The wonder of it is that Wuthering Heights, which was declared to be “unquestionably and irredeemably monstrous” upon publication, exists at all, its creative origins forever obscured by the brief and enigmatic life of its author. The novel, published in 1847 under a male pen name (Ellis Bell), was written by Emily Brontë, a 27-year-old virgin so reclusive she makes Emily Dickinson seem positively sociable. Brontë, who died a year after her book came out, somehow managed to call forth from her vivid, anarchic imagination one of the darkest love stories in Victorian (or any other) literature, creating an unprecedented Demon Lover in the portrait of Heathcliff and an obsessed madwoman in that of Catherine Earnshaw. The erotic undertones are unmistakable and all the more powerful for being suppressed. For all its heaving drama, the plot of Wuthering Heights is remarkably simple, even primitive. It is the age-old one of a soured romance, of childhood sweethearts who are foiled by the adult reality they grow into. Filmmakers and television producers have continually returned to this elusive work ever since it was made into a movie in 1939, starring Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon. This adaptation, written and directed by the controversial Emerald Fennell (Promising Young Woman, Saltburn), is characterized as “loosely inspired” by the novel—ergo, at liberty to take liberties. The adult Cathy is played by the blonde, blue-eyed Margot Robbie, whose acting chops are in full view once again. Heathcliff is played by Jacob Elordi. Influenced by the aesthetics of soft porn and high fashion, this is a movie with its sights firmly fixed on Gen Z. It works, in its edgy stylistic way, and it should sell heaps of tickets. (Daphne Merkin)
This movie is about two people who would rather ruin their lives than be apart. It’s not a “nice” movie, but it’s one you won’t be able to stop thinking about. It’s a bold, wild ride that proves the right filmmaker can take an old book and make it feel vividly contemporary.The film’s ending is particularly memorable. It isn’t a peaceful goodbye; it’s an unsettling reminder that some types of love are more like a haunting than a hug. Fennell shows us that Cathy and Heathcliff aren’t heroes; they are deeply broken people who find a strange peace in their shared pain. The film challenges viewers to think about why people are so drawn to stories that hurt us.By the time the credits roll, audience members will feel exhausted but also excited by the pure boldness of the filmmaking. Wuthering Heights is easily the most talked-about movie of the year so far, and for a very good reason. (Terry Carper)
But I also think that creating a specific vibe, or creating an indelible image that is unsettling or disturbing and will stick in people’s minds forever, or creating something that is a feast to watch, is actually incredibly difficult to do, and it’s discussed as though it’s easy and unimportant. Style and substance are often regarded as opposites even though, sometimes, it’s the style that gives something substance.Take Alfred Hitchcock or David Lynch or any other director who has such a strong and singular sense of style that it becomes a genre unto itself and they get a -ian suffix attached to their name. Script and plot are only two ways to tell a story; film is a visual medium. And, love her or hate her style, Fennell knows how to create a visual.But even if you believe, as I’ve seen repeated over the past few days, that “Wuthering Heights” is a beautiful cake that turns out to be mostly buttercream, have you never run an index finger through an inch of frosting and plopped it in your mouth? Have you never binged on too much of something? Have you never enjoyed something you know is kinda bad for you?And, if nothing else, Fennell’s fever dream is inspiring people to go see a movie in the actual theatre and read (and discuss) a 179-year-old novel. (Jen Zoratti)
Though the film was visually captivating, I found the dialogue to be lackluster. Fennell’s objective was over-ambitious; by pairing Charli XCX’s bespoke electropop with a Jane Austen-esque plot, the romantic overtures customary of such a classic felt slightly out of place. Watching the film almost felt like watching two different adaptations of Wuthering Heights. In a film that was so much more than a love story, the lovelorn speeches felt manufactured. What Fennell does best is showing rather than telling, and Wuthering Heights managed to adopt and neglect that strength.Though I can’t deny I had my issues with the film, I also can’t deny the thought and precision woven into every visual detail. Fennell’s work is bold, beautiful, and shocking, and Wuthering Heights is no exception. (Sasha Greenfield)
It was a cathartic viewing experience, the whole theatre blushing, gasping, giggling and sobbing altogether. In a moment towards the end of the movie, while crying in the dark with strangers, I had a gut-wrenching thought about the endurance of Emily Brontë’s writing. The preservation of women’s stories is important, and telling them and retelling them is unifying and validating. The story of Wuthering Heights has seen multiple renditions and adaptations in film, on stage, and in song, because the feelings persist! Love is real, but so is loss.“Wuthering Heights” is an exploration of womanhood, female desire, and of course heartache. The past and the present melded together, intertwined more than ever, through Emily and Emerald’s visions of love and lust. It left me feeling inspired and proud, to be a woman and a writer.In this modern world, I think this movie can be seen as more than a sexy little love story. It felt to me as a small reminder of our humanity, that we all need to love a little harder, and say what we mean! (Alexcea Apostolakis)
Fennell is practically screaming at us that this is not a transcription from novel to film. But people will still complain about that. This was her imagination running free, how she interpreted the novel as a teenager. Maybe infidelity from the original was the point! If you want the 1847 Wuthering Heights perfectly distilled, maybe you should stick to the novel.When I rocked up to the cinema, waterproof mascara at the ready, packet of Minstrels stuffed into my bag, I had already relinquished my loyalties to the novel. My friends and I were there to see Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi lose their minds in stunning costumes with an excellent soundtrack.That’s what we had been sold in the press for the film. And that is precisely what we got. Is it one of the greatest movies I’ve ever seen? No. But I enjoyed it. (Jane Cowan)
Does all this contemporary hindsight into the fabric of Brontë’s epic novel make for a quintessential “Wuthering Heights?” Even allowing that such a thing were possible, probably not. While it presents a stylishly crafted and thrillingly cinematic take on this complex classic, richly enhanced by a superb and adventurous cast, it’s not likely to satisfy anyone looking for a faithful rendition, nor does it reveal a new angle from which the “romance” at its center looks anything other than toxic — indeed, it almost fetishizes the dysfunction. Even without the thorny debate around Heathcliff’s racial identity, there’s plenty here to prompt purists and revisionists alike to find fault with Fennell’s approach.Yet for those looking for a new window into to this perennial classic, and who are comfortable with the radical flourish for which Fennell is already known, it’s an engrossing and intellectually stimulating exploration of this iconic story in a way that exchanges comfortable familiarity for unpredictable chaos — and for cinema fans, that’s more than enough reason to give “Wuthering Heights” a chance. (John Paul King)
“Wuthering Heights” does not handle all of its romantic twists perfectly, and the stunningly artistic sets, costumes, and music can only do so much. In trying to balance both the crowd looking for a predictable period romance between two movie stars and those looking for a subversive or unique take on the genre, the film ultimately pleases neither.Still, the ride is worth it. Sasha this wonderfully weird and oddly compelling “Wuthering Heights” might just be right up your alley, even if it is not the classic romance it appears to be on the surface. (Jake Isenberg)
I would be lying if I said that I did not shed enormous tears in the last moments of the film. However, any success the movie has does not negate the blatant whitewashing of the characters, nor the reduction of the author’s original intent into shallowness. (Abigail Gauthier)
One quality that redeems the film is the young Heathcliff (Owen Cooper) and young Cathy (Charlotte Mellington). The two actors perfectly convey the childlike wonder, curiosity and love the characters have for one another; however, the innocent and captivating part of their relationship seems to be lost as time passes.Adaptations do not need to be 100% truthful to their literary counterparts; however, they should remain true to the messages and themes. The issue with “’Wuthering Heights’” is that it actively avoids the harsh realities of the novel to create a lackluster alternate reality. (Celina Mullady)
The film is never boring, and Alison Oliver as Isabella provides moments of genuine comic and emotional richness that the film could have used more of. But ultimately, Wuthering Heights is a feast that leaves you hungry — gorgeous to look at, technically ambitious, but lacking the emotional devastation the story demands.Brontë's novel was designed to disturb you long after you set it down. This film will barely linger past the drive home.
Charli xcx’s house soundtrack may have been the best thing about this cursed project. Let me give you the greatest hits in this marathon of grossness, in no particular order: Jacob Elordi’s Heathcliff fingering raw egg yolks, horse-rein-themed BDSM, dog-collar-themed BDSM, Margot Robbie sticking her index finger into the mouth of a whole jellied fish, most characters sticking their fingers into most other characters’ mouths for most of the film. Oh, and gratuitous close-up shots of snails. How could I forget?If it was Fennell’s grand marketing idea to shock-value Wuthering Heights into box office success, then sure, job well done — I am talking about it, after all, as is everyone else. But if the intent was to provoke the audience into any actual reflections about sin, passion, and our mortality, as the original novel does, then Fennell failed abysmally. Half an hour in, the pattern became entirely predictable: gruesome deaths, weird food scenes, outdoor sex. I was too bored and too desensitised to care about the characters’ fate. By the time the story came to its tragic end, I’d had more than enough of this self-indulgent spectacle. [...]Wuthering Heights is a glorified Pinterest board of a film: curated, aesthetically pleasing, and bearing no relevance to reality. You could pause the film at any given point and get a beautiful still image, from the otherworldly shot of Robbie’s Cathy enveloped by fog in her wedding dress, to the Gone-with-the-Wind-esque scene of Elordi’s Heathcliff riding off at sunset. No doubt such scenes are technically challenging to get just right. But they also make absolutely no sense. Why would Cathy be walking through the moors to get to church on her wedding day? I get that it’s old-timey Yorkshire, but contrary to Fennell’s impression, the concept of footpaths was not alien to the local population. And why was there a nun present at a public hanging, at a time when nuns would have been a rare sight? But hey, why not? It’s giving gothic.Fanfiction is at its core unintentional parodyFennell’s film ultimately proves two things: firstly, that fanfiction can never be “good” storytelling; and more broadly, that we’re in a literacy drought. [...]Perhaps it is the fact that Brontë’s novel is both overly dramatic and very undidactic in its moral messaging that makes it still ripe for fanfictionalisation almost two centuries since its publication. But I also think it has something to do with how much reading comprehension has declined in the past few decades. Fennell, despite her venerable age of near forty-one years, stands for the average teenage girl who has developed neither the reading skills nor the emotional intelligence to interpret complex storytelling (she herself admits that she channelled her 14-year-old self in the creative process for Wuthering Heights). Brontë’s story is not about bonking the hunky farmhand; it’s a dark and subtle tale about two families’ struggle for redemption after decades of generational trauma. But how do you market that for a Valentine’s Day release? (Beatrice Scudeler)
If you are going to abandon strict period accuracy, fine. But commit to a world.Perhaps my bigger frustration is this: the film abandons some of the book’s core themes that were genuinely ahead of their time, particularly around race and rigid social hierarchy, yet it does not commit hard enough to the raunchy reimagining to justify the shift. If you are going to strip away Brontë’s grit, at least sex it up.Instead, it sits in an awkward middle ground. Not faithful enough to be literary. Not wild enough to be scandalous.In 2026, if you promise me torrid obsession on the moors, I expect torrid obsession.And frankly, I wanted more. (Georgia Clelland)
The only conflicts are interpersonal, which makes them feel like a weak foundation if you want viewers to see these problems as urgent and truly difficult to resolve. There’s barely any societal push, which means a lot of these characters create their own problems, and that gets annoying when everyone feels like a conflict-inducing plot device.The film includes an original soundtrack by Charli xcx, which, on its own, is an excellent album that follows the themes of Brontë’s book. However, this doesn’t equate to it matching the voice of the film. Except for “House featuring John Cale,” every other Charli xcx needle drop unfortunately felt distracting and forced compared to the setting and emotions of the film.This mismatched, jumbled stylization was made even worse when a folk song not at all from the Charli soundtrack, “Dark Eyed Sailor” by Olivia Chaney played twice. There’s such a stark contrast between these two types of songs that, again, it felt like the film was unwilling to commit to its own ambiance.“Wuthering Heights” is not the boundary-pushing, sensational twist on the classic novel that it may be marketed to be, but it can still be a fun watch with the right people. (Sonali Khanna)
I will start by saying one nice thing, and one thing only. The movie was pretty. The sets were my favorite part, and although they more often than not seemed surreal for the sake of being surreal, they still captured the feeling of the film. [...]There truly was nothing good about this movie. It features genuinely one of the bleakest depictions of human nature that I’ve seen lately.There is no happiness, no love, nothing to hope for. You shouldn’t want the main couple to be together, which Fennell manages to convey despite not realizing it herself. There are no characters to root for, no resolutions to hope for, no one to even sympathize with. Everyone is alone, deeply flawed and easily capable of cruelty, and everything is desolate. It’s all hollow.Brontë’s novel is about cycles of abuse, and in the end, characters that don’t even exist in the movie are able to break that cycle and build real relationships. Fennell ends her movie with Heathcliff holding Catherine’s corpse after she dies after miscarrying the baby who would grow up to break the cycle of abuse. The ending scene is supposed to mirror an earlier scene of Catherine and Heathcliff as children, but Catherine always treated Heathcliff as a pet. There was never anything good about their relationship, even as children.I don’t know why anyone would want to watch this movie, except to project onto Catherine if they happen to be the most obnoxious person you know. If you want something with beautiful scenes, there are a thousand other movies with something real and worthwhile behind those images. Go watch one of those instead.Oh, and Charli XCX didn’t even add that much. (Natalie Massengill)
I think this film would’ve received far less backlash if it were marketed as a retelling or heavily inspired by “Wuthering Heights.” It feels as if Fennell just wanted the hype behind the immense title that is “Wuthering Heights” and had no regard for what the text stands for or what it means to people. I gave “Wuthering Heights” a 2.5 out of 5 stars, and I would only recommend it to anyone who hasn’t read the original. (Keara Champagne)
Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights is undeniably ambitious. It seeks to drag Brontë’s stormy romance into visceral, modern territory, emphasizing eroticism and brutality with unflinching boldness. There are moments of genuine visual poetry and committed performances that suggest a more cohesive film lurking beneath the surface.However, the adaptation ultimately prioritizes shock over substance. By amplifying the most extreme elements of the story while sidelining its emotional intricacy, the film reduces a timeless tragedy to a parade of heightened tableaux. It is beautiful to look at and occasionally compelling in its performances, but it rarely captures the aching inevitability that defines the original tale.In striving to be provocative, this Wuthering Heights loses the haunting intimacy that made Brontë’s novel endure. The wind still howls across the moors, but the heartbreak it carries feels strangely distant. (Caillou Pettis)
When “Wuthering Heights” approaches its “Romeo and Juliet” heartbreak, we don’t really care. Robbie needed a co-star who was more her equal; Elordi could have used someone younger.Fennell, meanwhile, is better on her own turf. Her “Promising Young Woman” and “Saltburn” were magical, unencumbered by expectations from those who have their own ideas about how “Wuthering Heights” should unfold.A future original with Cooper might be a better next step for Fennell. This “Wuthering” is withering. (Bruce R. Miller Lee Enterprises)
There is much more to say about how entirely this movie misinterpreted Brontë’s work, from axing the second half of the novel to making the characters considerably older. Film adaptations can never be perfectly book-accurate, but the audience must feel the director’s love for the source material. Watching this movie, I did not feel that, and from the reactions I’ve seen online, many felt the same way.“Wuthering Heights” is Emily Brontë’s only novel, and with this adaptation, Fennell spits on her purpose for writing. The film is shallow, motivated by being sexy and shocking rather than interpreting any of its relevant messages. Overall, it felt like the movie equivalent of a Wattpad fanfiction written by a 13-year-old and weighed down by tropes. (Cadence Merker)
Hollywood has long taken liberties with books, but this recent wave feels engineered for clips, reels and virality, rather than the necessary sacrifices of adaptation.We know it’s possible to have adaptations with both flair and substance. Consider Baz Luhrmann. The Oscar-nominated Romeo + Juliet (1996) is just as visually bombastic, yet the extent of verbatim Shakespeare retains a dedication to the source that Fennell’s film lacks.So what does it have to offer? Virality. Even this article contributes to the internet firestorm that will ensure Wuthering Heights’ commercial success. It will ragebait critics far longer than such a limp effort deserves – and we are all its victims. (Benjamin D. Muir)
If an adaptation – say Baz Luhrmann’s “Romeo and Juliet” and “The Great Gatsby” -- bring a fresh energy to the moral complexities of a moment in time – then we can accept the changes, but when one ignores the psychology in favor of spectacle, it’s merely a parade of ‘strike-a-pose’ scenes. (Lynn Venhaus)
Stylistically and narratively messy, with cringe dialogue, it does feel — as Fennell herself said — inspired by her 14-year-old self’s exposure to the book. It is a juvenile softcore romantic fantasy. A lurid historical pseudo-erotica. A performative piece of glossy sexual pantomime — and a vapid portrait of trauma bonding. Half a star for the opening music by Charli XCX and Cathy’s massive blood-loss scene. (Stephanie Mayo)
A horse-drawn carriage, used to transport actors Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi in “Wuthering Heights”, has been listed for sale at £100,000.The original 1890 vehicle, which was featured in Emerald Fennell’s film adaptation of Emily Brontë’s literary touchstone, is available on the UK automotive marketplace Autotrader.Named the Heathcliff Carriage, the piece of film memorabilia boasts maroon leather seats and is designed for either two or four horses.It has been privately owned for two decades by Steve Dent Ltd, the stunt and prop company involved in the film's production.Erin Baker, editorial director at Autotrader, said: “This listing is one of the most unique we’re ever seen on the platform.“To have the actual carriage used by the lead actors in this film on Autotrader is an honour, and we’re so pleased to be a small part of this huge moment in film and culture.” (Lauren Del Fabbro)
There’s a scene in the new film adaptation of “Wuthering Heights,” directed by Emerald Fennell, in which Cathy, played by Margot Robbie, emphatically denies her feelings of jealousy for Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) after Isabella (Alison Oliver) expresses a romantic interest in him. How ridiculous, Cathy scoffs. She couldn’t care less.But Cathy’s face tells a different story, as redness rises in her cheeks and catches light along her hairline.It’s one of many moments in the film when complexion says what the characters do not. Like sweating or pupils dilating, blushing is an involuntary tell — an affliction of the nervous system that is mostly unwelcome, judging by the market of anti-redness, green-colored goops sold to hide it.Within the corseted, cinched and girdled 19th-century society of Ms. Fennell’s vision for the film, however, blush becomes a vital means of expression for characters who cannot be taken at their word.“Flush is this amazing physiological thing — it’s hormonal,” said Siân Miller, the makeup designer for the film. “To an extent, it can’t be controlled, and blush is a great tool to enhance that, to show emotions like embarrassment, anger and, of course, the state of arousal.”Take Cathy: There is scarcely a minute in the film’s two-hour-plus run time when Ms. Robbie’s imperious protagonist is not noticeably red, whether from sexual pleasure, annoyance, grief, envy or shame. For the look, Ms. Miller found inspiration in the pre-Raphaelites and in portraiture of the period.Complexion becomes a way of charting emotional topographies across the film, Ms. Miller said. This idea finds its clearest expression in the character of Isabella, the doll-like ward of Cathy’s husband, the wealthy and upstanding Edgar. Isabella’s transformation from sheltered naïf can be measured by her changing hue.Early on, Isabella (played by the “Saltburn” actress Alison Oliver) wears a prim pink on the apples of her cheeks, conveying a distinct air of youthfulness but also artifice. As she succumbs to Heathcliff’s sadomasochistic seductions, her color darkens — until she is on all fours barking like a dog for her new husband, a flush spreading like wildfire across her neck and chest, which are also slick with perspiration.In Cathy’s case, complexion was used to signal her shuttling between two worlds. When Cathy moved into the gilded walls of Thrushcross Grange after marrying Edgar, Ms. Miller swapped Robbie’s low-sitting blush for an upward sweep of color placed high on the cheekbones, which she described as “superficial” and “contrived.”For Cathy’s visits home to the steadily decaying Wuthering Heights, Ms. Miller dipped her brush back into those original, more natural shades, “showing that backwards and forwards was very important to us,” she said.Blush was not worn only by the women. As Heathcliff, Mr. Elordi reddens in physical exertion as he hauls hay and guts pigs on the farm. Even when he returns years later to the Grange as a sophisticate with a gold earring, he never washes himself clean of that workingman’s flush. “He’s made some money and cleaned up his complexion but he’s still got that … ” Ms. Miller said, trailing off. “It’s very erotic to have that look.”The faces of “Wuthering Heights” feel undone. They can be blotchy and imperfect; you can see the skin beneath.To let those imperfections through, Ms. Miller pulled back on heavy makeup. “Sometimes it’s all about what we don’t do,” she said.In fact, complexion plays such a large role in Ms. Fennell’s adaptation that the director devotes an entire room to it.The bedchamber that Cathy moves into at the Grange, an estate rendered in surrealist splendor by the production designer, Suzie Davies, is upholstered wall-to-wall in fleshy material resembling her skin, made from a photograph of Ms. Robbie’s inner forearm transposed onto fabric and then covered in stretched-out latex.There is no effort to disguise anything. Rather, her blue-vein marbling and freckles are magnified here — alongside the single hair that sprouts from a mole.As much as color signifies, so too does its absence. (Spoiler ahead!)When Cathy dies, her skin takes on an exaggerated, almost cartoonishly gray pallor — an effect that Ms. Miller achieved using a palette called Sick and Terminal Illness, which she designed with the makeup company MaqPro.“Emerald wanted her to look like wet concrete,” said Ms. Miller, who recalled a team of makeup artists waiting on set, ready to conceal any of Ms. Robbie’s skin peeking through the waxy exterior. (Annabel Nugent)
A specific scene from Wuthering Heights has been circulating online. In the clip, Margot's character, Cathy, was seen dancing on a cliff. However, it was her outfit that grabbed eyeballs. Margot looked pretty in a red-hued flared skirt with a matching white-hued shirt underneath it, and she topped it off with a black-hued vest. This look instantly reminded Indian fans of 'Geet' in Jab We Met. (Ekta Chanana)
I’m hard-pressed to think of a male director who has been on the receiving end of this kind of backlash. It’s a given that male directors go off-piste in service to their ‘vision’. They are valorised when they wander off the plantation, stylistically.When they’re indulgent (hello, Damien Chazelle), uncompromising (that’ll be Paul Thomas Anderson), extremely sexualised (like Luca Guadagnino) or plain weird (that’ll be you, Christopher Nolan), it’s the normal run of business.Fine, people are entitled to an opinion of a movie once they’ve paid for their cinema seat and that opinion will not always be a warm, cuddly one. But the commentary around Wuthering Heights and Fennell in a wider sense runs deeper than a simple ‘not my thing, thanks’.One can only hope that Fennell set out to be this divisive and that she is sitting back and watching the fallout of the release of Wuthering Heights with some level of satisfaction. And that it spurs her on to be even more extreme next time. I, for one, can’t wait to see what happens next. (Tanya Sweeney)
“Wuthering Heights” had a $37.5M opening weekend in the US, and that’s despite very mixed reviews coming its way. However, an insider report is raising eyebrows over the way Warner Bros. handled the film’s marketing.Remember when “Wuthering Heights” first screened and all those glowing early reactions flooded social media—with even one “critic” calling it a “God-tier classic”? It turns out that was a carefully calibrated mirage concocted by Warner Bros.A report claims that “Wuthering Heights” had “one of the biggest global marketing juggernauts the world has ever seen.” Hyperbole? Maybe. But what do you make of the claim that “almost 2,000 social media influencers were paid by Warners to post nice things about the film”?“Nothing says fearless creativity quite like the words “Immersive Experiential Marketing Activation.” (Jordan Ruimy)
Is The Book Club friend or foe? Anyone looking at the title alone would be inclined to say the latter; members of book clubs, after all, are notorious for never actually reading the book. But it is to the credit of Sandbrook and Syrett that I say that the books are superior to their wine, and their conversation no replacement for reading. It is a bonus that the chosen titles have been in print for many years; the stakes for dented sales are low.There is an enjoyable dad-and-daughter dynamic to their show. We hear a lot about the young giving up books, but it’s Sandbrook who professes to be jaded, while twentysomething Syrett, the more vocal of the pair, presses paperbacks into our hands. We can look forward to Sandbrook’s views on Sally Rooney’s Normal People in the coming weeks, but book du jour, Wuthering Heights, received the preview.Neither presenter had seen Emerald Fennell’s film at the time of recording (the episodes are also available as video-podcasts), so their discussion was refreshingly book-based and BDSM-free. Not that they shied away from the violence of the story or the difficulties of the author’s upbringing. Emily Brontë, characterised by Elizabeth Gaskell as deeply strange, lived a broadly reclusive life following the early loss of her mother and two of her sisters. The host’s biographical approach – and discussion of Charlotte Brontë’s amendments to Wuthering Heights following Emily’s death – certainly encouraged me to revisit the text. (Daisy Dunn)
It also seems like the adaptation feels unnecessarily sexualized to a point where it loses the plot, almost reminding me of the hollow “put your florals on” marketing for “It Ends With Us.” I understand that Brontë was limited in her ability to include graphic scenes as such, and Fennell may be trying to simply fill gaps, but I honestly find her focus on this strategy, as opposed to the challenging and intense romantic aspects of the book, like Catherine’s haunting of Heathcliff, even in death, is ultimately a missed opportunity.I truly don’t mean to be overly negative about the movie without having watched it, but I just find the directorial and structural choices so upsetting, especially for such an iconic book. What makes this particularly frustrating for me is the comments from Emerald Fennell herself, claiming she is simply basing the film on her experience reading the book when she was fourteen. Fennell admits, “I can’t say I’m making Wuthering Heights… What I can say is I’m making a version of it. There’s a version that I remembered reading that isn’t quite real. And there’s a version where I wanted stuff to happen that never happened.” (Abby Katz)
Though the book’s challenges may also be inherent. [Rosemary Haskell, a professor of English at Elon University who specializes in British literature] said the perceived difficulty of reading grade school classics like “Wuthering Heights” can also be attributed to a changing English language, not just doomscrolling.“I think the way that people write and the way that people talk shifts over time,” she says. Other potential challenges include “the terminology, the sentence structure and the density of the prose,” plus the “incomprehensible Yorkshire dialect.”Virginia Rademacher, a professor of literary and cultural studies and the Chair of the Arts and Humanities Division at Babson College, also says the difficulty comes down to the narrator. The book has multiple narrators and also unfolds in letters.“It's told by these unreliable narrators. We don’t actually know of what we’re being told about (the characters) is completely true either, because we can’t trust the various people that are telling the story," Rademacher says.Now, BookTok is full of videos coaching people through their first “Wuthering Heights” read or re-read.One recommended looking up words and plot lines while reading. Another Booktoker said to read the book in an accent: “I am not kidding you.” Another created a video highlighting what readers should pay attention to early on in the book, giving a hint at what would later be important.Haskell’s advice for anyone looking to start a classic? Read the book out loud and pair the reading experience with watching adaptations, which can make the text more accessible.“In the end, I think you just have to persevere and keep going. It becomes easier," Haskell says. (Amelia Gioia)
However, don’t get the movie, starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, confused with the album, made by Charli xcx. The two beautifully co-exist with each other, but Charli’s album is an intense piece of art that stands out on its own. Learn more about the new album here.In our opinion, ‘Always Everywhere’ drew us instantly into the album. The almost goth, organ-heavy production and tone of the song take us directly into the modern world of the Wuthering Heights movie. The visuals in the new music video ring in a new era for Charli, erasing the slime green and ushering in a darker mood—deep reds, blacks, forest greens, and neutrals. Even though we could live in brat summer forever, we’re ready to move on with Charli, and open our ears to her new era. Clearly, Wuthering Heights is The Moment, and we should all be listening at full volume. (Alana)
In whole, “Wuthering Heights” does function as an album as much as it does a soundtrack — but that's mostly the benefit of having a single artist realize their single vision, a privilege rarely afforded. Charli xcx does not waste it here. (Maria Sherman)
In her Substack post, XCX questioned whether ‘Wuthering Heights’ is “a Charli XCX album”. If it were her first official record after ‘Brat’, the response could be different – this soundtrack doesn’t feel like it will create another cultural phenomenon. Perhaps, though, that’s what the star needs to find music inspiring again – a way to lift the pressure and expectations slightly. In the meantime, it delivers a solid slab of new music from her – the perfect soundtrack for a winter of yearning and discontent. (Rhian Daly)
Still, as a bit of a creative reset, it works. ‘Wuthering Heights’ isn’t the seismic next chapter after ‘Brat’, but it isn’t trying to be. It’s a controlled swerve, a palate cleanser with genuine craft. It’s intriguing, intermittently powerful, but rarely transcendent. It might also represent one too many creative geniuses on a hot mess of a Brontë adaptation…but that’s a whole other conversation. (Jacob Brookman)
Undeniably, Charli had the unenviable task of creating the soundtrack to the movie adaptation of one of the most iconic novels of all time. Unlike Fennell, however, Charli understood the source material she was working with and subsequently created a sonically cohesive and visually appealing album that transported her listeners to the world of gothic 19th-century England.“Wuthering Heights” is not a love story — it is a tale of passion, obsession and keeping our true feelings locked away when all we want to do is shout them out for the world to hear. Charli is the only woman who could have ever translated these shared feelings into music made for the modern listener.Some might even say this musical adaptation is “Actually Romantic.” (Wyatt Pickering)
Charli XCX’s “Wuthering Heights” is a powerful and masterful collection of profound reflections that may actually do its source material too much justice. In fact, Fennell’s film might have worked much better if it had functioned as an accompanying film to the album, rather than the other way around. But much like what the Rolling Stones so lovingly professed in 1969, we can’t always get what we want, and perhaps I will simply be grateful that Charli has released anything at all, even if it is in conjunction with a truly terrible movie. (Natalie Swiderski)
0 comments:
Post a Comment