by Josh Sewell
Wuthering Heights
(Rated R for sexual content, some violent content and language. Opens in theaters on February 13.)
When it comes to highly anticipated adaptations of classic novels, it’s often hard to separate the English teacher part of my brain from the film critic side. A movie is a much different medium than a book, and they each have their own language, rules, priorities, etc. That may seem obvious, yet we often find ourselves uttering the world’s easiest criticism: “the book was better.”
In that respect, I had a feeling writer-director Emerald Fennell’s take on Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights – a somber, disturbing tale of toxic relationships and generational trauma – was likely hobbled from the start. Considering the trailers and press leading up to the film’s release threw around phrases like “romantic” (note the lowercase R) and “inspired by the greatest love story of all time,” I suspected this wouldn’t be a faithful adaptation of the central characters’ doomed, borderline incestuous relationship.
Fennell’s adaptation, like most big screen versions of Wuthering Heights, ignores the second half of the novel that chronicles the generational tragedy of its characters. Instead, it focuses primarily on the intense and destructive relationship between Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) and Catherine Earnshaw (Margot Robbie), set against the backdrop of the Yorkshire moors from the late 1700s into the early 1800s.
I don’t have a problem with adaptations of well-known texts making dramatic changes (for example, Stephen King’s and Stanley Kubrick’s versions of The Shining are both amazing but wildly different), however it’s jarring how much Fennell seems to profoundly misunderstand the source material. Her interpretation of Wuthering Heights is the cinematic equivalent of a student BS-ing their way through a book report despite only reading half the Wikipedia page.
The journey is never boring, but it mostly ignores the disastrous ramifications of class, race and colonialism that permeate Brontë’s epic tale. That’s especially true when it comes to the character of Heathcliff, who the author explicitly and frequently describes as racially ambiguous.
The horrible treatment he’s subjected to as a child in late 1700s England is unquestionably a contributing factor to the monstrous person he becomes as a defense mechanism against abuse. It’s a central conceit in the novel, but Fennell completely erases it by casting Elordi and replaces it with standard Victorian pining and romcom-level misunderstandings.
To be honest, it seems like Fennell took far more inspiration from Gone with the Wind, which overlooked the horrors of the Civil War in favor of a shallow love story between two awful people, beautiful costumes and a sweeping score. If that’s the case, why not transform such a uniquely American story to fit your own country’s historical politics? That would be a justified revisionist interpretation of a text.
She also had the option of making her own Bridgerton-style period romance with Robbie and Elordi. Would Wuthering Heights really get her more name recognition with modern audiences than those A-list names on the poster? (The comic book nerd version of this gripe is wondering why Zack Snyder wanted to make a Superman movie when he clearly didn’t understand or care why the character is special and unique.)
Don’t get me wrong, Fennell’s movie isn’t terrible – it’s just not Wuthering Heights. People who haven’t read the book will probably enjoy it just fine. Robbie and Elordi are outstanding actors and they have strong chemistry. The costume and production design (courtesy of Jacqueline Durran and Suzie Davies) are undeniably gorgeous. Linus Sandgren’s sweeping cinematography is incredible – the moors have never looked foggier.
It’s fans of the novel who will probably leave the theater disappointed or confused, as well as newbies who fall for the less-than-truthful marketing. I recently heard a comment from someone that summed it up best: releasing Wuthering Heights on Valentine’s Day is like releasing Frankenstein for Father’s Day.
(Rated R for sexual content, some violent content and language. Opens in theaters on February 13.)
When it comes to highly anticipated adaptations of classic novels, it’s often hard to separate the English teacher part of my brain from the film critic side. A movie is a much different medium than a book, and they each have their own language, rules, priorities, etc. That may seem obvious, yet we often find ourselves uttering the world’s easiest criticism: “the book was better.”
In that respect, I had a feeling writer-director Emerald Fennell’s take on Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights – a somber, disturbing tale of toxic relationships and generational trauma – was likely hobbled from the start. Considering the trailers and press leading up to the film’s release threw around phrases like “romantic” (note the lowercase R) and “inspired by the greatest love story of all time,” I suspected this wouldn’t be a faithful adaptation of the central characters’ doomed, borderline incestuous relationship.
Fennell’s adaptation, like most big screen versions of Wuthering Heights, ignores the second half of the novel that chronicles the generational tragedy of its characters. Instead, it focuses primarily on the intense and destructive relationship between Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) and Catherine Earnshaw (Margot Robbie), set against the backdrop of the Yorkshire moors from the late 1700s into the early 1800s.
I don’t have a problem with adaptations of well-known texts making dramatic changes (for example, Stephen King’s and Stanley Kubrick’s versions of The Shining are both amazing but wildly different), however it’s jarring how much Fennell seems to profoundly misunderstand the source material. Her interpretation of Wuthering Heights is the cinematic equivalent of a student BS-ing their way through a book report despite only reading half the Wikipedia page.
The journey is never boring, but it mostly ignores the disastrous ramifications of class, race and colonialism that permeate Brontë’s epic tale. That’s especially true when it comes to the character of Heathcliff, who the author explicitly and frequently describes as racially ambiguous.
The horrible treatment he’s subjected to as a child in late 1700s England is unquestionably a contributing factor to the monstrous person he becomes as a defense mechanism against abuse. It’s a central conceit in the novel, but Fennell completely erases it by casting Elordi and replaces it with standard Victorian pining and romcom-level misunderstandings.
To be honest, it seems like Fennell took far more inspiration from Gone with the Wind, which overlooked the horrors of the Civil War in favor of a shallow love story between two awful people, beautiful costumes and a sweeping score. If that’s the case, why not transform such a uniquely American story to fit your own country’s historical politics? That would be a justified revisionist interpretation of a text.
She also had the option of making her own Bridgerton-style period romance with Robbie and Elordi. Would Wuthering Heights really get her more name recognition with modern audiences than those A-list names on the poster? (The comic book nerd version of this gripe is wondering why Zack Snyder wanted to make a Superman movie when he clearly didn’t understand or care why the character is special and unique.)
Don’t get me wrong, Fennell’s movie isn’t terrible – it’s just not Wuthering Heights. People who haven’t read the book will probably enjoy it just fine. Robbie and Elordi are outstanding actors and they have strong chemistry. The costume and production design (courtesy of Jacqueline Durran and Suzie Davies) are undeniably gorgeous. Linus Sandgren’s sweeping cinematography is incredible – the moors have never looked foggier.
It’s fans of the novel who will probably leave the theater disappointed or confused, as well as newbies who fall for the less-than-truthful marketing. I recently heard a comment from someone that summed it up best: releasing Wuthering Heights on Valentine’s Day is like releasing Frankenstein for Father’s Day.
Grade: C
Home Entertainment Spotlight
Heaven
(Rated PG-13. Available on Blu-ray, DVD and VOD starting February 17.)
For her 1987 debut as a feature director, the late, great Diane Keaton chose to investigate what people really think about the great beyond. The result is an offbeat documentary combining interviews, clips from films such as Metropolis, Green Pastures and Stairway to Heaven, and songs that explore different ideas of what paradise may have to offer.
She asks questions to a diverse range of interviewees, including fundamentalists; visionaries; boxing promoter Don King; Victoria Sellers; Swami Prem Amitabh; and even her own parents and sister. The answers she gets are honest and often outrageous. Heaven features a score from Howard Shore and a soundtrack including songs by Lionel Richie; The Residents; The Dream Academy; Sam Cooke; and more. It’s a study that is at once both affectionate and ironic, revealing how religion, Hollywood and songs have reflected and influenced man’s view of the hereafter.
Home Entertainment Spotlight
(Rated PG-13. Available on Blu-ray, DVD and VOD starting February 17.)
For her 1987 debut as a feature director, the late, great Diane Keaton chose to investigate what people really think about the great beyond. The result is an offbeat documentary combining interviews, clips from films such as Metropolis, Green Pastures and Stairway to Heaven, and songs that explore different ideas of what paradise may have to offer.
She asks questions to a diverse range of interviewees, including fundamentalists; visionaries; boxing promoter Don King; Victoria Sellers; Swami Prem Amitabh; and even her own parents and sister. The answers she gets are honest and often outrageous. Heaven features a score from Howard Shore and a soundtrack including songs by Lionel Richie; The Residents; The Dream Academy; Sam Cooke; and more. It’s a study that is at once both affectionate and ironic, revealing how religion, Hollywood and songs have reflected and influenced man’s view of the hereafter.
Reach out to Josh Sewell at joshsewell81@gmail.com or on BlueSky @joshsewell.bsky.social
Comments
Post a Comment