Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Read more
Emerald Fennell’s new adaptation of Emily Brontë’s classic novel, Wuthering Heights, has ignited a fervent debate among literary scholars and Brontë enthusiasts, despite its impressive box office performance. While the film garnered over $34 million in North America alone during its opening weekend, it has simultaneously faced a barrage of criticism for its creative liberties.
Among those weighing in is Lucasta Miller, a distinguished British author, editor, and critic renowned for her study of the Brontë sisters and her preface to the Penguin Classics edition of Wuthering Heights. Having viewed Fennell’s interpretation, Ms Miller remains largely unperturbed by the director’s departures from the source material.
“It would be meaningless to criticise it for that, just as it would be to criticise a grand opera that plays fast and loose with the plot,” Ms Miller stated. “I wasn’t asking for a faithful adaptation of ‘Wuthering Heights,’ but whether it works on its own terms. And my sense is that it does.”
However, many Brontë devotees have voiced strong objections, even prior to the film’s release. Points of contention include the casting of Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff, a character traditionally envisioned as dark-skinned, and the explicit portrayal of the sexual tension between Heathcliff and Cathy, which is more subtly implied in the novel. The choice of the blonde Margot Robbie to play Cathy, whose dark hair is a significant literary signifier of danger and allure, has also drawn scrutiny.
open image in gallery
Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi in ‘Wuthering Heights’ (Warner Bros)
Claire O’Callaghan, a Brontë scholar and senior lecturer at Loughborough University, acknowledged the controversy surrounding casting. “All adaptations choices in terms of casting that don’t always fit character or character descriptions — and this film has certainly been in the spotlight for that reason,” she observed. Regarding Robbie’s portrayal, Ms O’Callaghan added, “In terms of Cathy, I was sceptical initially, but having seen the film, it is a good performance, and Margot Robbie really brings out Cathy’s spoiled and selfish nature in ways that other adaptations have paid less attention to.”
The tension between literary fidelity and cinematic interpretation is a long-standing one. Authors have frequently lamented the transformation of their works once film rights are acquired. Yet, countless adaptations have achieved critical acclaim by taking innovative artistic licence. Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather films, for instance, are widely considered superior to Mario Puzo’s original novel, despite notable divergences. Similarly, Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity introduced a narrative device so ingenious that author James M. Cain wished he had conceived it for his own book.
Contemporary Oscar contenders also demonstrate this trend. Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another offers a loose interpretation of Thomas Pynchon’s Vineland, while Chloé Zhao’s Hamnet deviates from Maggie O’Farrell’s novel in ways common to adaptations, such as character compression and altered narrative structures. O’Farrell, who contributed to the screenplay, described her collaboration with Zhao as an education in condensing a story for film. “You know, the book is mine, it’s my baby, but the film is Chloé’s adaptation,” she told The Associated Press. “And the film feels not like my child, more like a kind of niece or nephew. And that’s exactly as it should be.”
For Wuthering Heights fans, however, the expectation of fidelity often runs deeper than for other literary adaptations. As Ms O’Callaghan and other experts note, a truly faithful rendition of Brontë’s 1847 novel, which spans some 400 pages and extends beyond the lives of Cathy and Heathcliff, would necessitate a multi-hour streaming series. Most well-known film versions, including Fennell’s and the 1939 classic starring Laurence Olivier, effectively omit the novel’s entire second half.
open image in gallery
Margot Robbie and Shazad Latif in a scene from ‘Wuthering Heights’ (Warner Bros. Pictures via AP)
“Some TV versions have attempted to capture the whole book, as have some films, like the 1992 adaptation (starring Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche),” Ms O’Callaghan explained. “But what film and TV can’t do is maintain the ambiguity in Emily’s novel — the fact that her book is both a tragic love story and a revenge novel and a tragedy. Film and TV tend to focus on one of those for clarity and to focus dramatic tension.”
Fennell herself revealed that her adaptation was deeply personal, inspired by her teenage connection to the novel. “There are things I have added for my own needs, because I loved the book so much and I always desperately needed some kind of sense for it to go a little further,” she told the AP.
Ms Miller likened the film to a “stylised and extravagant” fairy tale, praising Fennell’s “quite insightful” use of such language. Ms O’Callaghan found it “quite Tim Burton-esque in its surreal perspective.” Despite its radical departure from the novel, she concluded, “I still found it entertaining even if I’m unsure if I’d claim to like it.”
