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.
Okay…so…a hot take from me: I did not love it—at all. I can concede the great costuming and atmosphere, etc, but it was truly a horrific experience for me. The sheer brutality of the obsession and its ruinous consequences. I got less class warfare and much more trauma bonding. It was so discomfiting and painful to watch, no one to root for, or even like. Good for a woman director to follow her vision and create it, but definitely not one I’d ever return to.
I love and welcome a hot take! I appreciate you sharing this here because I know there are other Magpies who deeply agree with you. I actually just saw some friends over the weekend who were baffled by my joyful reaction to the movie — they also found it uncomfortable, unpleasant, etc. I agree with you 100% that there is no redeeming character — it’s really tragic and dark in this sense. I found myself able to enjoy the weird and wild drama of the plot, Fennell’s visual storytelling, and the acting but the core of the book is hellish!
xx
I haven’t read the book. I walked away from the movie feeling many emotions — I loved the visual experience. It was truly beautiful. But I also felt a little disturbed? The music was great, and I feel like the song “House featuring John Cale” was perfect because it is uncomfortable, haunting, but also kind of beautiful.
Margot Robbie’s performance was incredible. She’s such an emotional actress. Loved!
I am usually a silent movie watcher — I rarely laugh out loud or make a sound… I gasped when she cracked the eggs. Such a great detail! Overall, I really enjoyed it, and I think it accomplished what the director had in mind. I have been thinking about the movie ever since I saw it, and I have to imagine that’s why people create art in the first place.
Disturbed is a totally appropriate way to describe my reaction in parts, too! I found elements of the movie destabilizing in many ways! The music was fantastic — I agree. That track you mentioned really sets an uncomfortable, foreboding tone.
I don’t think I’ll ever look at eggs the same way…lol!
xx
I read the book recently, for the first time. I think what makes the book really interesting and revolutionary for the time period – the unreliable narrator, the shifting perspectives and the frank engagement with class issues – is always going to be really hard to adapt, but I thought that this adaptation really made no effort to engage on those levels.
As you say, there is something very interesting to just lean into the gothic and pulpy vibes of it all, but I don’t think that there was anything left over to really feel like it was connecting emotionally, especially because the characters are (intentionally) deeply unsympathetic.
I think the music and costumes were cool and supported the reimaging of the novel, and everything filmed out on the moors looked amazing. I think what was done in the interiors has been done before and better by others, like Guillermo del Toro or Tim Burton.
I like Jacob Eloridi but I don’t know if he was great here. Aside from the question of casting a white actor in this role, he had a very buttoned up quality at times, which seemed incongruous. I would actually love to see him as Mr. Darcy. I also love Margot Robbie but I think she was really miscast here. She’s generally too likable and I think the role of Cathy and her impulsiveness and wildness doesn’t make as much sense for someone in her late thirties.
Oo I love this saucy read! I agree with some of your points here, although I found there to be more substance on the thematic score. I’m thinking specifically about the way Fennell suggests Nelly’s motivations; the social constraints she’s under are visible and damnable, and I think we see that she has no agency outside of encouraging Cathy to “marry up,” and though we might want her to encourage Cathy to “choose love,” what has Cathy done to deserve this largesse? And is her happiness more important than Nelly’s safety? Oh it’s a house of cards, but I think Fennell is still pointing at the punishing social system as the perpetrator of the root evil. What did you make of all that? Still underbaked?
Another thought (not meaning to disabuse you of your valid opinion, but thinking out loud as I reflect): I feel like another enormous achievement of the book is atmosphere. Brooding, dark, misty, mysterious. Things unstable, things half-lit, things half-told. A castle in ruins. Lots of the same names or versions of the same names (Cathy, Linton, Earnshaw, Heathcliff — there are multiple of each) thrown around in this strange maelstrom of unhappiness. I think the movie delivered on this atmosphere.
I also had a different read on Elordi. I thought the moments of restraint were more about him having learned to suppress himself — forcing himself to take Cathy’s punishment wordlessly, etc. But maybe you’re meaning more generally, you found him emotionally unavailable in the role? I loveeeeed the scene where he makes that face when Linton kisses Cathy while he’s on the sofa. SEETHING! So goood.
OK, thanks for stirring the pot for me because it gave me some prompts to reflect on and react to!! I love a fresh take!
xx
On another note.. my younger sister is getting married ( second marriage- they are eloping) and she wants a Wuthering Heights inspired wedding dress.. budget 1500 ish. Would love it if you had any thoughts!
How romantic!!! The first brand I thought of was Markarian. They do a great bustier-type top/silhouette that sprang to mind. I’ll keep thinking on this too!
Jen- I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on the “Wuthering Heights” movie. It was a beautiful, massive cinematic experience.. .the gorgeous cast, the scenery, the costumes. I only wish I had seen it alone or with a girlfriend. Instead, I wanted to share this movie with my three teenage daughters (aged 14, 16 and 18).. they said yes.. because.. Jacob Elordi, of course. I fear that I will never live down some of the sex scenes that will forever be discussed over the dinner table. The chatter and giggling from my three young ladies was nonstop through this film. I don’t have a son, but I can only imagine how awkward it would be to watch this movie with one! That being said.. .I did enjoy, I struggled a bit as it deviated from the book but the overall theme was the same. I need a re-watch by myself, with a glass of wine.
OMG!! I can imagine that must have been quite the experience / conversation. Excited for you to enjoy this movie solo, with a glass of wine. Let me know your thoughts when you’re not watching it through the prism of their reactions!!
xx
So, I haven’t seen the film yet, and have been on the fence about going; my tagline for book Wuthering Heights is (tongue in cheek) “two terrible people fall in love and, somehow, make each other worse.” Not my favorite book (or Bronte) haha. Do you think, given this is not a faithful adaptation, that someone like me would enjoy it?
Hi! LOL your description of the book is perfect. I do think you can enjoy it — if for nothing else, the music, the set, the gorgeous cast!
xx
Thanks for your thoughts & for opening up the discussion! I saw it with a group of friends, and went into it knowing from the general discourse that it wouldn’t be a purist/precise retelling of the book, and was happy just to take it on its own terms.
On one hand, I enjoyed it for all the reasons you mentioned- the cinematography and soundtrack were great, the leads were charismatic, and it was fun and excessive and absorbing. The scenes at Lindon’s estate/the Grange were so over the top, and they reminded me of the pastel-coloured excess of Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette. Also, at this point, I’m just happy to see a movie in the cinemas that is made for adults, and isn’t a comic book/superhero movie.
However, this isn’t a film that will stick with me or that I’d really want to see again. In stripping away some of the detail and horror of the original plot, and the clever and innovative narrative techniques of the book, I thought, what are we left with? A love story between two people who are ultimately pretty unpleasant, and who have a tragic ending, and are just kind of awful to each other and everyone around them, and…? What? I was caught up in it, but I didn’t feel that sense of desperation you sometimes feel in other doomed love stories, just desperately hoping that somehow the ending could be different this time.
Anyway, I enjoyed the experience but my suspicion is that this film will not have a long shelf life in the pop culture imagination. I have been listening to Charli’s soundtrack and enjoying it a lot since the film, however!
Hi Cait! I love this read — I think you could be right that this is a moment in time rather than an enduring cult classic. Someone else noted that there have been other movies that did the whole opulent interiors in the past, and that they might have done it better, and so I don’t even know that THAT element will be enough to transcend / persist. (Side note: it was flirting right up against the border of camp, didn’t you think? But didn’t make it all the way in?)
xx
I also loved this film but have not read the book. My friend and I saw it and I wore your bad book girl hat and posted on Instagram. And yes sex, like why weren’t there dildoson the concession stand as a take home. And agreed a sweeping love romance, similar to Gone with the Wind. Women aren’t meant to be tamed or captured but the introduction to her sexual experience and the bridle and muzzle were so important as was the start of the film. A stiffy at a hanging. The raw and humanness we seem to not have in polite society. The need to be loved and seen and listened to as well as understood. Terrific film. And great acting. I would see it again.
I will absolutely watch again, too! I’m curious how it translates to small-screen experience. I already know I need to re-watch that scene where Heathcliff emerges from the mist again…
xx
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