The latest adaptation of “Wuthering Heights” has sparked debate following its UK release on Friday 13th February, with literature fans in Manchester questioning whether the reimagining respects the tone and themes of Emily Brontë’s classic.
Directed by Emerald Fennell, who previously created the 2023 phenomenon ‘Saltburn’, the new “Wuthering Heights” stars Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff, and Margot Robbie as Catherine portraying the tragic relationship at the centre of the story.
Filming primarily took place in the Yorkshire Moors, preserving one of the story’s central elements, though the decision to cast internationally known Australian actors in the lead roles meant they required dialect coaching.
This has stood out to many fans as a missed opportunity to have cast British actors for a closer connection to the novel’s setting.
Emma Sayer, 21, a literature enthusiast, said she refuses to watch the film: “It is an insult to classic literature. Not everything needs to be modernised”.
“Some classical works should not be adapted. Having Charli XCX as the musician is an absolute crime on literature.”
Sayer further emphasised that Wuthering Heights, despite the strong sense of eternal love depicted in the movie, is not a romance.
“It is not a romance at all, I think the whole deep meaning of the book has been overtaken by social media. It’s got some really deep themes and people just aren’t ready for that”.
Cordellia Buckley, 20, an ex-literature student from Manchester, has seen the film, and commented that the portrayal did not match her expectations. “Not at all very representative of Heathcliff,” she said. “I enjoyed the film but don’t expect it to be like the book, and I was right.”
She said the adaptation appeared to soften the novel’s darker themes: “It fades over the abuse and dark themes of the book with too much sex between Heathcliff and Cathy, which I don’t recall happening in the book,” she said, noting similarities in tone to Fennell’s previous work.
Buckley also said casting influences how audiences interpret the character’s morality.
“The casting of Jacob Elordi made it hard to demonise him, but romanticise him instead,” she said.
She added that the characters appeared older than in her reading of the novel: “They feel much older in the film than I pictured when reading the book, forcing me to believe Cathy’s childish nature was annoying instead of being part of being a young adult or teenager,” she said.
Despite her criticisms, she said the film works better when viewed independently. “There were plot holes and things that were significant in the book that were ignored, although if you view it less as a retrospective and more as inspiration of a movie idea I think they did okay,” she said.
“I did enjoy it a lot, but don’t go in expecting the book.”
A highlighted issue from fans has focused on the film’s production approach, including reports that Elordi was offered the role via text message, which some argue highlights a huge casting stray from Brontë’s original descriptions, particularly Heathcliff’s portrayal as a “dark-skinned, black-haired orphan” whose outsider identity shapes much of the novel’s conflict.
The Independent described the adaptation as “astonishingly bad”, and the film has achieved 60% in just under one week from Rotten Tomatoes.
Others defend Fennell’s artistic freedom, including a viral TikTok posted from @CultedXO arguing “art is under no obligation to be faithful to its source material”.
Some viewers pushed back against this perspective. @Mom.against.vaping commented: “Stripping the story of its themes, plot, characters, and message and just slapping the name of a classic onto a fanfic is something else.”
Meanwhile, @miRaNda offered a more positive take: “It’s an adaptation. The cinematography was gorgeous, the acting was pretty incredible, the costuming was fabulous, and it was very enjoyable to watch.”
Despite mixed reviews, the adaptation has sparked wider controversy among literature enthusiasts and academics, with concerns that classic works are being reshaped into blockbuster films at the expense of the original authors’ intent, meaning and literary value taught in schools.