Magpies, what did we think of Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights”? I’ve been mulling over the movie since I saw it on February 13th and itching to know your thoughts.
For me, the TL;dr: I loved this movie. It is cinema. Rich visual and audial storytelling. Enormous camera pans, opulent sets, fabulous soundtrack, a-list celebrities, over-the-top costumes — sweeping in every sense. This had, to me, the scale and drama of a “Gone with the Wind.” (Even the weather was a well-paid actor!) My main reaction was sheer joy at the spectacle of a movie that goes so big and so distinctly female. A movie made for the contemporary female gaze, and unabashed about it. I was reminded, in reflecting on the movie, of Lyndsay Rush’s poem “She’s A Bit Much“: “…You mean like a bonus french fry in the bottom of the bag? Like a champagne shower? Like triple texting good news?…”. An acute example: the costumes are not historically accurate throughout the movie, but they give such rich visual texture and nail “a vibe” so carefully that when, in one scene, they go so far as to have Margo Robbie wear tiny red sunglasses (and, I think, a beaded lobster handbag?), you think, “Oh, what the hell — let them eat cake!”
I think this line of thinking gets to the crux of many of the debates around the movie: what does it mean to be an adaptation? What does an adaptation owe to its source text, if anything? It’s interesting that Fennell put the movie’s title in quotations — a small but crisp decision that signals slippage and “it’s like this but not” — from the very get-go. To me, this says: “I know I’m taking liberties. It’s Wuthering Heights, in air quotes.”
Still, purists will point out the movie’s various lapses and elaborations from the source material. The novel’s scenes of the key swallowing and Heathcliff digging up Cathy’s grave did stand out as a strong omissions, but then I think Fennell was still able to achieve the same scale of obsessiveness and pettiness with her characters without them. Overall, I felt she kept the novel’s thematic tent corners tamped down effectively. Like the book, this is a movie with virtually no character development, with leads who demonstrate no growth or grandeur of spirit with the exception of their own self-immolating obsession with one another. More importantly, like the book, this is a movie where class politics are the enemy. I saw a headline suggesting Fennell made Nelly “the movie’s villain,” and I disagree! The movie is more nuanced than that, and I read Fennell’s shaping of Nelly’s character — with some of her selfish decisions more openly displayed than in the novel — as compensation for the absence of the narrative frames in the book. (In the book, we learn the entire story through letters written between a visiting nobleman and various characters, including Nelly, and their word must be met with circumspection. This contributes to a sense of narrative instability; as readers, we are forced to question the reliability of Bronte’s characters. In the movie, we have direct vision into what actually transpires from a plot standpoint, and so I think Fennell fans out the ethics of the characters’ actions in different ways to recreate that sense of unreliability and distrust.) Beyond that, I think, like every character in the movie, Nelly is driven by (at best) self-preservation and (at worst) bald selfishness in a class context that does not afford its characters much, if any, choice or mobility. The movie does paint Edgar Linton with an over-gentle brush, and I wasn’t sure why — he seems comically puny in the novel, and I missed the dark humor! I felt this decision slightly undermined the overall canvas of a group of howlingly unhappy people making bad decisions that are largely shaped by a cripplingly cruel class structure — but this was my only gripe with the adaptation.
The movie does noticeably distinguish itself from the novel with regards to its explicitness and, more generally, its marketing as a romance released for Valentine’s Day. (On the first point, there is a hilarious reel about how mothers and sons should never see this movie together: “it’s fractured our relationship I think,” and I saw a meme depicting Wuthering Heights the book as a man dressed in a conservative suit and “Wuthering Heights” the movie as the same man wearing the same suit, but the back is actually chaps. LOL.) I was myself unbothered by the repositioning of this movie and also by the blurring of the genre lines in its marketing (I know there are purists among the Magpies who insist any romance must end with an HEA or an HEAFN, but I don’t know that I need or want these gateways?) Does the movie dial up the sex? Yes. Does it leave us swooning? Yes. Does this undermine the novel’s skewering of the racial and social caste system? I don’t believe so. Maybe it does a little bit? I’m not sure. Feel free to prove me wrong in the comments, but I think the treatment of sex in the movie in fact lends itself to conversations around repression / liberation enforced by a status quo. More abstractly, or philosophically, I don’t mind a pulpy adaptation; the movie is elbow-buddies in my mind with “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” as a classic novel recast to cater to the contemporary female gaze. To this point, I loved the shared swooning captured in this video where women respond in the theater to Heathcliff’s return after his absence and glow-up. The universal whoop! Why can’t we have Elordi — I mean, Heathcliff — I mean, no, Elordi — shirtlessly hoisting bales of hay and lifting Cathy by her bodice laces?! Or rather, maybe several things can be true. Maybe we can watch a steamy movie and enjoy it on that level and also understand that substantive social issues are being investigated to varying degrees of intensity and efficacy. Maybe that sits well with us, maybe not. It is certainly a movie that unsettles on this count.
On the matter of Elordi: his star power fascinates me in this movie. He plays Heathcliff capably and I am certain he was a big draw for movie-goers. I found him electrifying in the role — seething, obsessive, brooding, dark, violent, highly possessive and permissive of Cathy and Cathy only — and still very Jacob Elordi. This meme wraps it up: “this movie was a wonderful adaptation of Elordi being 6’5.” He fills the entire screen in every way. Still, there has been important conversation about his casting, whether the role should have belonged to a person of color (Heathcliff is described as dark-skinned in the book), and how this relates to the film’s casting diversity otherwise (i.e., Nelly is played by a person of color). This is complex; the book makes powerful points about the dangers of race- and class-based exclusion, and are they communicated as clearly with Elordi as Heathcliff? What does Nelly’s casting add or detract from the novel’s themes on this score? I continue to pick at these threads and land in different places — another way in which the movie unsettles straight-forward reads.
Meanwhile, a pause for a small shout-out to the clusters of Bronte die-hards who are waging their own wars against this adaptation. I love a cult following! I love the loyalty and passion! I personally will forever root for new adaptations of movies and books I love (good, bad, other) and want to live in a world where we have new versions of “Pride and Prejudice” to look forward to, but I also understand how films like this can tamper with legacy. What does it mean to recast this text in this prominent way? What is this adaptation adding or undermining with regards to her legacy? What would Bronte think?! Might she have been secretly thrilled by it? Bronte’s writing was considered “out-of-keeping-with-the-times” when she was alive — she was playing with second-wave Romantic conventions (capital R, as in belonging to the Romantic tradition of Shelley, Scott, Byron, etc) that were “outmoded” for her era. The novel was published in 1847 but set in 1801, and its dark, brooding hero and decaying castle iconography were “retro,” “outmoded.” I think she would have been considered “goth” in the way we use it today. There is something I deeply love about the fact that her work is now sitting in a cultural center, with today’s a-list celebrities and taste-makers fanning about her. Poetic justice! (Or would she have taken offense at this repositioning?!)
Your turn — thoughts, questions, observations, Elordi lore, however half-baked you have them!
Post-Scripts.
+My reflections on the novel, which we read together this past fall! The comments are great!
Shopping Break.
+Loving Julia Amory’s new cabana shorts, especially in the green stripe!
+Another good green and white stripe: this skirt.
+Obsessed with these pants from Apiece Apart!
+A gorgeous new arrival from Ann Mashburn! Great for my workerbee Magpies — or also chic with white jeans for spring.
+Reminder that this spectacular gown is like 70% off and perfect for spring formal events. The entire sale section is incredible: don’t miss this striped shirtdress (orig $495, now $112); this knit midi (orig $589, now $132); and this paisley blouse (orig $328, now $82).
+After my daughter’s ankle injury, I ordered her this “made of lightning” necklace. She is so strong! She always has been.
+I’m a matcha person now? Just ordered this set. Recs for matcha please! I know a few of you shared this in the past but I can’t find!
+Bold tiger print rug. Would be so chic in a closet or office!
+Another great bandana print cardigan.
+I caved and had to get this “Magpie” tee from the new Magpie collection at Mother jeans!
+This springy blanket from Chappywrap’s collab with Pomegranate is on our bed!
+Another great pintuck blouse for under $100!
This post may contain affiliate links. If you make a purchase through the links above, I may receive compensation.
I generally agree with your impressions. I saw an interview with Emerald Fennell where she talks about the use of quotes in the title and I think this is a very important point. It’s inspired by, not a scene by scene adaptation. With so many movies lately being remakes and sequels, I appreciated that this felt like a very original film despite having read the book.
I went with my book club and we all loved the film. Several of us wept. It was beautiful and moving, the story really sucks you in which I think is the power of a well-made film.
I thought both Elordi and Robbie were incredible, as was the cinematography. One of the ladies in my group expressed gratitude that the film wasn’t all Charli XCX, but included some more classical music. I didn’t mind the house style music. The thing that threw me off, oddly, were the ages of the characters. The three main characters are all roughly the same age at the start but to me the adult versions were clearly further apart in age.
If you haven’t seen it, grab your girlfriends and go!
Jen! I was so excited to see your name pop up here. Hi! I completely agree that this movie somehow managed to feel original even though it’s obviously a remake. Landon and I talked about the same thing — for a book-based movie, it was somehow non-derivative? So original and idiosyncratic. I read an interesting review in a Baltimore Magazine that made the point that the movie is “…not faithful to the book, but it is faithful to what the film aroused in young Emerald Fennell’s imagination. It’s a remarkable thing to be able to evoke the passions of a young female bibliophile.” I really agreed with that insight, and I think that if you’re willing to accept this is really a narrow imaginative view of the source text from a suggestible, imaginative mind, the movie becomes even more enjoyable.
The age thing is interesting! I hadn’t really thought of that; maybe I was too distracted by the blinding beauty of the cast! Ha
xx