Emerald Fennellâs latest movie has generated heated discourse on online platforms for many different reasons. Films do inevitably, and often intentionally, cause debate regarding visuals, plot, character development and more, but it seems that Fennellâs Wuthering Heights has resulted in such a divided reception that it is a struggle to form an opinion and create a straight-forward review.
Of course, adapting a classic book like Emily BrontĂ«âs Wuthering Heights is bound to cause some dissatisfaction amongst fans; it is a quintessential gothic classic, equally admired and respected by many passionate literature lovers. Therefore, any adaptation of this novel will be unable to please everyone. Certain aspects are prioritised and others are neglected when adapting a novel. In Fennellâs case, it seems like the priority of this adaptation lies in the narrativeâs aesthetic over its essence. Fennellâs visuals are undeniably stylistic and refined, which certainly evoke the gothic atmosphere of the book, but it lacks substance in regard to its plot. It ignores the significance of class and race, trivialises abuse and intensifies sexuality, all in ways that oppose their depiction in the novel.
One can argue that Fennellâs film is a âlooseâ adaptation, and therefore should not be viewed in a light that heavily links it to the book. However, it is completely unreasonable to not compare the two when it is advertised as an adaptation, and the novel is so widely-loved. Therefore, it would be nonsensical to not contest the unfaithful adaptation, especially when significant elements of the narrative have been disregarded or entirely removed in the movie.Â
Perhaps the most controversial and ill-received aspect of the movie has been the casting of Heathcliff, and rightly so. A character who is viewed as being an outsider, who suffers from a sense of otherness, who represents the oppressed colonised people, and who is described as a âdark-skinned gypsyâ is played by⊠a white man. Not only is this a wildly inappropriate and inaccurate casting, but it removes the depth of Heathcliffâs character, and by removing this depth, it removes his significant purpose of highlighting the rigid (and racist) social structures of Georgian English society.
The whitewashing of Heathcliff has not been unusual for previous adaptations of Wuthering Heights. This decision has been and always will be viewed as distasteful for its racial erasure that ignores the centrality of heritage to Heathcliffâs character in the novel. This representation would not only have been authentic to BrontĂ«âs narrative, but it could have encouraged a necessary and progressive approach to race in a current society where hateful, racist campaigns against immigrants are rising. Discourse surrounding race transcends time, as depicted in BrontĂ«âs original novel, and therefore I argue it should always be depicted to emphasise the necessity of acceptance and repel marginalisation.
Similarly, the movie demonstrates a lack of attention towards Northern voices with the removal of Cathyâs Yorkshire accent. It can be understood that this change was carried out with the intention to emphasise the class differences between Cathy and Heathcliff, thus emphasising their doomed love, but it is ultimately disloyal to book-Cathy, and simultaneously disconnects Cathy from the setting of the Yorkshire moors which is central to the narrative. Perhaps this slight is unimportant to some, but again, amidst a current growing class divide in Britain, a female Northern voice may have worked to attempt to alleviate marginalisation many Northern people still face. This dilemma is emphasised by Fennellâs background: is a white, upper-class heiress really the most appropriate person to adapt a book that centres around class inequality?
It is evident by the promotion of the movie that its focus is sex rather than race and class. Sex is arguably central in the novel, but in a way that focuses on yearning, depth, and meaning. BrontĂ« beautifully explores the harrowing experience of forbidden love and how it can shape the fundamental aspects of a human. Whilst the film portrays this pain of love, it mostly pays attention to the pain of sex. The movie posits Isabella as an active participant to Heathcliffâs sexual degradation of her, subverting the violence inflicted upon her in the novel and making it consensual. In an era of growing positive views towards female sexuality, the movieâs sex scenes could be interpreted as empowering (afterall, can one really be powerless when it is powerful to choose to be submissive?). However, the knowledge of Isabellaâs abuse, and the movieâs ignorance of it, problematises this empowering way to view female sexual submission.Â
Yet again, echoes of our current society where there is a rise in violence against women via incel cultures that seek to harm and subjugate women seep through the cracks of our contemporary world and ledge themselves in 19th century England, emphasising the transcendent quality of female oppression. Whilst it is refreshing to view female sexuality on the big screen, one cannot help but wonder why it was necessary to change Isabellaâs story. Is abuse not important enough? Is sex more relevant? Is it more powerful to choose to be sexually submissive, or to have the autonomy to leave an abusive relationship?
Naturally, cinematic adaptations will differ from their source material, but has Fennellâs been for the better or worse? It is impossible to answer this question, as any art forms are made to incite reactions. They are intentionally thought-provoking, inflammatory, enchanting, and all in all are received and respected in contrasting lights. Fennellâs movie has certainly elicited various responses, and for better or for worse, she has definitely made Wuthering Heights an adaptation to be remembered. In the wake of all this criticism, we can ask ourselves whether this movie would have been better received if it was created and advertised as an entirely separate and new narrative and plot, instead of feeling like a spoof that essentially demeaned BrontĂ«âs renowned novel. Perhaps receptions would have been the same, highlighting the importance of understanding that art is subjective and thus generates differing ways of appreciating and viewing it.