lou's library

At the time of writing, it has been less than 24 hours since I watched “Wuthering Heights” in cinema. And I’m still trying to make sense of it, as I am really struggling to understand what I think. I think part of it stems from the relentless noise this movie has generated ever since its casting announcement. Every little photo from set, trailer snippet, interview has generated so much attention, drama and outrage that I’m struggling to separate my own thoughts from what the internet has been screaming into my face. And I know I am contributing to this onslaught with this blog post, but I will do my very best to strike a nuanced tone and keep my voice down. Alright, let’s try to come up with something coherent, shall we?

Emotions always run high when a beloved book is being adapted on screen. And I get it. I have favourite books that have been turned into disappointing movies or TV shows and it sucks. It’s fun to be passionate about a work of art, so when someone decides to turn it into another work of art, the stakes are high. But while I do understand that, I think it is only fair to point out that it is downright impossible to please everyone with an adaptation of a book, particularly one as controversial as Wuthering Heights. Someone will always disagree with your choice of setting, cast, dialogue, costumes, colour grading, cinematography. That being said, there are book to movie adaptations that a lot of fans seem to be genuinely happy with (which is not to say they think they are perfect, but rather good enough). Greta Gerwig’s Little Women comes to mind.

That certainly does not seem to be the case with Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights”. That much seemed clear from the moment she announced that Margot Robbie would be her Cathy and Jacob Elordi her Heathcliff. Shit hit the fan immediately, to the point where I am convinced this is the movie that has been written about the most before it even hit the screens. Everyone has an opinion and is shouting it in the void, months before its release. And I get it, I too would have preferred to see a non-white actor portray Heathcliff and someone closer to the age of 20 as Cathy.

My point is that Emerald Fennell obviously had a vision for her version of Wuthering Heights, and though it may be a highly unconventional and provocative one, that in itself is no crime. She said in interviews that she wanted to make a movie that conveys the feelings she had when she first read the book aged 14. Again, that might not match the feelings I had when I first read Wuthering Heights aged 20, but it is her prerogative as writer and director to make the version of the book that she wants to make. It is my prerogative to not like it. She does not owe me or anyone else anything.

I just think that the entire discourse of authenticity is not particularly helpful when it comes to discussing book to movie adaptations. I understand that we all create our own little versions of a book when reading it. We imagine the settings in very particular ways, see the protagonists’ faces in front of our eyes, get a distinct vibe from the words on the page. When an adaptation doesn’t match our own imagination, that takes some getting used to, or in some cases leads to us disliking the movie. And that is okay. But a movie, even an adaptation of a book, is a work of art in its own right. Also: it is another medium. You can try as you want, you cannot literally translate a book into a movie. The two don’t work the same, changes have to be made.

Now, it goes without saying that Emerald Fennell didn’t just make the necessary changes to adapt Wuthering Heights for the screen. No, she dreamt up her own version, historically inaccurate outfits and whitewashed casting choices included and ran with it. And while the high-gloss outfits and stark colours did not work for me, I can see her vision and how a lot of people might totally love it. And I thought Jacob Elordi was a great Heathcliff (his Yorkshire accent sounded slightly Australian at times but I’ll allow it), but his whiteness robbed the character of depth. The director made lots of changes I did not like, her Wuthering Heights (as in the actual estate), looked nothing like how I imagined it, to the point where I seriously questioned whether we had read the same descriptions of it in the book, and her choice to ignore the entire second half of the book is one I will never agree with. But that is her choice, and she has every right to do so.

I guess what I am trying to say is that while I understand that this adaptation is not one for the book purists, the outrage it has been facing seems blown out of proportion to me. By all means, engage with this movie, write think pieces on it, discuss it with your besties, all of that is part of the fun of engaging in cultural discourse! But I think we would all do well to let go of the notion of authenticity when it comes to adaptations. I truly believe that a movie can be deeply loyal to a book even with lots of changes made.

And this is Emerald Fennell’s version of Wuthering Heights. It might not be the version I would have liked to see, even though I did not dislike the movie. But I think it’s absolutely great that a female director gets to adapt a Brontë novel with such a massive budget, production and movie stars! I think it is a breath of fresh air in a cinematic world where Marvel and Disney Live Version Remakes seem to be all that ever gets made these days. And to all the people saying Emily Brontë would be turning in her grave if she knew what Emerald Fennell has done with her book: I highly doubt that. I think there is a strong chance that the author would love that close to two centuries after its publication, her book is still being adapted, and this time by a woman with a bold vision.

The thing is: there is space for everyone here. There are about a dozen movie adaptations of Wuthering Heights, and I have no doubts there are many more to come. I’m sure they all differ somehow, and Emerald Fennell’s version is probably the most provocative of the bunch. But what an inspired addition to the collection! Because one thing this movie is not: boring. I think the discourse surrounding it proves that.

Do I think this is a perfect movie? Absolutely not. For example: I think the marketing of this as a love story is highly questionable. Cathy and Heathcliff are trapped in a toxic and abusive situationship, they torment each other, there is love and pain in equal measure in their story. Please don’t market that as something we should aspire to. Particularly not when this movie is targeted primarily at young girls. But I also don’t think perfection is a particularly helpful parameter. What is perfect to me might be horrible to you. I’m sure Emerald Fennell thinks her movie is pretty damn close to her own understanding of the book. Well, that is pretty damn different from my reading of it, but that is okay.

Alright, I hope this made even a bit of sense. Now we can all go back to frothing at the mouth at the sheer audacity of putting Cathy in a wedding dress that no 19th century bride would have worn. Or we can remember that this is all supposed to be fun and creative and that there is such a thing as creative freedom. And that it is okay to agree to disagree.

Let me know if you’ve seen the movie and what you made of it, please!! If you would like more Wuthering Heights, here is my blog post all about rereading this classic that I hated the first time around. Happy reading!