“Wuthering Heights”, boy, has it been hit with mixed reviews. Another reimagining of the 1847 Emily Brontë novel, what could go wrong? Depending on whether you read the novel, a lot apparently. For a taste of both sides of the argument – one, that it’s lazy and artless, and two, it’s bold and sexy – read on.
Jacinta’s Argument: It’s a lazy and misinformed excuse for art.
The new Wuthering Heights movie isn’t a well-done example of taking creative liberties on the adaptation of a classic – it’s just a boring, watered down version of the original and not that great a movie. It’s flat, un-engaging and was a complete failure of the marketed promise for a hot and sexy retelling of the “greatest love story ever known”. It was tame, vanilla even. It’s just two big name actors in pretty clothes who have no chemistry with each other. I understand this is Fennell’s angsty teenage interpretation of the romance, but it comes across as cartoonish rather than horny.
There are many arguments I could make — Fennell’s habit of displaying her lower-class main characters as dangerous and sexually devious; that she whitewashed Heathcliff and self-cast Cathy as her actress equivalent; that in stripping away the complexities that made Wuthering Heights universally well-known, she weakens the story to nothing but a rom com. I could certainly make each of these arguments with their own essay, but the fact of the matter is that the movie isn’t good enough for its big mistakes to take precedence and it isn’t bad enough for me to be mad.
It’s just another artsy rom com that had no affect on me at all. As soon as I left cinema, I returned to my life unchanged.
Wuthering Heights is at its core about class and race. When you take that away, you’re left with a mediocre love story where Heathcliff’s villainy is evil for the sake of evil, instead of vengeance.
Ben’s Argument: It’s a bold and sexy take on a classic tale.
Now, do I believe in the “right” to adapt it as you see fit? Yes. But, I also hold respect for the disappointment purists are feeling.
I haven’t read the book and haven’t the foggiest on the plot. My lore with Wuthering Heights extends to buying the book at the ripe old age of 12 mistaking it for a ghost story. I now see the blurb was referring to being haunted and tormented by love.
So I had no idea what to expect and was left googling about many-a-thing if it was in the book.
I am a whore for a visually-pleasing film and this film did tickle my fancy. Cathy’s costumes were stunning, the old school catchlight for Heathcliff on a stormy night was striking and a horse ride into a rich orange sunset was nostalgic.
And after my love of Saltburn, I had high hopes. It did live up to the Emerald Fennell-ness of it all and, yes, relied on scandalising sexual deviancy for plot and character development. Some sat well while others felt out of place.
Without knowing it, I clocked one of the most controversial changes Fennell had made in the plot of Isabella.
Isabella was my absolute stand out. Alison Oliver killed it, her comedic timing and delivery outshines Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi by leagues. But, her story change from the book felt provocative for provocative’s sake. I sit uncomfortably with the character’s turn to kink and BDSM knowing Emerald took an abusive relationship, and warped it to fit into the Wuthering Heights of her fantasies.
And when I say outshines, I means it. Robbie and Elordi, while extremely hot never quite penetrated the folds of truly romantic relationship. I fear the movie relied too much on sex to establish the relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff. I see why critics and reviewers far more experienced than I called the film flat.
But, yesssss… I liked the film… It comes from not being literate…
Sue me.