‘The book was better.’ 

We can’t help saying it! It’s a natural instinct to be frustrated when films are unfaithful to our beloved books. In a time where more modern movies are being adapted from novels, none have driven more controversy in this regard than Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights”. 

Contrary to popular belief, Emily Bronte’s novel is not a romantic love story between Heathcliff and Cathy. As a matter of fact, it’s not even fully about Heathcliff and Cathy—it has dozens of characters (all of which are absolutely vile) sharing the spotlight. Emerald Fennell, however, seems to have misunderstood this. According to trailers, interviews and test screenings, the book’s interweaving scheming is gone in favour of something that more so resembles the popular misconception of the novel’s narrative. 

Coming off the back of Fennell’s sensual sophomore feature Saltburn, it’s hardly surprising. Detractors called it shallow and soulless, while supporters—like me—called it audacious, bold and gripping. All signs point to “Wuthering Heights” following in its predecessor’s footsteps. Naturally, I’m excited to see something so similar to one of my favourite films in recent memory, but it begs the question: where do you draw the line at alterations in adaptations? 

I’m not necessarily against changes; after all, the word ‘adaptation’ implies it. Many fantastic films are different from their respective books. Frankenstein is a recent example of a fresh take on Shelley’s novel that, while different, doesn’t feel disrespectful and stands on its own merits. Much of the disdain for “Wuthering Heights” comes from the fact its changes are outright antithetical to the point of the novel. I’m personally confident that the film itself will be great—or at least, like Saltburn, will have its passionate fans. As an adaptation of the iconic novel, however, trading schemes for sex and the eerie, quiet darkness for a catchy Charli XCX soundtrack is a betrayal of the source material. Its fans have every right to feel frustrated. 

It’s obvious why this is the case; it’s an easy-to-follow love story soundtracked by one of the biggest pop stars on the planet and starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, two of the hottest young stars in Hollywood. It will make an absurd amount of money at the box office as a Valentine’s Day release in the way that a more authentic

portrayal of the book simply wouldn’t. Classic literature in general definitely has a market, and the name-drop of famous book titles goes a long way in making adaptations successful, irrespective of whether people have actually read them or not—again, see Frankenstein. However, due to their often challenging natures such modern changes are sometimes necessary to bring them into the mainstream. 

Although recent films like Hamnet, Conclave and Dune have proved that close recreations of legendary books, both old and new, can and have made a great deal of money. Surely then there is a middle-ground between altering the most dated elements of books and retaining the spirit that made them so memorable? 

Elordi’s casting as Heathcliff has created particular anger amongst fans. While Heathcliff’s ethnicity is ambiguous, between descriptions of him being ‘a dark-skinned gypsy’ who was found as an orphan at Liverpool docks, it is generally accepted that he is a person of colour. The star is certainly going to bring in ticket sales, but it comes at the cost of whitewashing one of the most iconic POC characters in literature and erasing the main reason why their world opposes his romance with Cathy. Complaints that this profit-seeking is compromising artistic integrity and authenticity certainly have legs. 

I think there’s room for nuance in this debate on both sides. Two things can be true: this film can be a worthwhile piece of art and fans of the novel can condemn it for the misrepresentative adaptation it is. With such vast differences, they might as well have gone the full nine yards and made an original film with no connection to the source material. That way, there would be no cause for such frustration and people could enjoy it for what it is. But then, that wouldn’t make nearly as much money, would it? 

Words by Isaak Hewitt

Photo by Louise Sacré on Unsplash. License found here.