‘Wuthering Heights’ Review: A Disastrous Adaptation

When Emerald Fennell’s adaptation of the classic novel Wuthering Heights was first announced, I wasn’t excited for the film to come out; I was dreading it. Everything about this movie sounded disastrous. I wasn’t alone in feeling this way, either. “Wuthering Heights” was marred by controversy from the start, from its erotic reinterpretation of the novel to Jacob Elordi’s controversial casting.

The director, Emerald Fennell, has made controversial movie after controversial movie. Her movies, especially Saltburn, have always aimed to shock audiences. However, because of her reputation and the fact that Wuthering Heights is such a beloved novel, many have been skeptical and cynical towards her take on the story.

Simply put, this movie sounded as if it would completely bastardize one of the greatest novels ever written. Everything about it sounded like a fundamental misunderstanding of the novel. However, despite being a fan of the book, I went into the theater with an open mind.

All I can say is that “Wuthering Heights” is a disaster, pure and simple. It fails at being an adaptation and fails to do anything of its own merit. It ranges from being laughably terrible to just straight up boring. This movie is devoid of life and soul and exists purely to be a corporate product with a Wuthering Heights coat of paint.

Controversy after controversy

This movie has been shrouded in controversy from the very beginning. I’m not one to let outside controversies impact my thoughts on a film, but for “Wuthering Heights,” these controversies bleed into the actual film itself. Everything from the casting to the director herself has been a point of controversy since the film’s announcement.

The most prominent controversy is definitely Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff. Despite having an ambiguous race, Heathcliff is described in the novel as having darker skin, and the racial element is a very important subtext. Since Jacob Elordi is a white man, this casting choice removed a lot of the subtext of the novel from the movie. I think Jacob Elordi is fine in the movie, but there is no doubt in my mind that casting a white man for that role was a misstep.

My biggest concern going into the movie, however, was almost certainly Emerald Fennell herself. Her films often over-rely on sex scenes and shock value, focusing more on moments that get people talking than telling a genuinely great story. Unfortunately, I feel as though I have been proven right; that said, this movie is shockingly tame.

I wasn’t expecting this film to be good, but I expected it to be freaky and shocking like Fennell’s other work. I was at least hoping not to be bored. Surprisingly, Fennell plays it fairly straight throughout, and there were no moments that really got anything out of me. It felt tired, safe, and predictable, something I never thought I’d say about a Fennell film.

An adaptation out of time

As an adaptation, this film is pathetic. Simply put, it does not understand the heart of Emily Brontë’s novel. Fennell’s interests clearly lie in Cathy and Heathcliff’s romance, but she ignores a lot of the nuance of these characters. A lot of what makes this relationship so compelling is the intensity of the bond between the two. In one of the best passages in the novel, Catherine even says, “I am Heathcliff.” These two characters should be inseparable from one another, especially since they were raised together as kids.

However, this intensity is never felt in the movie. Heathcliff might as well just be Catherine’s neighbor in this adaptation. You never feel like they truly love each other outside of a standard romance plot. To me, that simply isn’t Wuthering Heights. I simply struggled to care, and I can only imagine how detached viewers will feel without having read the novel.

Everything from the second half of the novel has been abandoned, which is a massive shame. That’s where a lot of its thematic elements are elevated beyond a simple love story. As a result, this movie simply feels pointless and like a waste of time. It feels aimless and boring.

Everything about this movie is bland and soulless to me. It simply lacks everything that made the first half of the Wuthering Heights novel so compelling. Wuthering Heights has been reduced to as basic a love story as it can possibly get.

Bruh

Even on its own merits, this movie is a complete disaster. The directing is confident, as we’ve come to expect from Fennell, but the screenplay is heavy-handed and dry. The movie is genuinely a slog to get through, especially when Heathcliff is off-screen. Heathcliff is the only character who really engaged me, despite being a neutered version of his book counterpart.

A lot of this movie’s selling points actually end up hindering the movie. Margot Robbie is undoubtedly a great actress, but in this film, she is terribly miscast and, as a result, gives a bizarre performance. Charli XCX is one of my favorite musicians, but her original songs for this movie actively hinder the scenes they are in. This movie clearly has talent behind it, but in execution, nothing works.

The one redeeming quality here is the cinematography. Linus Sandgren was the cinematographer on La La Land, Saltburn, and Babylon. In this movie, he does a lot of really interesting things with the camera. The use of color is also incredible; it looks stunning in so many shots. It really complements the already stunning set and production design.

“Wuthering Heights” already does not represent the time period very well at all, so I wish it committed more to the exaggerated realism it’s clearly going for. Better yet, I wish this film did anything interesting with the time period at all, like it is trying to do. It’s clear that this movie, even if it had been wildly inaccurate to the source material, could have been half decent. Instead, it fails as both an adaptation and as a film of its own.