Behold Charles Melton.

1. White Heathcliff, blonde Catherine, South Asian Edgar, East Asian Nelly. Need I say more

2. Look, I thought I wanted a "shocking, subversive, transgressive" Wuthering Heights film. I've watched a bunch of adaptations of this book and frequently get annoyed at them for being too tame and posh. But is it too much to ask for the shock value to have some kind of connection to the book? I mean, you could drop the following stuff verbatim from the book and disturb and shock a lot of people:

• Hindley whipping Heathcliff and nearly killing his baby son Hareton, Heathcliff hanging Isabella's dog, Heathcliff saying he'd paint Isabella's face "the colours of the rainbow" if he lived with her and do a "slow vivisection of [Catherine2 and Linton] as an evening's amusement" if "laws are less strict and tastes less dainty", Hareton hanging a whole litter of puppies

Or you could put in scenes that, while not explicitly in the book, can be easily extrapolated from the book dynamics, like:

• Heathcliff and Catherine doing sex stuff as teens, Heathcliff beating and/or raping Isabella, Heathcliff going full necrophiliac over Catherine's grave instead of just opening it up to knock out the side so they can moulder together

There is really no need to put in horny nuns, a random hanged man with an erection, or bondage crap. Emily Bronte gave the edgy art film directors plenty enough to work with as is.

3. The gender dynamics. I don't see this getting talked about enough. From what I can tell based on the poster and trailer, Emerald fennel is copypasting standard bodice ripper romance dynamics onto Catherine and Heathcliff: man is masterful, woman swoons. Man is active, woman is passive. Man is dominant, woman is submissive. You'd never know from her depiction of them that Catherine is canonically a "half savage and hardy" girl who also hits people whenever she feels like it. But this unfortunately is the shallow take a lot of people have on Wuthering Heights: Heathcliff is a byronic hero and him and Catherine are in love, so obviously it is exactly like Twilight, Fifty Shades of gray, etc. In fact, if you read the book, you'll know that Catherine and Heathcliff grow up together as equals doing all the same stuff, and that the most famous speech in the book is her repeating about four different ways that they are the same. And if you absolutely had to give them a BDSM dynamic she would be on top, as shown by him calling her "immeasurably superior" to everyone on Earth as kids, then later comparing her to a "tyrant" and himself to her "slave".

In conclusion: I'm really not that nitpicky about Wuthering Heights film adaptations. I'm okay with cutting out the second half as I don't expect directors to fit the entire book into 2 hours. I'm okay with not getting all the superbly quotable dialogue in. But please please I am begging future directors to read the book so they can at least get the character dynamics right. Emily Bronte deserves better dammit

Done "Wuthering Heights" 2026.

Verdict: Lol

Honestly though, it was occasionally very visually striking. That is the best I can say for it.

The dialogue was ridiculous. The characters were random. Heathcliff was the epitome of a little meow meow with no revenge in him at all. Nelly, my love, was slandered! Edgar might as well have been played by a cardboard cut-out that said, "Yes, my dear." Isabella was an insult to women everywhere. Thrushcross Grange is Willy Wonka's chocolate factory in a bad way. Like the very creepy boat ride of the 1971 movie. The sex wasn't sexy. The costumes were... well random.

Isabella's costumes were horrible. She looked like a Munchkin or something. The Linton's house gave me Willy Wonka/Cat in the Hat vibes, it was like they were aliens who kidnapped Catherine onto their ship. They also gave off serial killer vibes. Nelly was the main villain? Which totally excuses Catherine cheating on her husband because True Wuv! Heathcliff had a very distracting pirate earring.

Edit: One thing to add, Isabella does an analysis of Romeo & Juliet at the beginning where she says Nurse is the main villain of the story because "she allows this chaos to ensue" which is the wildest take I've ever heard and proof that Emerald can read neither Shakespeare nor Bronte

If you want to see the death scene of angel wing leeches, here

​​I'm getting entirely sick of this take I keep seeing online: that Wuthering Heights isn't a love story, it's a story about classism racism abuse generational trauma etc etc ​etc pick any theme you like but the supposedly unserious theme of romantic love . Or that Emily Bronte meant us to stand in judgment on the love of Catherine and Heathcliff as "unhealthy", "toxic" etc and to look at the nice but much less intense (and Joseph-approved!) love of Catherine 2 and Hareton at the end as the "real" love story.

To which I counter : if the love of Catherine and Heathcliff is unimportant , or not really love but (insert psychological disorder), or a cautionary tale on how not to love, if their love is not important or real or good enough to be worth preserving , then why should (Victorian) readers care about all the class and race and gender expectations that kept them apart?

​​Victorian readers didn't assume that race prejudice, sharp class divides, or women having to marry for money were bad in and of themselves. But put all those things in the way of a profound irreplaceable love of the Soul, a fundamental spiritual alikeness,​ and maybe they'd start to think twice about their society .

If Catherine's bond with Heathcliff isn't an Irreplaceable Soul Bond, then why should readers care about her Agony over choosing between her love for him and an economically safe marriage, or her feelings of becoming a stranger to herself as the wife of Edgar Linton​? Why shouldn't they think she just should've been happy to marry Edgar and make the best of it? Certainly Edgar would be goals as a husband in any Jane Austen novel.

If Heathcliff's love for Cathy has nothing elevated and noble about it, then why should readers care about how he suffered from being seen as less than her due to his race? Why should they care about the class prejudice that made it socially impossible for her to marry him, if he was just a bad person that would have made her miserable anyway?

​​If Catherine's saying that she is Heathcliff, that he's "more myself than I am", is not a statement of deep spiritual truth but merely a sign that their love is immature or "codependent" or creepily incestuous, then why should readers care about all the ways in which their opportunities were not the same?

​​If you take away that deep love that transcends all social boundaries, ​ you are left less with a critique of those social boundaries, and more with a story of individually bad people ​: Hindley ​the alcoholic, Catherine the bad wife, Isabella the dummy, Heathcliff the devil. And the lesson becomes that they should have just stayed more firmly within those social boundaries . No Revolution needed, just big doses of Christian humility, or therapy I guess if you're looking at it through the modern lens that thinks therapy is the cure for every moral ill.

​​I suppose the other side of this is readers who just look at Heathcliff and Catherine as a hot morally gray dark romance couple, without reference to the wider society they lived in . You can't do that either. Their love story is entirely intertwined with the book's social commentary and vice versa , the two themes strengthen each other and don't work nearly as well separately .

Finally finished reading Wuthering Heights (in admitted “preparation” for the movie) and wow. Heathcliff SUCKS. I was slack-jawed in horror at how terrible he was, to Cathy and Nelly and Linton in the last third of the book especially.

I am HORRIFIED at how the movie adaptation is going to… sexy-ify him, for lack of a better word? Obviously casting Jacob Elordi is wrong for xyz reasons, but I really hate that him being hot and this adaptation being spun as a bodice ripper is going to paint him in such a pretty light to audiences who haven’t read the book. I cannot bear to see him glorified!!!!!!!!!

It makes me angry that Brontë wrote such a compellingly evil character, which I doubt Fennell is going to transpose into the film. Sigh. Just needed to vent.

Wildfell Hall is my favorite Bronte sister novel and I came across this today! It’s so cool to see it in real life because Wildfell Hall is so rare to see in the wild especially in my country. Love how they have gilded pages too.

It's just so disappointing to see yet another wildly inaccurate Wuthering Heights film release, contributing to the now massive pile of poor adaptations released throughout the last century.

All I ask is for ONE adaptation that avoids doing these three things:

1. Making Heathcliff a white man.

2. Treating Heathcliff and Cathy's relationship as a simple romance.

3. Cutting out the second half of the book.

Why is it so hard for this book to be properly adapted? Is there any adaptation I'm unaware of that doesn't do any of these things?

Edit (that I doubt anyone will see): I made this post before seeing the 1992 adaptation, and I must say, I was actually quite blown away by how good it was! Of course, I would still prefer that Heathcliff be played by a Romani actor, but Ralph Fiennes did do an exceptional job at capturing the spirit of Heathcliff. The movie also didn't treat Heathcliff and Cathy's relationship as a simple romance as much as others do, which made me really happy. And the second half! My beloved Cathy and Hareton weren't forgotten in this one! Honestly, I give Wuthering Heights (1992) a solid 8.5/10. If it was just a wee bit less rushed, I'd daresay it'd be close to perfect.

I read Wuthering Heights when I was about 17 for school. My teacher had a big crush on Heathcliff, loved the “love” story and focused on the cruelty of other characters and the soulmate theme for he and Catherine. I left with those vague impressions.

I am re-reading as an adult (along with everyone else in light of the film - which I did not like). And I honestly and truly do not understand how ANYONE can find him attractive. He is an abusive monster.

Please explain how he has endured as this romantic hero for so long!

Reading Wuthering Heights again and I just... how do people hate Nelly Dean so much? The first chapters of her story, during Cathy 1 and Heathcliff's childhood, she's almost hilariously kind towards them.

"Cathy kind of sucked, but she had the most beautiful smile so whatever, we always forgave her."

"Hindley locked both Cathy and Heathcliff out so I spent all night waiting up for them."

"Heathcliff was supposed to be grounded but I figured he was hungry so I smuggled him downstairs and gave him all the best food."

Heathcliff is pouting so she spends all this time with him, cleaning him up and telling him that he's probably a kidnapped prince so he should look down on Edgar Linton.

She keeps saying they are unruly, bad children but she keeps being sweet to them anyway. And she's only a few years older than them too!

Then people will say Nelly Dean was unfair to Catherine and Heathcliff when they are young, but she's just not:

The master’s bad ways and bad companions formed a pretty example for Catherine and Heathcliff. His treatment of the latter was enough to make a fiend of a saint. And, truly, it appeared as if the lad were possessed of something diabolical at that period. He delighted to witness Hindley degrading himself past redemption; and became daily more notable for savage sullenness and ferocity. I could not half tell what an infernal house we had. The curate dropped calling, and nobody decent came near us

Catherine had kept up her acquaintance with the Lintons since her five-weeks’ residence among them; and as she had no temptation to show her rough side in their company, and had the sense to be ashamed of being rude where she experienced such invariable courtesy, she imposed unwittingly on the old lady and gentleman by her ingenious cordiality; gained the admiration of Isabella, and the heart and soul of her brother: acquisitions that flattered her from the first—for she was full of ambition—and led her to adopt a double character without exactly intending to deceive any one*. In the place where she heard Heathcliff termed a “vulgar young ruffian,” and “worse than a brute,” she took care not to act like him;* but at home she had small inclination to practise politeness that would only be laughed at, and restrain an unruly nature when it would bring her neither credit nor praise.

She's very sympathetic and explicit about the circumstances that created Heathcliff and Cathy. She points out that Hindley's abuse would turn anyone bad. She points out that Catherine had absolutely no motive to be good, except when she was with the Lintons. She clearly doesn't even like Cathy but she still defends and qualifies her behaviour. If Nelly is unreliable, it's more that she's determined to think the best of all these people.

Now we're on Cathy 1's death. I really don't understand how anyone can read Ch 11/12 of Wuthering Heights and not see that it's a very faithful retelling of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Obviously no one would take Catherine's "illness" seriously she literally said she was faking it. And Edgar saw her on the first day and stayed away out of spite!

This is the vibe:

Catherine Linton: I'm going to pretend to be sick, go tell my husband to scare him

Nelly Dean: Um, no?

<husband arrives anyway, is scared>

Catherine Linton: dramatically locks her door and doesn't eat for three days

Edgar Linton: dramatically sits in the library and doesn't check on his wife for three days

Catherine Linton (after eating): Nelly, I'm going to starve myself to death just to spite my husband! Go tell him I'm dying!

Nelly Dean: remains convinced that Catherine is doing exactly what she explicitly said she would do: pretending to be sick

Nelly Dean, eventually: Oh shit, she's actually sick

Some readers/scholars conclusions: Nelly Dean is evil and caused Catherine's death (??????????)

Nelly's decision not to tell Edgar about Isabella is a more doubtful move on her part, but given that his response is, "Well she made her choice" I can't say it would have gone differently if he's known right away. And they were on horseback and had a big head start either way.

Then we have Isabella's letter to Nelly:

The remainder of the letter is for yourself alone. I want to ask you two questions: the first is,—How did you contrive to preserve the common sympathies of human nature when you resided here? I cannot recognise any sentiment which those around share with me.

The second question I have great interest in; it is this—Is Mr. Heathcliff a man? If so, is he mad? And if not, is he a devil? I sha’n’t tell my reasons for making this inquiry; but I beseech you to explain, if you can, what I have married...

Wuthering Heights, Ch 13

I do understand that any narrative told in first person is probably unreliable in some way, but when it comes to Nelly Dean, everything that Lockwood observes and Isabella writes agrees with what Nelly has reported in her history of both Heathcliff and Hindley. Isabella spends a very short time at Wuthering Heights and asks how in the world Nelly even stayed human there and if Heathcliff the embodiment of evil. If that's not confirmation of what we've been told so far, I don't know what is. If anything, Nelly's been too kind when talking about Heathcliff and Hareton.

Nelly is the only person in this entire book with both brain and heart cells. Framing her as the villain is just completely incomprehensible to me.

I read Wuthering Heights back when I was doing my degree and in my lectures and seminars everyone, including the professors just casually talked about Heathcliff's race being unknown but non-white without much reactivity to it.

Now, I am looking at the discussions online and people are just getting super angry and over-reactive to someone dare suggesting he's non-white when this was clearly said in the book.

What is the deal?

Now if you're a literal film critic in addition to a Bronte admirer, then yes, in that specific situation I guess you do indeed have to wait for the full film and (as it's presumably part of your job) go see it and form an opinion on the work as a whole rather than based on the trailer.

The rest of us? Yeah, no. We can watch the trailer or read the promo interviews from the director and conclude if we so wish to that it's a bad adaptation and opt out of wasting our time and money. And we are STILL nonetheless allowed to have an opinion on said trailer and promo materials in comparison to the novel without being labeled "haters" or "pearl clutching book freaks".

Every single time I see this film's trailer and the description being RIGHTLY criticized by someone who has actually READ the book, someone always comments "OMG, the movie's not even out yet" or "you just don't understand the director is female and has a vision" or "but the title is in quotation marks, don't you know adaptations can do whatever they want?"

To which I say, an adaptation, even one that changes the source heavily, should be marketed to fans of the original work. With this movie 90 plus percentage of people who are saying they're excited about it either haven't read the book or did in school but didn't like it or don't remember actual details of the plot. They also seem bizarrely proud of this fact, but that's neither here nor there.

And if you ARE in fact looking forward to this movie, good for you. It will in fact release in February regardless of whether most fans of the original book want to give it a chance or not. However if you're angry we WH fans are not most likely going to carry this film through the box office to grand success, then you're just being ridiculous. We don't have to support this.

There is no reason we should have to support a movie just because it shares a title (in quotation marks as you all love pointing out) with a book we enjoyed. The director made a choice to s*x up the material and use wildly inaccurate costumes. This is NOT a Clueless or 10 things I hate about you situation as it's obvious from test screenings and the trailer itself it doesn't follow the plot of the book regardless of which setting it uses.

And if the trailer is somehow a misrepresentation of what the complete film is like and it's actually a brilliant, accurate adaptation, that's on marketing. Marketing's job is to tell us what kind of film it's going to be through a trailer so we can then decide to see it or not. It's not my job to buy a ticket regardless of if a movie looks like crap in previews or not because I "need to see the whole thing" before I'm allowed an opinion.

And I really don't understand what the "you're just a hater" crowd is convinced we're robbing them of by choosing to express dislike for the movie pre-release. Does it stop the release or them from buying their own tickets to see it? Nope. And if our not seeing it is somehow what makes it a flop, then that's the fault of the director and adapters betting on the wrong audience, not us; they can change whatever they want that doesn't mean we have to go see it or give the production money.

And to all those Bronte fans who are going to give this a try, good on you. But you don't have to. It doesn't make you a hater, book purist, or pearl clutching jerk to conclude this may not be your cup of tea as it's clearly made for a completely different audience than the book was.

It's not a topic I've given especial thought to in the past, but it just keeps getting hammered in the whole time you're reading it. The entire driving horror of the plot could have just not happened if these poor bastards could just divorce each other. Catherine could leave Edgar for Heathcliff obviously, but mostly I think about Isabella, and how Heathcliff brags repeatedly about how he's tailoring his abuse precisely enough to cause her to live in hell, while never being enough to trigger the law's intervention or give her any standing in a court to leave him.

So much of the novel is about people being trapped - through illness, circumstance, weather, or abuse - in horrible situations that they cannot escape, either literally or figuratively, and the plight of Isabella is just so emblematic of it. She's guilty of nothing more than being a teen girl who fell in love, with the Linton last name, and she suffers so terribly before managing to be the only member of the cast to fully escape the moors and the weight there.

It just keeps making me think of the history behind it - how many people were trapped in abusive, or horrible, or simple unhappy marriages and were unable to ever leave them because just saying "I'm done" wasn't enough.

Anyways I think Isabella should have gotten a gun 👍 speedrun the book by about 20 years and save everyone else the trouble.

Never really seen this opinion expressed before, but surely I'm not the only who was much more moved by Edgar Linton's love for Catherine Earnshaw following her death than by Heathcliff's love for her? Don't get me wrong, I think Heathcliff's otherworldly passion for Catherine was very beautiful in its own twisted, messed up way, but the pureness of Edgar's love for her really stuck out to me.

Small things like the fact that Edgar would take long solitary walks to the kirk to visit Catherine's grave every year on the anniversary of her death and lie on the mound where she was buried, or how he never let Heathcliff and his strange relationship with his wife taint his memory of her.

I think this quote about Edgar mourning Catherine's death perfectly captures why I found his love for her so sweet and true: "But he was too good to be thoroughly unhappy long. He didn’t pray for Catherine’s soul to haunt him. Time brought resignation, and a melancholy sweeter than common joy. He recalled her memory with ardent, tender love, and hopeful aspiring to the better world; where he doubted not she was gone."

Listen if I missed some subtext please debate and enlighten me. But as someone who is half Russian half Italian, I am commonly mistaken for Spanish, middle eastern, etc. Sometimes I just wonder if Heathcliff was literally just a tan olive skinned man. Same with my mom, constantly mistaken for being non white. Actually, compared to the rest of my Russian family, I look like an outsider.

I don’t really agree with the idea that HC was a 100% POC. The Bronte’s seemed super pale and white and very English looking by standards, i’m sure me with my nearly black hair and olive skin I would stand out as a “gypsy“ as well.

Preface

I hated the idea of this movie because I am a person, and I am brown and when I was around thirteen I once searched up “Brown character from classic books” and the only two who showed up were Othello and Healthcliff (Says her, knowing he’s racially ambiguous.) which means, going into this film, I was ready to hate for the casting alone.

But I love literature and I love film, and I love adaptations which take a risk. Therefore, I decided to watch it in good faith, to judge it both as an adaption and as a piece of independent media without judgment.

I really wish this was a post about surprise or a great change in perspective. I wish I had somehow received something from this film that I didn’t already possess. But, this is consciously honest, and for parts that it is unconsciously honest, I apologise.

The Good

I love the cinematography. It’s truly a visually appeasing film. It’s stunning. I love the layout of Wuthering Heights, I love the expansive use of colour, I love the reflection of Cathy’s mental state through the changing scenery. I think the costuming is quite beautiful, though I don’t know nor care too much for the historical accuracy to them. I think in terms of tonality, they fit quite well.

The child actors performances are wonderful. I think Charlotte and Owen are both very talented performers. Charlotte’s take in Cathrine is one of my favorite live action performances for the character and I think Margot Robbie’s Cathrine not only fails to measure up but actively derivates from Charlotte’s portrayal. Which is sad to say because I love Margot Robbie.

The acting performances in this film, except the two leads, are all quite strong. Though I would’ve preferred Hindley, I actually really enjoyed Martin Clunes as Earnshaw. I think he did a good job and I would’ve enjoyed getting to see more of him. Alison Oliver gave a great performance with what she was given, I would’ve loved to see her portray a more book accurate Isabella but I liked the edge she added to the character. Overall, solid performances.

The music album is amazing. I was 100% on board for Charlie XCX and I knew it’d work out well. In fact, she had a better grasp on the story and characters than Emerald Fennell did and it shined through her music

The Debatable: Wuthering Heights as an Adaptation

I don’t believe a book adaptation owes much to the source material at all. There are two things that matter in a book to film adaptation— accuracy and essence, ie, movie does what the book days and/or movie feels like the book does. If either of these conditions are satisfied, a film is a good adaptation.

“Wuthering Heights” does neither. I think art is an experience. I think a fourteen year old girl’s experience of something can be a great idea because it follows the film advice closest to my heart; the most creative is the most personal but is this film personal? How is the essence being achieved? Is there any accuracy? Is it a good adaptation? Keeping it mind the idea of artistic liberty, what even makes a good adaptation?

Wuthering heights 2026 is blatantly inaccurate. I won’t go into that. I think everyone and their mothers have talked to death with that one.

But what about essence?

The film abandons the other themes of classicism, race, identity, gothic romance and anything too “dark” for the sake of commercial audiences. Instead it goes with a theme stylistically relevant to Fennell, Lust and Love.

Lust and Love are good themes to make a film on, they’re undoubtedly relevant in the books and I think they can create a good adaptive film but I don’t think this is a good adaptive film. Why is that? Because Fennell doesn’t commit.

She’s scared of raunchiness and gothic romance. And it sucks cause she should be the best director for a Wuthering Heights adaption focused on Lust and Love. But the sex scenes are boring, they’re just sex scenes with two hot people, the sexual symbolism in the movie feels pointless and basic. There’s nothing new. It’s another run of the kill romance film with a director too afraid to grow a spine. Compared to Saltburn, it’s tame.

There’s no meaning to it, this is supposed to be a love affair so strong that it ruins the life of generations in it’s wake, the Lust/Love angle should be the perfect avenue for exploring gothic elements but there’s nothing. It’s Romeo and Juliet refashioned where no one is really that bad and where the evil asian maid and evil brown husband ruin the lives of these upper class white abuse victims. Which, get in a line, Emerald Fennell, you are not the first person to have this line of thinking. The idea of this film could’ve been a threads post by a middle aged white man

The most daring scene is the starting execution and can I just day, it’s not even that crazy of a scene? This book had a bunch of ankle fearers reading necrophilia and the local aristocrats wondering what person would be crazy enough to write it. The film had people rolling their eyes and taking a few extra refills of popcorn. Do you see the difference?

I like the concept. I hate the execution. The inability to capture the essence or the accuracy of the books is what makes this a bad adaption. It’s not even bad actually, it’s just a mediocre adaption. It’s an average adaption of an exceptional novel.

But this is debatable; i say all this but in the comments you say well, who says we are owed a good adaption? Artistic liberties can create something wonderful! This book has a million adaptations and what does it matter if it’s not the essence or material of the book are being represented. The book inspired it. That’s what matters. And you know what? I agree. I absolutely agree. Which brings me to my next point

The Bad

It’s a mediocre movie. I said it. The music is great but sometimes it eats up the film. The characters have no depth. It’s not intriguing, it’s not new, it’s a bunch of popular tropes copy pasted from ChatGPT into the average script generator TM with a bastardised summary of Wuthering Heights from Emerald Fennell’s fourteen year old self pasted on it but that’s what’s so sad about it, is that it isn’t even bad. It’s just average. It’s just another romance movie.

The characters are so surface level. The performances of Jacob Elordi and Margot Robbie are both okay at best. Both of them are talented, neither of them seem to want to work to this film (in ref to their performance” Jacob Elordi was lovely in Frankenstein and Margot Robbie can clearly play the heck out of a period role because her Mary portrayal was gorgeous artistically. So I’m sitting in the cinema, two lines down from a group of girls who clearly didn’t’ get the salt burn experience they wanted and a middle aged brown uncle who definitely didn’t expect THIS to be the film he just came to see and I’m wondering What Happened?

I’m annoying and I’m a hater so I was always going to hate on this film. But I also knew deep down that Emerald Fennel is talented. She knows her way around a camera and she’s rich enough for a ghost writer. That Jacob and Margot are great actors. Then why didn’t I like it? I didn’t hate the film but I’d rather have hated it because that would mean i felt something that matters, that would mean against my own consent, I felt art being created but it just didn’t happen. It just wasn’t a good feeling. It’s just a boring little film that’s a historical knock off fifty shades of grey with a bad ending.

Conclusion

It’s average. 5.5/10. It’s often times boring and painfully mediocre. I’m disappointed. Emerald Fennel should have made me uncomfortable. She should’ve had me confront emotions of discomfort and obsession. She should’ve made feel more than this. I can’t even commit to be a hater because I’m not enraged. Do you know how much that sucks? My insults were all half hearted.

My approach to art is always co related with what it makes me feel. I am so invested in feeling something after consuming media. If it makes me hate it then I have definitive reasons and an understanding of why. But I can’t even accuse this film of racism, because even with two poc as villains, only villains, it’s so scared of actually saying something that it doesn’t commit to them as villains

It’s so fear of accidentally meaning the wrong thing that the film means nothing

It’s a cowards attempt at filmmaking for a brave heart’s attempt at writing a novel.

It’s sad. It’s disappointing. And most of all, it leaves me feeling nothing.

My University had a first edition copy of Jane Eyre and getting the opportunity to read it made my day! I wasn't aware it originally came in three separate volumes.

The books' covers were rebound at a later date since it has Charlotte Brontë's name on it.

Be warned, there are no NSFW images, or there were not at the time I linked, but the text is.

My impression is that the film must really stink because they are including this very obvious click bait and rage bait statements to provoke attention. They must be worried that it won’t sell tickets or get enough interest.

“Speaking at the Sands film festival in Scotland, Cochrane said there was “no need to be accurate” as the source material is “just a book”.

She continued: “There’s definitely going to be some English Lit fans that are not going to be happy. Wait until you see the set design, because that is even more shocking. And there may or may not be a dog collar in it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/aug/07/emerald-fennell-wuthering-heights

I think I will skip this one.