Being a hardcore fan of Emily Bronte's original novel, I have seen the majority of the available film and television versions of Wuthering Heights. Not one does the book justice, but most are entertaining or even works of art in their own right. The only downright "bad" version I had seen up until yesterday had been the ungodly 2003 MTV adaptation, which features a whiny rock star Heathcliff and a Catherine with the personality of sandpaper. However, this recent adaptation looked excellent from the trailers, mixed reviews aside. While I was slightly disappointed to discover that Andrea Arnold's 2011 version only included the first half of the book, I had some hope because of the casting of Heathcliff (who was NOT white in the book) and the way I had heard she captured the bleakness of the Yorkshire setting.
But God, was this awful! One of the most pretentious, meandering films I have ever seen, a true chore to get through. The majority of the film is nothing but shots of dead animals and the moors; while the setting is extremely important, I think Arnold put way too much emphasis on it in expense to the characters, though maybe that decision was fueled by the fact that most of the actors are wooden, with the exception of young Heathcliff and Catherine. There is no passion in a one of them, not ideal when adapting a story about obsessive passion. Maybe the repetitive nature of the film is supposed to echo the cyclic structure of the novel, but in a less entertaining or insightful manner? There's also a great deal of shock value in the film, likely put in there to emulate the way the original book was shocking to its 19th century readership. But most of it gets so silly: why are Hindley and Frances consummating their marriage out in the grass? Do we really need this many f-bombs in the script? Hey, why don't we kill another ram in loving detail? Or have Heathcliff practically make love to Catherine's corpse? Because shock value equals raw grittiness! Making the camera shake makes it "realistic"! This is Art!
Okay, I'll be a little bit nicer from now on. There are some positive aspects: As mentioned, the scenery and child actors are lovely. There are a great deal of shots of Heathcliff observing the other characters and the like, emphasizing his status as an outsider. The general lack of background music was nice, but none of these elements can save this ship from crashing.
This film is obviously attempting to bring WH into the realm of cinematic realism, but is that really the way to go with what is essentially a Gothic ghost story? That Arnold and her collaborators stripped out all of the supernatural aspects, such as the iconic moment of Catherine's ghost at the window, is telling of how much they had hoped to set this adaptation apart. And considering that the filmmakers' idea of "naturalism" is just stiff acting and shaking the camera as though the cameraman had consumed too much caffeine for his own good, it's not at all a worthy attempt. This is a film which is ineffective as art or drama; definitely not something I would willingly watch again.
But God, was this awful! One of the most pretentious, meandering films I have ever seen, a true chore to get through. The majority of the film is nothing but shots of dead animals and the moors; while the setting is extremely important, I think Arnold put way too much emphasis on it in expense to the characters, though maybe that decision was fueled by the fact that most of the actors are wooden, with the exception of young Heathcliff and Catherine. There is no passion in a one of them, not ideal when adapting a story about obsessive passion. Maybe the repetitive nature of the film is supposed to echo the cyclic structure of the novel, but in a less entertaining or insightful manner? There's also a great deal of shock value in the film, likely put in there to emulate the way the original book was shocking to its 19th century readership. But most of it gets so silly: why are Hindley and Frances consummating their marriage out in the grass? Do we really need this many f-bombs in the script? Hey, why don't we kill another ram in loving detail? Or have Heathcliff practically make love to Catherine's corpse? Because shock value equals raw grittiness! Making the camera shake makes it "realistic"! This is Art!
Okay, I'll be a little bit nicer from now on. There are some positive aspects: As mentioned, the scenery and child actors are lovely. There are a great deal of shots of Heathcliff observing the other characters and the like, emphasizing his status as an outsider. The general lack of background music was nice, but none of these elements can save this ship from crashing.
This film is obviously attempting to bring WH into the realm of cinematic realism, but is that really the way to go with what is essentially a Gothic ghost story? That Arnold and her collaborators stripped out all of the supernatural aspects, such as the iconic moment of Catherine's ghost at the window, is telling of how much they had hoped to set this adaptation apart. And considering that the filmmakers' idea of "naturalism" is just stiff acting and shaking the camera as though the cameraman had consumed too much caffeine for his own good, it's not at all a worthy attempt. This is a film which is ineffective as art or drama; definitely not something I would willingly watch again.