and almost radical in its desire to take on a classic text, turn it around and create something new.

MARK LAWSON:
I feel it was the other way around. Michael Gove, they have both chosen unusual directors. Giacomo Campiotti directed "Zhivago" and Tom Hooper directed "Daniel Deronda". I thought he made "Daniel Deronda" look unusual and there were scenes of real tension.

MICHAEL GOVE:
I enjoyed it. The performances were strong and the direction for a costume drama was inventive and for those of us who want to relax and enjoy a straightforward story it's all there.

There were particular ideas which worked. We saw Gwendoline fox hunting which was exciting and the archery scenes were done well. The interplay between the characters was good, particularly with Gwendoline and the nature of her attraction and distrust to her suitor.

GERMAINE GREER:
We are required to believe that the characters remember each other from the first encounter at a distance in the casino, but you don't get the feeling that they are entangled with each other.

I have to confess I watch this because I want to watch Hugh Dancy. He's gorgeous and I wish he would do more rowing and have fewer clothes on.

It's gorgeous to look at. We have too many costume changes. I get irritated with the surface values.

The problem is ultimately the novel - it's so creaky. It's such a thesis piece. They have to be better actors to make it work. They don't have enough depth and ambiguity.

EKOW ESHUN:
There's a scene where Daniel Deronda goes to the Jewish quarter of London and in a way it's a most interesting scene in the film. He arrives in a place that looks modern. Behind him are posters, prints and texts and all of these things which look like part of a world that you or I might recognise.

This is the only moment in the film where the drama seems to have reference to modernity. The rest could have been set at any conceivable period time.