Despite being an English major, when it comes to classical literature, I’m not very knowledgeable. I have a few favorites like “Little Women” by Louisa May Alcott and “Anne of Green Gables” by Lucy Maud Montgomery, but beyond that, I don’t have very many classics in my repertoire. 

“Wuthering Heights” by Emily Brontë is one of those books that I expected to read in high school as a part of our curriculum, especially since I took honors and IB literature. However, that was not the case. Since coming to college, I’ve found very little time to read on my own, considering almost every class I’ve had assigns readings. The books I sought out to read recreationally were easy, light reads — nothing like Brontë’s novel. 

When the cast for the new “Wuthering Heights” interpretation was released, it caused a major uproar on social media. It was then that I decided to do a deep dive into the world of “Wuthering Heights.” I knew I couldn’t commit myself to reading the novel, so I scoured the internet for sources to further my sparse knowledge of it. 

“Wuthering Heights” is a tale told from the perspective of one of the Earnshaws’ housemaids, Nelly. It centers around Catherine Earnshaw and the ward her father takes in, who they named Heathcliff. While brought into this family as an additional child, Heathcliff is treated no better than the servants employed on the property — Wuthering Heights.

In short, Catherine and Heathcliff fall in love and go back and forth in a toxic and abusive relationship. The first part of the book is merely a setup for the second half, where Catherine dies and haunts Heathcliff until his own death. 

I went to see the film directed by Emerald Fennell, which was released on Feb. 13, starring Margot Robbie as Catherine and Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff. From the jump, we have our first problem — Heathcliff is canonically not white. Brontë wrote Heathcliff’s character as a person of color, which is pertinent to his life at Wuthering Heights. 

There is also the fact that Hindley Earnshaw, Catherine’s brother, was completely omitted from the film’s interpretation. Hindley is especially important to the story because he was the one who mistreated Heathcliff the most and targeted him for his skin color.

As I said before, there’s a major turning point in the novel that breaks it into two parts — before and after Catherine’s death. The newest film ends right when Catherine dies. A major focal point in the novel is how Heathcliff conducts himself after death. Not only does he mourn her, but he is haunted by her spirit. 

This is not simply a tragic love story — it is also a haunting ghost story. 

Heathcliff sees her and speaks to her, basically driving himself mad. In the novel, he digs up her grave, removing part of her coffin so that when he ultimately dies and is buried next to her, there is nothing between them.

The significance of the braids, showcased at the beginning of the movie and in Catherine’s intricate hairstyles throughout, was also removed. After her death, Catherine’s husband places a lock of hair in her locket, which Heathcliff replaces with his own. Nelly braids the two locks together as a symbol of her love for the both of them. 

I think my biggest issue with this film is how Catherine and Heathcliff’s relationship is so heavily romanticized and sexualized. This relationship is not one people should be yearning for — in fact, they should be scared by it. 

Just watching the film, I could see Brontë’s message bleed through despite getting mostly butchered, which is that these characters are toxic and severely mentally ill. 

A difference I didn’t mind was the change in perspective. The book is entirely about how Nelly perceives Catherine and Heathcliff’s relationship, while gossiping to another servant. In the film, we see everything unfold from Catherine’s perspective, which is ultimately why the movie ends with her death. While I do think the story was cut too short, seeing it from Catherine’s eyes offers a different understanding of her experiences.

Now, this film was never supposed to be a remake or a direct adaptation of the novel, and the film’s director made that clear in interviews while explaining that is why the title remains in quotes. She has stated that it is how she remembers the book from the first time she read it as a teenager. While I can appreciate that this is how her teenage self read the book, even calling this an interpretation is a disservice to the original story. Emily Brontë is rolling in her grave. 

Despite my qualms with the film from a literary standpoint, I actually enjoyed it. Cinematically, it is a beautifully produced film. It is visually pleasing to watch, with intricate set designs such as the walls in Catherine’s room — which were modeled after Margot Robbie’s skin and included moles, veins and even hair. The costumes and hair for this piece, while albeit not the most historically accurate, are stunning and the overall attention to detail is impressive. 

While the casting choices were poor on Fennell’s part, the acting pulled through. One of the aspects that kept me invested was the chemistry between Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi. Their performance made up for where the movie fell short. 

Even though I don’t agree with Fennell’s creative choices, I was still able to enjoy the film. It is an amazing film, but it wasn’t “Wuthering Heights,” and it shouldn’t be titled as such — quotations or not.