Thoughts on the new Wuthering Heights movie?
*stares into the void*
Okay, my disclaimer especially having just talked about how I'm anti-censorship.
First: I haven't seen the movie. I'm also not going to based on the clips, interviews, and reviews. I'll explain why below.
Second: I think audiences in general are always frothing at the mouth to tear apart a female director, including Emerald Fennell. (Just look at how people talk about her or the showrunner for Bridgerton--it's appalling.) Fennell has talent and people are cruel in how they discuss her--instead of just attacking the film (which seems to deserve to be attacked on many if not most levels), they make it personal. Stop it.
Still... that doesn't mean she didn't make major mistakes in this adaptation. She did, and to tie into the censorship post I just did, she seems to have fundamentally misunderstood the novel and that muddied the purpose of her film into something sexy and with the appearance of depth, but lacking actual meaning. Which would be fine, except it's insulting to the depth of the actual novel, and to the very real and very prescient and sensitive themes of class, racism, etc. It sounds like it's not so much an adaptation so much as an appropriation of a Wuthering Heights aesthetic--the names, the dark and dangerous love story (and yes, it is a love story, even though it ends badly)--without any appreciation for the work itself. Judging by the interviews and actual reviews, it seems like the film is based on a blatant misreading of the text, which yeah, is going to upset people.
Now, why I don't want to see it:
I'm mostly just going to address the casting issue, because that is so blatant.
Wuthering Heights could have been a fabulous adaptation in all the ways, and it still would fail at adapting the story if it cast Heathcliff as a white man.
That is like casting Othello as a white man. It's missing one of the main thematic and plot and character points, and it's a valid criticism that can't just be set aside.
"But, Hamliet, he's ethnically ambiguous!"
Well, yes, but also no.
To the extent that Emily BrontĂŤ never explicitly states his ethnicity, sure. But the point is that Heathcliff doesn't belong. Where exactly he belongs is less relevant than the fact that, to the upper 19th century English class, it's "not here." The other thing is that context really matters, and the context in which it was written in... doesn't actually leave Heathcliff's ethnicity a huge question mark. A reader in the 19th century wouldn't need it directly stated to understand, because the terms used and the ways in which characters respond to him are meant to give a pretty clear understanding that the characters see him as Romani or Sinti.
Nowadays, the references go over our heads--people read the terms used too literally, or not literally enough. The ways in which Heathcliff is described are clear in the use of 19th century terms (which don't 1=1 equal to use of our own terms even if the wording is the same) and would not be that ambiguous. People have done full theses and papers on this.
Again: Heathcliff is seen as Roma or Sinti.
Now, what Heathcliff genetically is vs what he's seen as is a little more open to interpretation. Of course, genetics didn't really exist as a study back then, and we're supposed to read ambiguity into some aspects of it.
Namely, is Heathcliff actually Cathy's half-brother, making him part white?
The novel deliberately leaves this unclear (far more unclear than the Sinti/Roma idea, actually, but still). Readers are supposed to wonder if they are, and to what degree that changes things about not just Cathy and Heathcliff's relationship, but pretty much every relationship Heathcliff has, and his place in the world/society. There weren't DNA tests back then obviously, so it's entirely possible the dad doesn't even know but wonders, but it is very much intended for the reader to consider it a possibility. Again, without the 19th century context it's easy to miss, but... people didn't usually just take in wards for no reason. Wuthering Heights as a story invites readers to think and to question. It is fundamentally opposed to simple yeses or nos. It wants you to think, to ponder, to consider the ambiguity itself and what that indicates about your own thoughts, prejudices, empathy, and understandings of human nature and society.
Miss that and you miss the point.
Side note: I also think this would be a fabulous opportunity for people to consider why the entertainment industries as a whole are extremely lacking in Romani/Sinti representation, and why a lot of people are comfortable just ignoring this instead of acknowledging it as a problem.
