Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” may be one of the most controversial movies of the year. Ever since the film’s first teaser dropped in September, fans of Emily Brontë’s classic 1847 novel have been in an uproar about its newest adaptation. As someone with a love-hate relationship with the book, seeing Fennell’s adaptation was a must. I had low expectations going in, considering the online backlash due to its changes from the book, but I remained hopeful that this movie might end up surprising me. The verdict? Yes, “Wuthering Heights” is as bad as everyone expected, if not worse.
The first half of the film is relatively straightforward, centering around the love story between Catherine ‘Cathy’ Earnshaw (Margot Robbie) and the poor boy her father buys off the street, Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi). Even though the two share growing affections, Cathy chooses to marry the wealthy Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif) due to their similar social status, causing Heathcliff to run away with rage. This kicks off the film’s second half, which, without delving too deep into spoilers, can only be described as confusing and uncomfortable, filled with a lot of sex and convoluted plot lines.
Before I dive into the film’s numerous flaws, there were some aspects I actually enjoyed. The visuals were gorgeous, as “Wuthering Heights” takes place on the beautiful English moors. The establishing shots were incredible, perfectly capturing the rolling hills and downcast sky. The cinematography was only brought down by the numerous jump cuts to Elordi’s sweaty back, which seemed to take up about a quarter of the film. I also found the music to be quite enjoyable, with much of the soundtrack being performed by Charli XCX, fitting very well with the seductive atmosphere the film was trying to create.
The film’s casting is one of its worst aspects. Aside from the whitewashing of Heathcliff, a character depicted as a person of color in the novel, Elordi simply does not do the character justice. The film sets Heathcliff up to be an angry, jealous man, thrown aside by Cathy due to his social status. This resentment is never truly clear in Elordi’s performance, as he spends most of his time staring blankly at the camera. Elordi brings no passion to the role, only existing as someone young and attractive for Robbie’s Cathy to have steamy sex with. He speaks exclusively in a low raspy voice, a character choice that makes it incredibly difficult to understand anything he says. Robbie’s performance as Cathy is less abysmal, but it isn’t necessarily great either. Cathy is supposed to be a grown woman, but Robbie constantly acts like a teenage girl. Her mannerisms, voice and decisions all resemble someone much younger, a detail that made me actively dislike the character. Neither of their characters were particularly engaging during the film, making it hard to connect to them or their stories.
Often, the film relies on shock value scenes, their only purpose being to make the movie even more dramatic and “sexy.” The most egregious example occurred after Cathy moved in with the Lintons, with Edgar leading her to her new room. While the room’s wallpaper originally appeared to be a light peach color, the camera quickly zooms in to reveal that the walls are actually made up of close-up pictures of Cathy’s skin, complete with detailed moles and veins. This skin room was one of many scenes throughout the film that made me audibly lose my mind in the theater. I understand the purpose of these scenes was likely to shock the audience and reinforce the film as a wild, alluring adventure, but I could not help but find them hilarious and completely unnecessary.
“Wuthering Heights” is neither a good adaptation nor a good film. It is a confusing, erratic and gratuitously sex-filled disaster that does no justice to Brontë’s masterpiece. However, if you want a dumb movie to watch with friends, Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” just might be for you.
