Anyone in the zeitgeist would be aware of Emerald Fennell’s recent film adaptation of the beloved Emily Brontë novel, “Wuthering Heights”.
There is something about the choices Fennell has made here. From Heathcliff being a 6 ‘5 tall Jacob Elordi instead of a person of colour, the villainisation of Nelly, removing Cathy’s ghost, to even the changed ages of the characters. It is an interesting, or maybe questionable, choice of adaptation. But neither Fennell’s accuracy to the novel nor the quality of the film personally interests me here. I am more concerned with understanding the existence of “Wuthering Heights” as a pursuit of adaptation.
If an artist like Fennell knowingly, or unknowingly, ignores the fundamentals of the source material, is it even considered as an “adaptation” anymore?
I understand the ‘why’ behind “Wuthering Heights” coming as a fan of Fennell’s filmography. She has always devoted herself to exploring the intersection between pain and pleasure. How we are unable to confidently express our physical and emotional desires in a world that may frown upon it. Such suffering is naturally embedded in Fennell’s philosophy of romance. But in the process of it all, it deteriorates the ethos to Brontë’s novel.
It is without a doubt that her intention here was to make a story of grand and tragic romance. Fennell spends way more time with Catherine and Heathcliff. The supporting characters that orbit around them are of less interest, and therefore receive reduced or removed roles. Even the second half of the novel, where Brontë shifts to the next generation of the characters, is not alluded to in the slightest. Wuthering Heights to Emerald Fennell is something closer to Romeo and Juliet; a tragic love story where two lost lovers are desperately coming together over and over again despite time and circumstance.
What puzzles me is the attempt to utilise the foundations of Brontë to turn it into something that it is not. None of this is remotely close to what Wuthering Heights is about. Brontë’s novel is meant to be a journey of resentment within the framework of class and cultural warfare. At most, Fennell glances at these topics in her film.
The biggest difference is the absence of Catherine’s brother Hindley. The mean brother is the source to the primary conflict and motivation for a vengeful Heathcliff in the novel. It helps explain Heathcliff’s psychology of feeling trapped under the social constructs that are designed to make him feel lesser than others. Not only does this make you understand his desire for Catherine, but also the kind of impossibility that she is for him. These power dynamics are not given much attention in the film, and is therefore no longer a revenge story.
Furthermore, Fennell’s filmography follows a pattern of lower-class individuals who attempt to break the structures of power through a trio of revenge, sexuality, and death. It is very much in the text of Promising Young Women, certainly in Saltburn, and is found once again in this. But if one were to thematically deal with class in their work, you cannot have a complete confrontation of classicism without it being complicated by race. Brontë’s novel serves as a great launching pad to such concepts. Fennell unfortunately decides not to tackle it in the slightest.
In fairness, I would not want Fennell writing a Heathcliff who is a person of colour if she does not know how to nor wants to do it. She could perhaps collaborate with other writers. Or write an original new love story that takes cues from influences. Or you know…adapt a different novel?
(But who am I to tell what an artist should do?).
I should note that the title of the film is in quotation marks. Its official name is “Wuthering Heights”. I do understand what she intends with this decision. A clear signifier that this adaptation is something completely separate. Sure, it is based on a text that many people know. But its main interest is taking only certain aspects of the source material rather than being a faithful retelling. My problem with this, and is the main concern to this article, is that Fennell misunderstands the fundamentals of the novel. Yes, a singular perception of Wuthering Heights is ultimately okay. But it just seems like an odd decision to make your film be burdened by high expectations when you have no interest in directly adapting the source material.
Does Fennell think her story is romantic? Or provocative? Or is the whole thing meant to be tongue-in-cheek?
I really do not know.
What I do know is a recent blockbuster film has not left me this perplexed in quite some time.
