Emerald Fennell’s movie begins by establishing the world of the film as one centered around sex. As a man hangs from the gallows, young observers take notice of his “stiffy.” This is closely followed by a vulgar celebration of the man’s execution.
Clearly, this is a society of desires and gross fascinations of the grotesque and macabre. Cathy, our protagonist, is depicted as not quite fitting into this society. However, this is not because she has good morals; it is because she fears her own inevitable suffering and death.
As the children grow, their lives slowly become more synonymous with sexuality, especially as Cathy grows to marriageable age.
As such, many shots are dedicated to sensual touching of skin, hands, bodies, kneading, caressing and oozing liquids, alluding to the corruption of innocence. The final moment of innocence occurs when blood stains the white tiles and Cathy reaches womanhood.
This is all to say that the themes and preoccupations of the film—while common and often overused and frankly, uninteresting unless done correctly—are not bad and are clearly expressed. Additionally, the script is not terrible. Much of the dialogue sounds period accurate and natural for the most part.
Yet the audience is often told, instead of shown, important facts (a staple of bad, lazy writing). For instance, when we first meet Heathcliff, Cathy explains that she named him.
“So I have called him, after my dead brother,” she says.
Why would Cathy say this to her own father, who no doubt knows the significance of the name? Instead of sounding organic, it comes off as over-explained and unnatural. No daughter would talk to her father like that.
Another example comes when Cathy and Heathcliff are playing in the rain and stop for shelter. Heathcliff is concerned that her father will be furious, but she assures him that the sky is blue enough for the rain to end soon.
We do not get a single shot of the sky. We simply have to trust her words.
Again, we are not shown these moments, but rather told. This, therefore, breaks audience immersion as film is, above all, a visual medium.
There are many more moments like these that I would need at least three hands to count. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but it really does happen too much.
It suffices to say that this is not a film that trusts its audience.
Moving on, I have nothing much to say about the cinematography (other than there are just too many montages that make the movie cheapen in quality), color grading or visual effects; in fact, I think these are done quite well.
However, I am forced to critique the outdoor set design, for the indoor ones are quite passable.
For a film that seems to want to expose some hidden, dark side of humanity, many of the sets in the first half seem faux and plastic, such as the Wuthering Heights home being made of weird black tiles.
Rock formations look fake and hollow and the buildings look like dollhouses. While that is probably the point, they spark little to no intrigue.
And the latter half sets are far too imaginative for a film that desires reality (even the indoor designs). What even is a ‘skin room?’ If this film were attempting to be completely fantastical, I would find no fault here.
I understand, however, the artistic liberties Fennell is taking to create an expressive, artsy film. So I will forgive these points.
The costuming was good for the most part, but the latter half had me in mild confusion. Cathy’s wedding dress was gorgeous, but what happened with her evening lingerie? Why is she wearing plastic? I have questions, Fennell.
The sound design is fine. There is no shortage of quiet moments where we are allowed to simmer with the characters’ emotions, contrasting and balancing with the chaos of the scenes with loud, boisterous music.
However, there were a few moments where the soundtrack felt distracting or unnecessary. One such moment occurred just after Heathcliff hears Cathy say that it would “degrade [her] to marry Heathcliff” and he angrily rides off into the sunset.
This scene felt deserved, but I would have preferred to watch each character wallow in their feelings without the distraction of the music. Perhaps if it had been without vocals, it would be a different story, but ultimately, it was loud and distracting from the emotional turmoil.
The acting is overall quite good, but I found myself underwhelmed by the main leads. Jacob Elordi (Heathcliff) and Margot Robbie (Cathy) are fantastic, well-established actors, yet their performances did not capture my attention.
When they were on screen together, I did not find myself caring about the tension between them. In fact, I found myself loving their characters more when they weren’t together.
I much preferred the lesser-known actors of Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif) and Mr. Earnshaw (Martin Clunes). I felt this way until Heathcliff and Isabella married, which set in motion the chain of emotionally charged, devastating events that ultimately lead to Cathy’s death.
To me, these scenes were nearly everything they needed to be: full of hatred, frustration, sadness and yearning. This was the culmination of everything, and for the first time, the emotional stakes felt truly alive.
As a standalone film, “Wuthering Heights” delivers a lot of avant-garde visuals and cinematography.
It feels good to look at, but that’s about all. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it focuses too much on the style rather than emotional power. It never fully commits to being raw and subversive or emotionally weighty.
It does not strike me as a revolutionary film, nor is it a comfortable watch for lovers of film classics. The plot is gripping at times, yet also struggles to maintain that grip.
It provides just as much as it lacks. As such, I am comfortable providing this movie with a rating of a generous 6 out of 10, but don’t even get me started on the film as an adaptation.
Dee Cohen is a senior majoring in English literature and minoring in French