Co-written by: Erin Zuniga & Ileana Walk

In Comparison to the Novel:

Directed by Emerald Fennell, the brand new “Wuthering Heights” film places a direct emphasis on aesthetics. It takes decisive action to prioritize themes of love and obsession, which override the cooperative ones from the book. The film depicts a story of  “the politics of romance,” which entrenches its constituents. Instead of choosing to portray its characters as abusive and villainous, Fennell creates implied motivation to fuel her characters. The film is not at all like the novel; Brontë’s Wuthering Heights and Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” cannot possibly be made to be one and the same.  

Alone, the film was strong, but it was a careless take on the book. Nuanced characters, such as Nellie or Isabella,  were turned into one-dimensional versions of themselves that would have been interesting in a standalone movie, but fell short as adaptations of a novel. The most obvious point, Heathcliff’s race and his dark skin was imperative to his characterization, and his mistreatment by the Earnshaws. The decision to cast Jacob Elordi felt like fan service and a blatant disregard for the intricacy of Brontë’s commentary on society. 

This wasn’t the only important factor lost in the translation of Heathcliff from page to screen- his movie character was nowhere near as intense as he needed to be. In the book, he abuses his wife, Isabella, physically, sexually, and mentally until she reaches her breaking point. While this is awful and disturbing, it is written purposely to t capture the insanity that Heathcliff is driven to after losing Catherine. In the movie, their relationship is turned into a BDSM fantasy, where Isabella is a masochist who relishes in his violence,  thus also cheapening Isabella’s character and autonomy. 

The film also entirely removed Cathy’s brother, Hindley. Hindley was important to the plot as one of the biggest abusers of Heathcliff and was instead condensed into Cathy’s father, so taking another interesting character from us. Hindley was necessary as a direct comparison to Heathcliff. They are raised together, they both have a relationship with the father and the estate, but one is born into status, while the other is born into poverty. And in the book, one is born white while the other is not. As they grow up, their contradiction to each other is one of the defining points.  Not only was a character removed, but an entire part of the story. 

The movie ends with the death of Cathy,  while the book continues on to see her daughter marry Heathcliff’s son, furthering the cycle of generational trauma that dictates the book, and a key point of Heathcliff’s revenge. This part is necessary because the book is not only about Heathcliff and Cathy, but also about how their relationship affects those around them, this is similarly the reason that Hindley and their father are so important. The toxicity and darkness are passed down through the family. Heathcliff and Cathy’s dangerous and obsessive love lingers on past when both of them are gone. The decision of Fennell to focus solely on the two lovers was an overlook of the novel’s themes. 

This movie seems to center on beautiful visuals over actual plot substance, but in doing so they lost the aesthetics of the novel. The moors are supposed to be grey and haunting, and therein lies their beauty. The film should mirror this, and instead goes in a flashy, technicolor direction. The poetry in the book is in its ghostliness, showing how their love haunts. In the movie, both the gaudy visuals and their saturated love are always in your face.

This highlights another Fennell staple, her garish sex and body horror scenes seem to be done only for shock value and not plot relevance. While some scenes in the movie mirror pure porn, there is no sex in the novel, yet the passion is still felt. The intensity is in what is implied and what is unseen, a testament to the brilliant writing of Brontë, and lack thereof in Fennell, who seems to only be able to illustrate passion through sex. An intense, consuming, dangerous love was turned into a sexy and scandalous affair.

However, the film was meant to captivate audiences, and did so competently. Though Fennell’s visuals and musical choices might have been un-Brontë-esque, they were appealing to the masses, and have penetrated Gen-Z’s atmosphere. Her use of star power in her choice of actors and musicians was reflected in the box office returns, which over doubled the budget.

On Performance: 

Margot Robbie stars as Cathy and renders depth to a husk of Brontë’s Cathy. She stuns with her depiction of jealousy, and outdoes herself in regards to portraying depression and love. Cathy’s thoughts and emotions can be gleaned from Robbie’s flawless facial control. I was blown away.

Jacob Elordi stars alongside her, playing Heathcliff. Though he was arguably the wrong casting decision, he did a marvelous job. His acting throughout the film painted an illustration of a hurt, stoic, and calloused man. His performance in the finale was a tear-jerking, harrowing, and Oscar-deserving portrayal of mourning. 

Isabella, portrayed by Alison Oliver, was a remarkable fulfillment. Oliver’s depiction of Isabella created a woman who knew what she wanted and was willing to sacrifice any dignity to get it. Oliver’s portrait of Isabella, especially during the dog scene, was extraordinary. She created a character so unaliterally in love, that she was blind. Though major plot points differ from the book, the film creates its own enthralling narrative, and Isabella is crucial to it. 

Nelly, played by Hong Chau, is also a skilled actress. Her portrait of jealousy, anger, and resentment was subtle, yet impactful. Chau is able to articulate complex sentiments with a single expression, a quality that the majority of her costars share. In the film, Nelly is no longer the narrator but a participant in the story. Her role is gritty, but perfectly adapted for film.

On Motifs:

The main issue both of us had throughout the film was its oversaturation of sex. Brontë never created any explicit sex scenes in her novel, but sex is baked into the film almost intrinsically. Our introduction to Cathy’s sexuality begins when she secretly watches two servants have sex, where she is hindered by Heathcliff finding and shielding her from this incident. She later goes off into the moors to explore her sexuality, and again runs into Heathcliff. Both incidents upset Cathy greatly and led her to marry Mr. Linton instead of Heathcliff. Past these incidents, sex is presented in an unusual manner. While Cathy remains at Wuthering Heights, bread dough and livestock are depicted in a sexual manner. When Cathy moves out, Isabella, Mr. Linton’s ward, gives Cathy a book with sapphic paraphernalia for Christmas. Throughout Fennell’s filmography, sexual innuendo and symbolism is common. Wuthering Heights is distinct in its emphasis on sapphic imagery rather than phallic imagery. The elements of sex can be overwhelming and needlessly graphic, with little necessity to the story.

Overall:

Ileana: I, as a political science major and film geek, adored this rendition of Wuthering Heights. There is a difference between a film and a movie, and Fennell’s Wuthering Heights has earned the classification of a film. Without considering the book, the film is an incredible and moving painting of romance, pride, and their intersection.

Erin: As an English Major, I found the film alright on its own, but think it can’t be separated from the novel. For how much she changed, Fennell should have written a new story and movie, and instead chose to do grave disservice to the literary legacy of Brontë. If you don’t have an attachment to the story or haven’t read the book, I think you could see this movie and quite enjoy it. Otherwise, I would not recommend this film.