Certified Period-Drama Lover

Slash Film recommends Wuthering Heights 2009.

When Emerald Fennell's "Wuthering Heights" arrives in theaters next year (just before Valentine's Day), it will mark the 16th time Emily Brontë's gothic romance novel has been adapted to film. The work has also been gloomy grist for television, the stage (as a play, a musical, and an opera), a graphic novel, and lord knows what else since its publication in 1847. The most famous version of "Wuthering Heights" to date is unquestionably William Wyler's 1939 film starring Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, which was refashioned into a classic Hollywood romance by genius-level screenwriters Charles MacArthur, Ben Hecht, and John Huston. Given its significant plot omissions, this is one of those movie adaptations that will get students in hot water with their English teachers, but, hey, at least they'll get to watch a classic piece of cinema boasting gorgeous cinematography from the great Gregg Toland.

Why do artists keep revisiting "Wuthering Heights?" It's a downer of a novel with two terribly annoying main characters. But it's so overwrought that, if cast correctly (or reconsidered by a writer with a unique take on the book), it can really cook as a bodice-ripper. Or you could play it like director Andrea Arnold did in 2011 with stars Kaya Scodelario and James Howson and transform the novel into a rainswept saga of tortured, downright cruel passion.

You've no shortage of options when it comes to "Wuthering Heights," but while you're waiting to see Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi steam it up as Cathy and Heathcliff, you might want to check out the 2009, two-part television version that featured Tom Hardy as the tormented main character.

Made for the United Kingdom's ITV network, the 2009 screen take on "Wuthering Heights" from director Coky Giedroyc and writer Peter Bowker was greeted with a bit of a shrug, but it could be ripe for reappraisal 16 years later, if only for Hardy's performance. In her review for The Guardian, critic Kathryn Flett aired her frustration with the novel's swing from "bonkers" to "boring" (a structural flaw fixed in Wyler's movie) and correctly dings it for being a "quasi-romance." These qualities make it impossible to make a truly loyal movie based on "Wuthering Heights" — or, at least, one that would be bearable.

Still, Hardy can make just about anything watchable, and if you're determined to go against Brontë's depiction of Heathcliff as being "dark-skinned," you'll get an electrifying performance from one of our finest actors (who has a penchant for vanishing into roles). Per Flett, his "smoldering stoicism" is nicely complemented by co-star Charlotte Riley (who later became Hardy's real-life partner and will soon appear in Travis Knight's live-action "Masters of the Universe" movie), while the supporting cast is up to snuff. This rendition may not overcome the problem of the book's difficult second half, but, as far as I've seen (and I've not watched every single "Wuthering Heights" adaptation), only Wyler and Arnold have pulled off that trick.

In any event, if you feel moved by the Hardy spirit after watching all 142 minutes of this "Wuthering Heights," I'd recommend you shift genre gears and check him out in the criminally underrated 2014 crime thriller "The Drop." There's nothing mopey about that movie, and he's never been better. (Jeremy Smith)

Business Insider has a list of '23 books you should read before they're turned into movies next year' including

Wuthering Heights

If you somehow escaped high school without reading Emily Brontë's 1847 gothic classic "Wuthering Heights," now is the perfect time to tick it off your reading list, ahead of its newest film adaptation releasing on February 13.

The film stars Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi as doomed lovers Catherine and Heathcliff, who are torn apart by societal expectations, time, illness, resentment, and guilt.

But since this is an Emerald Fennell movie (director of "Saltburn" and "Promising Young Woman"), you shouldn't expect a run-of-the-mill book-to-film adaptation. (Gabbi Shaw)

Harper's Bazaar has some suggestions on 'Where to Go, Stay, and Relax in England as a Certified Period-Drama Lover'.

For so many, Pride and Prejudice is a gateway drug into the wonderful world of period dramas. From other Regency-era romances (see: Bridgerton or countless other Jane Austen adaptations) to moody Gothic love stories (Jane Eyre—need I say more?), the English countryside is replete with cinematic inspiration. Naturally, this makes the island the perfect holiday destination for period-drama fiends everywhere. [...]

Haddon Hall, one of the best-preserved medieval homes in all of England, offers a glimpse into the vibrancy of the Tudor era, complete with stone pathways smoothed out from 900 years’ worth of visitors and grand galleries framed with original Elizabethan wood carvings. Naturally, the moody location has appeared in a multitude of film productions, including The Other Boleyn Girl, Mary Queen of Scots, The King, and three different adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre. [...]

Those who have the means might consider booking a private guided tour for easy access to all preferred destinations. Expedition Yorkshire curates thoughtful single and multiday tours across York, Edinburgh, London, and more, allowing travelers to see the country through a local lens. Some expeditions also focus specifically on locations that may be of particular interest to period-drama buffs. (The Brontë tour, for instance, would be an ideal day for anyone with an undying love for Heathcliff.) (Chelsey Sanchez)

The Nerd Daily shares an excerpt from the novel How To Grieve Like A Victorian by Amy Carol Reeves.

“Well, if there’s anything I can do for you—watch Heathcliff, send takeout . . . If there’s anything I can do to lighten your load, just let me know. I’ve already taken you off the Curriculum Management Committee and the Committee Oversight Committee.”

“Thanks,” I mutter, bewildered, as always, at how my studies of Brontë and Dickens novels prepared me for such gripping daily tasks. [...]

Last fall was such a bright star for me when The Heathcliff Saga film premiered and my book spent several weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. Writing that book six years ago, postpartum, kept me sane. I gave everyone A’s that semester. With the hormone shifts, lack of sleep each night and an insatiable Heathcliff hanging off my breast, I’d escape into my alternative Wuthering Heights world. In my book, Emily Brontë’s love-triangled teenagers learn that Heathcliff inherited warlock powers from a distant Yorkshire ancestor. My Linwood is less milquetoast than the original character. He bastardizes ancient Fae supernatural powers from the moorlands and starts a spell war with Heathcliff. Cathy, caught in the middle, asks Nelly Dean to train her in the supernatural arts. She teams up with Heathcliff, helping him purge Linwood’s magical darkness for good. There’s lots of teen angst, desperate kissing, and disengaged parents. The adults churn butter and argue with no idea their teens could destroy Great Britain with their dark fairy arts war.

My literary agent, Sarah, took me on and sold the book in two days. I loved my editor, my only complaint being that he wanted to change the title from The Cathy Saga to The Heathcliff Saga. I groused. After all, I wanted my heroine to be the book’s star. But he said “Cathy” wasn’t distinct enough—it sounded like the comic-strip character—and he wanted my Heathcliff to be the new Edward Cullen.