"Wuthering Heights" - The Controversial Adaptation of a Beloved Classic
- UP MAGAZINE
- 2 hours ago
- 6 min read
By Paige Auxier
Edited by Taylor Morgan
On February 13th, the widely anticipated “Wuthering Heights” adaptation directed by award-winning filmmaker Emerald Fennell and starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, was released in theaters. While many are anxiously looking forward to seeing the film, long-time fans of the classic novel by author Emily Brontë are wary of how heavily it appears to deviate from the original text, based on the trailers and promotional content put out in anticipation of its release. It seems that Fennell’s adaptation of the book will present a romanticized version of the toxic relationship central to the novel’s plot, which will, in theory, limit its depth by downplaying or omitting some of the story’s other main themes, like, for example, classism, racism, abuse, morality, regret and vengeance. The bulk of the backlash the film has received thus far, though, has been in response to Emerald Fennell’s choice to cast white actor, Jacob Elordi, as Heathcliff, who is described as “dark-skinned” in the original text. Critics argue that this decision decontextualizes for the audience why Heathcliff is treated so poorly by his peers, which prompts his descent to wickedness and immorality. More importantly, though, it perpetuates the wrongful omission of minorities from mainstream film and media.
Director Emerald Fennell has responded to this criticism in recent interviews by justifying the reasoning behind some of the more controversial decisions she made while creating the movie. She explained that the film’s plot is based on how she perceived the novel during her first encounter with it at age 14, so rather than being an exact retelling of the story, it’s instead a version of it created by her own view of the book that will include events fabricated by her imagination. At the film’s Los Angeles premiere at the end of January, in response to being questioned about her choice to include quotation marks in the adaptation’s title, Fennell told The Hollywood Reporter, “Like many people who love this book, I’m kind of fanatical about it, so I knew right from the get-go I couldn’t ever hope to make anything that could even encompass the greatness of this book. All I could do was make a movie that made me feel the way the book made me feel, and therefore it just felt right to say it’s Wuthering Heights, and it isn’t.” Through explaining this choice, she further articulates to her prospective audience that the film will not directly mirror the novel while also acknowledging and praising the story’s complexity, to showcase her appreciation for the original text, likely to fight back against any claims that she has no respect for Brontë’s work. She also, in this same interview, touched on the criticism she’s received for selecting Jacob Elordi to play the role of Heathcliff. On this point, she stated, “I think the thing is everyone who loves this book has such a personal connection to it, and so you can only ever make the movie that you sort of imagined yourself when you read it. I don’t know, I think I was focusing on the pseudo-masochistic elements of it.”
Analysis of the heated discourse surrounding the adaptation, coupled with the creator’s response to it, has prompted me to consider a handful of complex questions regarding the subjectivity of artwork and the extent of creative liberty one is afforded in instances such as this, where the work of another artist is being used and adapted. How one interprets art is inextricably linked to their personal identity and lived experiences, which mold their values and interests. So, each individual's experience with a piece of art differs from that of others. The question is whether there reaches a point where an individual’s interpretation can be rightfully deemed as incorrect or harmful, and if so, how is that point determined, and by whom is it decided? Is Emerald Fennell wrong in continuing to interpret the text based on her initial reactions to it as a teenager? Especially if her interpretation can be easily explained upon analysis of the circumstances under which she formulated it. As an adolescent, one may not have yet developed the ability to grasp the complexity of a novel like “Wuthering Heights”, and innocence may have inadvertently led her to view the story through rose-colored lenses. This idealistic perception of Heathcliff and Catherine’s relationship can also be accounted for by how often toxicity is glorified in media representations of romantic relationships, which condition their viewers to find toxic dynamics between romantically involved characters appealing. And her viewing of Heathcliff as white, despite him being explicitly described as dark-skinned in the text, is reflective of racist ideologies deeply embedded in the fabric of society, as white men are more readily perceived as fit to play roles of tough and desirable male leads based on longstanding precedents set both in and outside the realm of media. It could be argued, too, that Fennell’s romantically oriented interpretation of the novel is in part a result of her being conditioned as a woman existing in a patriarchal society to prioritize marriage and romance. So the question then is whether the fault of Fennell’s interpretation of the novel is not the interpretation itself but rather her decision to present it before a large audience. Do those who adapt the art of others have a moral obligation to do so in a way that’s as objectively close to the original as possible to avoid the threat of misconstruing the initial creators' intended message, or is an adaptation, especially one like “Wuthering Heights,” which is characterized not as an exact retelling but a reconfiguration of the original, something entirely different that one has the right to exhibit limitless creative freedom over?
The answer to these questions, like the text itself, is entirely subjective. Writing is a social and rhetorical act. Without readers, written words are meaningless, so all writing exists in collaboration with its audience. When a writer shares their work, their intended message is immediately subject to misinterpretation. This particular circumstance is not the first nor the last that someone will openly share a controversial interpretation of Emily Brontë’s work, as such scenarios are inevitable with any popular text. It’s also, as Fennell touched on in the earlier-mentioned interview, impossible to encapsulate all there is to a novel as complex as “Wuthering Heights” within a two-hour film. All adaptations have their limitations, so in all cases, there will be someone somewhere who’s dissatisfied. So, if it’s impossible to please everyone, how much does it matter if certain individuals don’t care for Fennell’s version of the story? I think ultimately, it’s up to each person to evaluate the quality of the film for themselves. Those who find Fennell’s rebranding of the beloved classic distasteful can choose to avoid watching it, and others who find no real fault in the changes posed by the adaptation can take the time to go see it, and each of these groups has the capacity to make that selection without conflicting with or harming anyone. Personally, I feel that due to Fennell’s misrepresentation of Heathcliff’s race, her adaptation misses the mark in terms of capturing the novel’s main message, as his race is the catalyst for the treatment he endures from other characters in the novel and is perhaps the key reason that the love story between the two main characters is doomed, because despite the intense affection she feels for him, Catherine still thinks of Heathcliff as beneath her status and. In doing this, Fennell also strips the story of its social critiques. Through the plot, Brontë sheds light on issues of racism by showcasing that, despite being raised as an equal, educating himself, and acquiring wealth, Heathcliff continued to be perceived as an other on the basis of his race. So, making him white erases this point entirely. That being said, I don’t doubt that the movie has the potential to be entertaining and enjoyable, even if it entirely misrepresents the level of nuance and complexity in the original story. I think it’s also important to remember that regardless of the adaptation’s quality, it has no power to alter the original text for those who adore it and could potentially inspire others to read and fall in love with the book for the first time, and through doing so begin to question the concept of morality or learn more about themself and others through considering the complexity of the novel’s characters, and their relationships with one another. So, ultimately, despite the prospective faults of Fennell’s adaptation, the original story has and will remain dear to so many, which is, in my opinion, the silver lining in all of this controversy.