Few works of literature have managed to enchant generations of readers the same way the Wuthering Heights has. The sole published novel of 19th century author Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights has remained one of the most beloved stories of lost love ever put on page since it’s debut in 1847. It is the quintessential story of forbidden love that has inspired countless imitators throughout the years. And of course, it was perfectly suited for the cinema as well. There has been over 30 film and television adaptations of the story throughout the years, ranging from the very faithful to the wildly re-imagined. Of course, the most well known version is the 1939 Hollywood classic, directed by William Wyler and starring Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon. It’s also a surprisingly international story as well, with adaptations found throughout the world in places like India, the Philippines, and Mexico. But given that the story has been re-adapted so many times, one has to wonder if there is anything new that can be brought to the story that can make it feel new to a whole different generation. Some have tried to re-examine the story through a different prism of context. British filmmaker Andrea Arnold famously created a very stripped down version of the story, keeping it within it’s Victorian setting but shooting it in a very modern documentary like style. She also finally realized something from the book that has never truly been done in other adaptations, which is to cast an actor of color in the role of Heathcliff, whom Emily Bronte described in novel of being of Romani descent. But, even by modernizing the aesthetic used to tell the story, the roots of Wuthering Heights are still bound by the gothic Victorian setting, though Bronte’s novel was still ahead of it’s time in many ways. There are many different ways to modernize the story, but the most effective way to help audiences today connect with this nearly 200 year old tale is to stick close to what is at the heart of the narrative. In essence, it a story about the obstacles we put upon ourselves in the pursuit of love, and the terrible things that can come from unquenched desire.
What is interesting now is what a provocative filmmaker like Emerald Fennell saw in Wuthering Heights that made her want to adapt the story her way. Fennell has been something of an interesting rising star in filmmaking recently. After working for a while as an actress, including a featured supporting role on the hit series The Crown, Emerald got her chance to write and direct her debut feature film. The film was a thriller called Promising Young Woman (2020), starring Carey Mulligan, and it won enough acclaim to propel Emerald to an Oscar win for Best Original Screenplay. And while Promising Young Woman had it’s provocative moments to be sure, it was nothing compared to her next film, Saltburn (2023). Saltburn was a daring and taboo busting satire of wealth inequality that has since become something of a cult hit. While the movie didn’t do much at the box office, and was completely ignored during Awards season, it became a streaming sensation, especially with reactions to some of the movie’s more shocking and gross out moments. It certainly showed us what Emerald Fennell was capable of as a filmmaker. She could create these lush, exquisitely produced shot compositions with incredible artistic vision, and use that same vision to showcase the grotesque and weird, as well as frame it in a shockingly erotic manner. Saltburn’s twisted story of decadence and desire was well suited for Emerald’s provocative vision, and for me personally it was one of the best movie experiences that I had that year, mainly because I just admired the daringness of the whole thing. But, what was Emerald going to do as a follow-up. In a way, Wuthering Heights seemed to be an odd choice. As daring as Bronte’s novel was at the time, it is still chaste compared to what we have now in modern media. Could the shocking sensibilities that we saw in Saltburn work in a classic piece of romantic literature that has lasted centuries, or was Emerald going to have to tame her directorial instincts in order to remain faithful to the book. Regardless, Emerald Fennell managed to get Warner Brothers to finance her adaptation of Emily Bronte’s classic novel, and place it in an ideal pre-Valentine’s Day release window. But, does Emerald Fennell’s take on Wuthering Heights breath new life into this classic tale, or was she a bad fit from the beginning.
The novel Wuthering Heights has been a part of many English and Literature class curriculums throughout the world, making it one of the most widely read novels in history. But if you did manage to miss out on the novel through both your high school and college years, here’s a brief over view. Set in the Yorkshire moors of Northern England during the early 19th century, the story centers on a young girl named Catherine Earnshaw (Charlotte Mellington) who lives in a dreary old manor house called Wuthering Heights. Her father Mr. Earnshaw (Martin Clunes) one day brings home an orphaned boy (Owen Cooper) whom he takes in as a ward of the estate, mainly to keep Catherine company as something like a pet. The boy has no name, so Catherine names him Heathcliff. Over time, Catherine and Heathcliff grow closer together, and Heathcliff becomes very protective of her, shielding Catherine from her father’s alcohol fueled fits of rage. As they grow older, Catherine (Margot Robbie) and Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) remain friends but something between them seems to be building, which is noticed by Catherine’s close friend Nelly Dean (Hong Chau). But, the years of drinking and gambling by Mr. Earnshaw have take their toll on the wealth of the Wuthering Heights estate. In order to avoid financial ruin, Catherine takes it upon herself to attempt to court the wealthy Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif), who live on his vast estate with his eccentric sister Isabella (Alison Oliver). Linton is smitten by Catherine almost immediately upon their first encounter, and in a short amount of time he asks to wed her. Despite getting what she wanted, Catherine feels like she is betraying her love towards Heathcliff, whom she loves in a more visceral way than she does Edgar. But, the choice to marry becomes more essential when Heathcliff suddenly leaves Wuthering Heights. Years pass, and Catherine is living a luxurious life at the Linton estate, though she is largely romantically unfulfilled. Then she learns that Heathcliff has returned, now a man who has gained his own fortune and has just bought Wuthering Heights from her dead beat father. Is it too late to rekindle the flame of their old love, and will it bring both Catherine and Heathcliff to ruin if they act on their desires while she remains a married woman?
Emerald Fennell has more than just the classic Bronte novel to live up to with regards to her adaptation. Her film is also going to have to stack up to the classic 1939 adaptation, which many herald as one of the great works of early Hollywood cinema. Indeed, it’s hard not to think about the version with Olivier and Oberon when watching this movie, but I’m also an avid consumer of classic cinema as well. I don’t think most modern day audiences are as familiar with that movie, and that’s probably who Emerald Fennell is appealing to more with her version of Wuthering Heights. Her take on Wuthering Heights is definitely made to appeal more to a millennial and Gen Z audience, especially with a lot of the modern touches she adds to the film, including a soundtrack with contemporary sounding original songs by Charli XCX. It’s definitely a modern kind of movie with the trappings of a period costume drama. But, for literary purists looking for a faithful adaptation of the novel, this is definitely not it. Emerald’s adaptation is very loosely tied with the original novel, retaining it’s core premise and characters, but throwing in some bold detours away from the original narrative itself. But, does it all work out? In some ways yes, and in other ways no. The generally positive side is that the movie is never boring. In it’s nearly 2 hours and 20 minutes, the movie manages to keep us engaged with it’s often manic pacing and bold choices that definitely cause a stir. But, Emerald Fennell also perhaps pushes a bit too much in the direction of being provocative and shocking that she in a way kind of misses the point of the story in general. Wuthering Heights at it’s heart is a tragedy, even before (Spoilers ahead, even though this widely read book has been around for almost 200 years) Catherine dies at the end. It’s a tragedy about how two soul mates miss their opportunity for happiness together due to finances, and when they reconnect years later, it’s too late. And that unrequited love turns toxic as a result, leading to a lifetime of bitterness, especially for Heathcliff who far outlives her and remains haunted by her memory. Emerald Fennell seems less interested in that, and sees the story more as a vehicle to present some twisted portrayals of sexual awakenings through the prism of a classic literary romance.
It stands to reason that Emerald Fennell is very much a fan of the novel; I don’t think that she would have chosen it otherwise as her next movie project if she wasn’t. But there is so much more to Bronte’s novel that Fennell chooses to leave out. What is interesting about this in comparison to the classic Olivier version is that both movie adaptations stop at the same point; at Cathrine’s tragic demise. Bronte’s novel actually has this as the halfway point, where the story skips ahead many years later in the second half of the novel. There we see the toll of losing Catherine has had on Heathcliff, as he has become bitter and meanspirited. That’s the tragedy of the novel, Heathcliff becoming a far worse person over time as his time with Catherine was all too brief and un-fulfilled, and he spreads that pain to the next generation, with Cathine’s only child Cathy being the target of most of his wrath. In a strange way, both movie adaptations look more kindly upon Heathcliff than Emily Bronte does, where she largely portrays him as brute. I can see why the change is made, because it makes the role a more attractive one for leading men, and Heathcliff is inherently the most fascinating character of the whole book. In place of that darker aspect of the character, the classic 1939 makes Heathcliff and Catherine’s story more about the tragedy of lost love. You would think that Emerald Fennell would use her version to examine the dynamics of passionate love versus a life of privilege creating friction between these two tragic characters, but that seems to get lost in some of her cinematic indulgences. The movie treats it’s romance in a steamy way, but Emerald rather interestingly doesn’t seem to portray any of her characters in a favorable light, and that makes it more difficult to sympathize with the romantic side of the story. Heathcliff is a brute, but Catherine is also equally detestable in the way she manipulates everyone around her in order to get her way. And it seems every character has that flaw, treating each other poorly in the pursuit of their own gain. It seems like Emerald still seems to be in the mindset of what she brought to the narrative of Saltburn, where everyone was contemptable in that story. It worked spectacularly in that story, but feels out of place in Wuthering Heights.
On the positive side, Emerald does make this movie look gorgeous from beginning to end. Not only that, but her fearlessness in visual aesthetic actually helps to make this movie stand out that much more. I certainly would never have expected some of the bold design choices in this movie. The design of Wuthering Heights itself, built in the middle of these jagged, black stone rocks jutting out of the ground, feels like something out of a Tim Burton movie, and that’s just the first taste of all the weird things to come. The interior design of the Linton estate is equally bizarre in concept. There’s one room that has a floor that is blood red, and it spotlighted by the sheer white walls that rise up from it. There’s also a clever reference to Jean Cocteau’s classic 1946 re-telling of Beauty and the Beast, with the wall sconces holding up the candles that light the room being modeled after human hands. Fennell also does a remarkable job of shooting the remarkable landscapes of the moors. The movie was shot by DP Linus Sandgren, who has worked on films like La La Land (2016), No Time to Die (2021), and of course Emerald Fennell’s Saltburn. For this film, he shot much of the movie with Vistavision cameras, marking yet another major studio movie to re-vitalize this long dormant format after The Brutalist (2024) and One Battle After Another (2025) have brought it back to prominance. The results are undeniable, as some of the wide angle shots in the outdoor scenes has some epic sweep to them. This is definitely a movie that benefits from a large screen experience. I also appreciate the fact that Emerald Fennell isn’t afraid to get a little strange in her visual storytelling. There is one room in the Linton estate that is made to resemble the color and texture of human skin on it’s walls, even with the details of imperfections like moles included. It’s where Emerald Fennell’s oddball sensibilities work in the film’s favor, even while the story is a let down. It’s a mess, but it’s one of the prettiest messes you’ll ever see.
The film also benefits from committed performances from the actors. This movie wasn’t just a passion project for Emerald Fennell, it was also spearheaded by Margot Robbie as well, who also served as producer. The two have history of working together, with Margot being a producer on Emerald’s first two films in addition to this one, and Emerald getting to appear alongside Margot in the movie Barbie (2023), playing Midge, the pregnant Barbie doll. While the character herself may be a tad difficult to like as a whole, you’ve still got to give Margot credit for her committed performance. She balances the performance well, playing so many sides of the character including being charming, amusing, and also cunningly manipulative. Jacob Elordi does fine in the role of Heathcliff, though I do think that he gets less to do here than he should. It may be an unfair comparison, but I feel that Olivier brought a lot more gravitas to the role of Heathcliff. Olivier made his version far more brooding and a force of nature. Elordi’s Heathcliff is certainly an imposing figure, with that 6’6″ frame of his making him tower over everyone else. But his Heathcliff is a lot more passive in this version of the story, never quite leading us to believe that he becomes the brute that he eventually turns into in the book. It’s interesting that this is the second movie in a row where Elordi has brought to life one of the great brutish characters of English Literature. However, I feel like he brought a lot more to his performance as Frankenstein’s creature in last year’s film from Guillermo Del Toro. Even still, Elordi does deliver when it comes to the romantic fireworks boiling under the surface. There’s also a lot to be said about the strong performances coming from the young actors who play Catherine and Heathcliff in the opening part of the movie. For Charlotte Mellington, this is her film acting debut, and she does a great job portraying the chaotic, impulsive nature of Catherine in her youth, and she is complemented perfectly by young actor Owen Cooper in the role of Heathcliff, with this coming off the heels of his awards winning performance in the hit Netflix series Adolescence. Another standout is Alison Oliver as Isabella, whose eccentric performance helps to bring some unexpected levity to this film.
I do admire the fact that Emerald Fennell wanted to take on this classic story and do it in her own way. And the movie is elevated by it’s incredible visuals and strong performances. But I also feel that it falls way short in it’s re-telling of Emily Bronte’s classic story. Wuthering Heights has endured because it’s far more than just another steamy romance about forbidden love. It’s also a great exploration about the way love and desire can turn even the purest souls into dark and meanspirited people when it’s denied them, and how that extends across generations. Emerald seems to have gotten the steamy romance part right, but she doesn’t add much else. It’s a very shallow examination of the themes of novel, and for the most part it just seems like Emerald is using the premise of the story as a means of injecting her own indulgences. While Wuthering Heights has never truly been adapted fully on the big screen, with most adaptations leaving us with the two lovers being seperated by a tragic death, Emeral Fennell’s version seems even more detached from the source novel. It’s going to be interesting how people will react to this movie. I feel like most people who are familiar with the book probably won’t like it, while casual audiences might embrace it more; if they aren’t put off by all the weird choices Emerald Fennell made with her version. For me, I feel like you’ll get a better understanding and experience overall if you seek out the classic Laurence Olivier version. While it isn’t perfect, it’s closer in spirit to the original book than this new version. All that being said, Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights is still a visual treat that warrants seeing it in a theater. And some of her artistic choices are pretty bold and daring, even if they clash a bit too much with the story being told. I’d say go in with an open mind and see if the weirdness works for you. Emerald Fennell certainly loves this strory and it’s characters, but her indulgences don’t do a whole lot of favors for them in the end. I’d say if you end up being quizzed about the story in literature class, don’t uses this version as you Cliff Notes quide to the story’s meaning. It’s very much Emerald Fennell’s take on this story for better and worse, and while she delivers on the visual spectacle, I feel like she should probably choose something other than a beloved literary classic as her next project, unless it’s something that makes for a better fit for her style.
Rating: 6.5/10