Emerald Fennell’s highly anticipated 2026 film adaptation of Emily Brontë’s 1847 Gothic Romance novel Wuthering Heights was released in theatres on Valentine’s Day. Controversy surrounding the film began when the character of Heathcliff, widely accepted by literary scholars and readers to be a man of color, was announced to be played by Jacob Elordi, a white man.
The internet was abuzz, with some outraged at this inaccuracy, claiming it fundamentally changed an important part of the source material. Others supported Fennell’s right to cast her adaptation however she liked. Every time news of the adaptation or footage dropped, everyone had something to say: the costumes were inaccurate, the look wasn’t “right”, Fennell was dishonoring the source material. It became so divisive that it seemed like this was exactly what Fennell intended. Was she a true fan of the source material, misguided by a differing creative vision? Or was she trying to intentionally subvert expectations and cause a stir, modernizing this classic?
I was immediately critical of the movie after news of Heathcliff’s casting. But after seeing some stunning visuals and my curiosity piqued by internet debates, I was admittedly pretty excited for a 10 pm showing on Valentine’s Day.
I had never felt so conflicted leaving a film before. Fennell intentionally put quotation marks around the film’s title, signaling that this was not Brontë’s Wuthering Heights; it was hers. But is that enough to differentiate her adaptation? How much responsibility do film adaptations have to honor the source material when attached to its legacy?
*This contains spoilers!
Casting
The undoubtedly most problematic part of Fennell’s film is the erasure of Heathcliff’s otherness and racially ambiguous identity. In the novel, he is described by Brontë as “dark-skinned” and is also referred to as a “Lascar”, a term for South Asian Laborers on British ships. As the daughter of an abolitionist, Brontë’s characterization of Heathcliff is often understood by literary scholars as a critique of slavery. Many also read his origin as a commentary on the British salve trade, as Mr. Earnshaw brings Heathcliff home from Liverpool, where many slave ships were.
Despite debates over his exact race, there is an agreement among literary scholars and readers alike that Heathcliff’s character is not white, and his struggles in the book depict this. A large conflict in Wuthering Heights is that Catherine chooses not to marry Heathcliff and instead marries the wealthy Mr. Linton, even though Heathcliff is the one she is in love with. In the film, Cathy, played by Margot Robbie, has an emotional scene with servant Nelly, saying Heathcliff is her soulmate but to marry him would “degrade her.” With Elordi’s Heathcliff white, it is assumed that this is because of Linton’s status and wealth, which Heathcliff doesn’t have. But in the novel, it’s not that simple.
In Bronë’s novel, when Heathcliff discovers that Cathy wants to marry Linton instead of him, he tells Nelly, “I wish I had light hair and fair skin.” Fennell’s casting of Elordi takes away the layer of racial prejudice and Heathcliff’s feelings of inadequacy when compared with a white man. It also takes away the context of two people truly in love but constrained by a society that would frown on their relationship due to racial differences. To add salt to the wound, Linton, a character originally white in the novel, is played by Pakistani actor Shazad Latif. Clearly, Fennell was willing to cast a man of color in a prominent role, just not as the romantic lead or the one where racial identity mattered the most. A critical point of Cathy’s decision to choose Linton over Heathcliff was his whiteness, which Fennell completely fails to grasp. Latif’s casting raises broader questions about Fennell’s casting decisions. Especially given that his character and the only other character played by a person of color, Hong Chau as Nelly, are portrayed as antagonists to Cathy and Heathcliff’s love story.
Costuming
Now, the one point where I actually disagreed in the discourse was the film’s costuming. Many took issue with the costuming of Cathy’s character, with era-inaccurate dramatic silhouettes, patterns, and textures. But I actually thought the costuming was one of the strongest aspects of the film. I am never someone who really takes issue with anachronistic costuming in movies. Fashion is highly expressive and artistic. I think historical accuracy can be relaxed if it’s meaningful to the story. Not only were the costumes visually stunning in this film, but they also helped tell Cathy’s journey.
Before marrying Linton, Cathy wears her hair down and undone, pairing it with simple, free-flowing dresses as she runs around the moors with Heathcliff. When she marries Linton, her hair is tightly done up, the ensembles become more extravagant, feature luxurious textures and rigid silhouettes, and are paired with opulent accessories. It’s used as a tool to show her newfound wealth and the persona she’s projecting despite her unhappiness. She no longer has the freedom, vulnerability, or simplicity she did with Heathcliff. My favorite scene of the movie was the montage of Cathy donning countless over-the-top ensembles, enjoying the large estate, and having overabundant meals with Isabella and Edgar. The bright colors, jewels, and sheer number of outfit changes conveyed the excess of her new life that juxtaposed with her sadness. The scene, paired with Charli XCX’s “Chains of Love,” is electronic and upbeat sonically. But, with lyrics lamenting being trapped in a loveless relationship and wanting someone else, it conveyed the longing Cathy was hiding behind her facade. She had everything she could ever want in excess, but not the one thing she truly wanted, Heathcliff.
Ending
The film, despite having a runtime of two hours and sixteen minutes, felt rushed at points. The ending, while heartbreaking, felt sudden. The film ends with the tragic death of Cathy, Heathcliff’s mourning of her, and flashbacks to their childhood selves. (and yes, I will admit, I cried!) However, in the novel, Cathy’s death occurs only halfway through the story. The novel continues to show the next generation that is haunted by the loss of Cathy and subjected to Heathcliff’s ongoing resentment. He torments the children of Cathy and Mr. Linton and his own child, repeating the same cycles of cruelty that shaped his own childhood. The inclusion of a second generation and how Heathcliff inflicts abuse on Cathy’s child are critical to the themes of revenge and generational trauma. Fennell’s film misses this and instead concludes the story as a tragic love story, rather than a dark tale of obsession, loss, and the cycle of abuse.
Comparison to Del Toro’s Frankenstein
Another gothic, classic literary adaptation, ironically also starring Jacob Elordi, came out this past fall: Guillermo Del Toro’s adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. I bring this up because both works illustrate the challenge of adapting classic Gothic literature to the screen. But, in my opinion, Del Toro does it far more lovingly and effectively than Fennell. You can tell when a director truly loves the source material and its themes. Del Toro truly loves Frankenstein. While his film also made significant deviations from the original novel, the core themes that Shelley presented in the novel were always at the heart of his work. He told CBS News he was inspired to make the film because, “it’s the same questions we have now: What are we? Why am I human? Why am I here?” His filmmaking was guided by the founding principles of the book: life and death, goodness and evil, creation, and fatherhood, despite the creative choices and deviations it makes.
I wish I could say the same for Fennell. In Fennell’s defense, she has always been very clear that she’s not making a true adaptation of Wuthering Heights. However, I think this is just a way to justify the significant alterations to the source material, giving her an easy way out of actually grappling with the difficult themes of the source material. She told Fandango, “You can’t adapt a book as difficult and complicated as this book…I can’t say I’m making Wuthering Heights. It’s not possible. What I can say is I’m making a version of it.” I think a book can be adapted effectively, even with independent directorial decisions made. The difference between a good and bad adaptation is reverence for the author’s intentions and themes, which Fennell clearly lacks. Saying she’s not actually adapting the novel is just a way to free herself from the responsibility of the implications of its themes, which is something every director should have to come to terms with in directing non-original source material.
It’s beautiful, but is that enough?
The film was a visual delight, with gorgeous cinematography and use of color, but unfortunately, Fennell misses all the critical themes of the original novel. It is very common for directors to have “muses” who frequently inspire and appear in their works, like Yorgos Lanthimos and Emma Stone or Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan. After appearing in Fennell’s 2023 film Saltburn, it appears Fennell’s “muse” is Elordi. I can appreciate the close, creatively fulfilling working relationships between actors and directors, but most often these muses serve to inspire original stories or natural collaborations. However, due to Fennell’s disregard for Heathcliff’s race, it appears Fennell made the story work around the actor, rather than letting the actor work around the story. The role of Heathcliff could have been an opportunity for an unknown actor of color to gain recognition. During an age of Hollywood where few new, nuanced roles for people of color are being written, Fennell took away one that already existed.
Despite Fennell’s stylized quotations and insistence that this is not Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, the success of her movie and its marketability depended highly on the legacy of the novel. I believe the quotation marks were a way of Fennell still being able to benefit from the popularity of the novel while still getting to claim creative independence when caught in controversy. I think proximity to the name of the original novel gives Fennell some level of responsibility to Brontë’s original themes, but Fennell instead romanticizes Cathy and Heathcliff’s toxic relationship, ignores generational implications of the story, and strips Heathcliff of his racial identity, romanticizing ignorance in the process.
Is “Wuthering Heights” an artistic, beautiful film? I would say yes. Is it a good adaptation? Absolutely not. And I guess Fennell would agree.