Why Emerald Fennell's "Wuthering Heights" Might Actually Be Better Than The Novel

Image source: IMDB

Is there anything more hauntingly beautiful than the rugged moors of Northern England? For centuries they have been the backdrop to many gothic novels, perhaps most notably Charlotte Brontë’s Wuthering Heights. The enduring impact Wuthering Heights has made on literature can still be felt today, so much so that even 179 years later iterations of it are still surfacing. Although, Emerald Fennell's polarizing film may just be the most raunchy and twisted version yet. Reimagining Cathy and Heathcliff's tumultuous story was bound to create pushback from the literature buffs, but I didn't expect how widespread the negativity would be. It seems as though people's main gripe with this rendition is how far of a departure it is from the source material. I've also seen a lot of criticism about the movie being a “smooth brained” adaptation that was"dumbed down" and simplified for modern audiences–but isn’t a story that’s more cohesive and easier to follow ultimately more successful? Just because something is complex, doesn’t necessarily make it superior.

If I were to consider the merits of the original Wuthering Heights purely from an editorial standpoint, its faults are glaring. For starters, superfluous language runs rampant. Purple prose was very common during that era, however Brontë utilizes it to a maddening extent. In addition, there are way too many characters that contribute absolutely nothing to the plot, and somehow they all have the same two names (or various iterations of them.) The characters that are central, namely Cathy and Heathcliff, are extremely irritating with no redeemable qualities. I do understand that unlikable characters are an extremely common literary ploy, however there has to be at least some shred of likability or humanity in them for readers to cling to so that they don't metaphorically tear their hair out. Unfortunately, I found none of that in the star crossed lovers. However, the largest blunder Brontë makes is the unnecessary continuation of the story after Cathy's death. Not only does it detract from the main plot, but it completely cheapens Cathy and Heathcliff's relationship by degrading his character beyond reproach. Going overboard with his cruelty made it impossible for me to root for their romance, and just didn't work logistically.

These monumental flaws left me perplexed as to how this novel made it into the literary canon, let alone why it is so highly regarded as one of the great romances of all time. In my eyes, it is unequivocally not a love story, but one of abuse and misery (the latter inflicted on both the characters and the readers.) I recognize that I am definitely in the minority regarding these thoughts. In fact, I may very well be disowned by one of my friends for writing this (please forgive me pal!) At first I thought my reservations were because I was simply reading it at the wrong time, that I just wasn't in the mood for a classic. The first time I tried to read Wuthering Heights, I only made it 50 pages in before shelving it out of pure boredom. When I restarted it a few days before the film release, I was hoping my initial impression wouldn't ring true. Unfortunately, it still didn't hold a candle to other novels from a similar Ilk, such as Rebecca, Frankenstein, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, all of which I greatly preferred.

However, my experience with the film was drastically different. I personally thought it was one of the best depictions of yearning I've seen in a while (aside from Heated Rivalry of course). Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi delivered stellar performances and deliriously good chemistry. Even their glances held an ocean of subtext and perfectly illustrated the depth and rarity of Cathy and Heathcliff's bond. While their characters were still irritating and undeniably toxic, Robbie and Elordi's delivery of the quippy (and at times cruel) banter was spot on and kind of endearing in a way. The child actors Charlotte Mellington and Owen Cooper also did a fabulous job of capturing the essence of their once in a lifetime love. The past and the present storylines melded together seamlessly, particularly at the heart-wrenching ending (which I still haven't recovered from), due in no small part to the younger actors.

I also appreciated the depth given to the other female characters Nell and Isabella that wasn't present in the novel. Hong Chau's interpretation of Nell as a young woman who was effectively abandoned by her only friend upon the arrival of Heathcliff was so nuanced and clever. The inner struggle Nell faced dealing with Cathy's insolence and at times deliberately hurtful jabs was so much more impactful the way Chau portrayed it than on the page. Alison Oliver really shone as Isabella by injecting humour and emotion into stale dialogue, bringing some much needed comedic relief to the film. As controversial as Isabella being a willing participant to Heathcliff's vulgar proclivities was, I liked the idea of giving her more agency (or at least the illusion of it) instead of her being a victim. It had the potential to really come across the wrong way, but Oliver managed to stay on the right side of the fine line between glorifying abuse and the freedom to explore unconventional relationship dynamics.

Regardless of my enjoyment of the film, it is not without its faults. The whitewashing of Heathcliff’s character is incredibly problematic, and criticisms regarding this area are completely valid. I myself hold the same opinion, and while Elordi’s impressive performance was almost enough to quell my reservations, I still can’t help feeling as though it was a major oversight to disregard Heathcliff’s race. There was no shortage of other actors who would've been better suited to the novel's description of the character (and would've also delivered a great performance.) I understand the star factor Elordi brings to the film, but Hollywood needs to do better.

On the flipside, I find the discourse regarding Robbie being "too old" to play Cathy inconsequential and frankly a little ageist. Sure, in the book Cathy is supposed to be much younger, but there were so many other liberties taken with the story that this has to be one of the least offensive changes. In my eyes, she made a perfect Cathy, simultaneously exasperating and spunky. Robbie's acting prowess shone through right until the very end and made sure Cathy's death scene was a true gut punch. Fennell's decision to have her pass in the manner that she did created a perfect ending by allowing the movie to remain a love story and not a tale of despair. I'll admit, Heathcliff's reaction to her passing being weaved in with their childhood memories made me super emotional (and it still got me the second time around!) After the lights came up, I left the theatre in a sort of trance–unable to get the final scene and the electric soundtrack by Charlie XCX out of my head.

So why was everyone so up in arms about the film? I believe where they went wrong was in the marketing. Promoting it as a true adaptation was bound to enrage the literary community and Brontë enthusiasts. However, if they had pitched the movie to audiences not as an adaptation, but “inspired by” Wuthering Heights, there might've been less outrage. Or maybe my strong dislike of the novel put rose coloured glasses over my experience and allowed me to enjoy it more than the average patron, being glad of the changes instead of considering them abominations. Regardless of whether or not you love or hate the book (or haven't read it), I urge everyone to at least give the film a chance. It will definitely surprise you, but hopefully in a deliciously unhinged way.