Approximately two months ago the teaser trailer for Emerald Fennell’s adaptation of Emily Bronte’s classic novel “Wuthering Heights” was released and two days ago the official trailer. I am neither a classics major, a movie analyst or the biggest fan of the novel itself, but even I can tell you there are some misinterpretations present in this trailer that could end up completely changing both the plot, theme and major character dynamics and relationships of this story. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Must book to movie adaptations stay completely aligned with the story or are we due for a creative take on the source material at some point? Is the backlash surrounding the new “Wuthering Heights” adaption justified or an overreaction by fans of the book? With these questions in mind, it’s worth looking more closely at what truly defines a successful adaptation and how much creative freedom filmmakers should be allowed when reshaping a classic.
Perspectives differ between the delivery of the main characters Catherine and Heathcliff’s relationship in the movie trailer versus the book. From the trailer, it appears the movie’s take on Catherine and Heathcliff’s relationship is romantic, with its use of “the greatest love story of all time” as a heading and prolonged snapshots of sexual tension and intimacy between the two interspersed throughout the trailer. They are the doomed star crossed lovers, held apart by society and their economic differences, forbidden from being with whom they truly love. In fact, the film is due to release on Valentine’s Day, another nod to the love story they aim to portray. The trailer’s overt use of erotic sexual imagery is additionally a major point of contention among viewers, believing the adaptation turned Bronte’s portrayal of Gothic passion into a clickbait, “sexy period drama” with disturbing scenes utilized for shock value instead of thematic purpose. While these scenes are not present in the original source material, one could argue that the filmmaker wishes to explore the underrepresented erotic tension between the two main characters that Bronte neglected in the subtext.
One cannot bring up the Wuthering Heights adaptation without discussing the casting of Jacob Elordi. Setting aside his acting capabilities, one thing is for certain. He does not match the description of Heathcliff. In the novel of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff is described as “dark-skinned”, a point central to his relationships with other characters and his motivations. Being racially ambiguous, he is treated by supporting characters and Catherine herself as lowly and below their stature, causing Catherine to reject a relationship with him and therefore, motivating much of his actions throughout the entire novel. Race is central to Heathcliff’s character, and it’s been stripped away by nearly every Wuthering Heights adaptation to market the most popular white actor of the generation. The director, Emerald Fennell’s own response to the criticism was that Jacob Elordi “looked exactly like the illustration of Heathcliff on the first book that I read”. While certain arguments could be made for potential nepotism, since the director and Jacob Elordi had worked recently on a movie together, at the end of the day, the movie is the director’s vision. If the director’s vision includes casting a white actor in a role defined by racial ambiguity and social otherness, the question becomes whether this choice represents bold creative interpretation or a dismissal of one of the novel’s most essential themes.
When a director chooses to adapt a work with clearly established source material, should audiences expect a faithful translation or a bold reinterpretation? A direct adaptation preserves the author’s intentions and the thematic integrity of the original text, but repeated fidelity across decades can make these versions feel predictable or stagnant. On the other hand, creative interpretations can inject new energy and relevance into a classic—yet they also run the risk of straying so far from the source that they undermine, or even contradict, the author’s core message. And when that delicate balance tips too far in either direction, the result risks becoming either a hollow replica or an unrecognizable rebranding of a beloved classic.
Which will we choose?