This is absolutely excellent and spot on! I also keep seeing the comparison of this film with Frankenstein but think it would also bear a comparison with Poor Things, a film which wildly abstracts from the book but does take a key thematic thread and blows it up absurdly (I think far more successfully than here!) To me, always comes back to the question of what somebody wants to say in adapting, and I completely agree with you here - if anything is being said at all, it’s completely at odds with the source.
I really loved Poor Things and I think Frankenstein did suffer from Netflixisation (having a character literally say what the meaning of the film is and still dumbing the story down) but I think GDT really does love and respect the book - both much better adaptations tho imperfect!
Poor things was fun but hardly feminist or intelligent. It was like the ultimate mansplain. I book written by a man reimagining Shelley and her feminism. Then they made the decision to have it adapted by a man and then directed by a man. It really stunk to high heaven to me of male fantasy on the matter!
I won't be watching this because I absolutely despised Saltburn. The funny thing is that for the first half of the film it genuinely looks like astute class analysis - but it turns out that the silly aristrocrats are actually the smart and perceptive ones and the aspiring working class oik is really just scum after all. It's a huge waste of an excellent set-up.
Maybe I'm being overly charitable but I don't even think Fennell has any awareness of what she's doing. As far as I can tell she wants to want to make feature-length music videos/perfume adverts, with a couple of gratuitously shocking scenes added to shake things up, and the fact that they also keep demonstrating that the lower classes can never be trusted seems to be entirely innate and unexamined.
YES. Saltburn begins with an amazing premise about the idiocy of the British class system and then doesn't know how to work with it without doing something genuinely radical so just massacres all its characters in the interests of preserving the fundamental status quo. Such a bore.
This is a phenomenally eloquent analysis of both the success and intrigue of the novel and the utter failure of the recent film adaption. I wish "front page" commentary was half as well thought out or considerate. Wuthering Heights in its whole is extremely topical as classism is rampant and more insidious than it ever has been before.
Exactly!! On my recent re-read I was so struck with how timely the book actually is now, and it only made me angrier about what she's gutted out of it for this film
"And worse: if you dare to criticise these films, you are called a misogynist, as if it is inherently a female concern to make shallow films for a shallow audience. Accept this slop, otherwise you hate women."
You hit the head on my issue with the movie and a lot of recent media in general. The argument of women being criticized more than men has turned into "anything made by a woman is inherently feminist," and I refuse to stand by it. I've read and watched books and movies and media by women crafted with love and nuance that don't treat the audience as brainless. Why should it be a general expectation for a film by a woman to be shallow slop to turn you brain off to? It's diminishing and sexist, and I want more from women directors and authors.
Having suffered through a screening of it yesterday, I couldn’t agree with you more. As you say, at least it’s driving people back to the book, but the film just scrubs any nuance in favour of flashy visuals and a facile reduction of the plot. I really hoped I’d like it for what it was, but what it is doesn’t work.
This is so great, I loved every minute of reading. I finally read WH two years ago, in February. I didn’t love Charlotte Bronte and thought I would equally dislike Emily. I expected a moody, emo story like Jane Eyre which is not my cup of tea. What I discovered was shock that the story wasn’t really about Cathy and Heathcliff in the way Jane Eyre was about Jane and Mr Rochester. I found it to be about the triumph of nature and spring. The 2 thirds of the book was almost unbearably cold, gloomy and troubling. The last bit - perhaps even just the last chapter - was like Easter morning. I closed the book at the end with the lingering deep-seated knowledge in my bones that, Nature will always triumph in the end. We can fight it, we can twist it, we can try to reinvent it, but behold it comes springing up like flowers in the concrete. There was something so deeply pure and comforting and beautiful in that ending, that I haven’t found in any other novel.
I’m waiting for someone to write a retelling of WH from Hareton’s perspective. He gets a front seat to the show of Hindley and Heathcliff destroying themselves and he is constantly put down by people he trusts. Then at the end he is finally able to find happiness after being beat down for so long because Catherine (also beat down) decides to hell with these social hierarchy roles we’ve been forced to play and reaches out to him in search of a companion. I think it would be a much more interesting retelling than all the movies only showing the first half of the book. Great analysis of the book, I read it recently and I plan to see the movie with a friend once she finishes the book (my expectations for the movie are low)
“Emerald Fennell has taken this book and made a film which, if it can be said to be about anything, is about how the highborn should treat the poor like shit because they will love them anyway, and constantly sacrifice themselves for their betters, which is good and correct” is the social criticism the film should strive for since the wardrobe and press tour designs seem to be lifted straight out of Gone with the Wind.
The argument that lands hardest here is that Fennell doesn't just simplify — she reverses. The novel makes ambiguity do the political work: you can't place Heathcliff, so you're forced to ask what placement even means. Stripping that doesn't make the story accessible. It makes it say the opposite of what it said. That distinction between a loose adaptation and an inverted one is the sharpest thing I've read on this film.
I haven’t seen the film and don’t really intend to but I have seen the social media chatter and was interested in the issues brought up. I found this an interesting read, thank you for sharing and articulating your concerns so well!
I’m too tired to give you more but jesus this was brilliant. I love the book and have wanted to do my own adaptation for years, and everything you’ve written has reinforced my vision or challenged my interpretation and I’m so grateful. I feel so stupid and unintellectual so often but I really care about the text and its meanings, including the ambiguousness and complexity of it all. It makes me feel even more inspired to dive into the text with an open heart and a critical mind.
I don't think people are being called misogynistic for disliking this film. Most of the reviews are two stars. I think a lot of people are disliking this film. I personally liked it & feel expecting it to be something it never set out to be is a lack of media literacy and a way to ragebait oneself.
I mean, the general consensus of this film seems to be dislike, and that doesn't seem at large to be coupled with sexism. I wouldn't have known what type of comments you were party to personally on Instagram.
I was just disagreeing with you in good faith because I thought that's what we could do here. I'm all for the discourse and different takes!
As I said, I think you write really well. I just have a different opinion on how seriously to have taken this film.
I appreciate that and I don't think you are! I will say that I have seen exactly what I have described here, the argument that it's "for the girls" and therefore can't be critiqued, or that it's just a woman director being criticised because she's a woman (completing ignoring the fact the 2011 adaptation is by a woman). I think this is really diminishing to women which is why I have written about it in the essay. But I don't think that's what you're doing.
I also appreciate that some people will just like it for what it is. Unfortunately I don't think it can be decoupled from what its creation says about the current state of society and what art is pushed to the forefront. (Again not trying to sway your opinion - this is just mine)
This review has restored the brain cells I just lost at the cinema
The highest compliment I could possibly receive
🤣🤣🤣
I know right! I’ve been scrabbling for a film to watch that will restore my faith in cinema again!
It's a marmite movie but I really enjoyed Die My Love, also directed by a woman and adapted from a book by a woman
Ok so I watched Sinners and 100% now consider my faith in cinema restored. Amazing! Take a bow Ryan Cogler!
Ahh yeah that does look v good! I’m not sure whether I can handle anguished postnatal vibes right now though!
This is absolutely excellent and spot on! I also keep seeing the comparison of this film with Frankenstein but think it would also bear a comparison with Poor Things, a film which wildly abstracts from the book but does take a key thematic thread and blows it up absurdly (I think far more successfully than here!) To me, always comes back to the question of what somebody wants to say in adapting, and I completely agree with you here - if anything is being said at all, it’s completely at odds with the source.
I really loved Poor Things and I think Frankenstein did suffer from Netflixisation (having a character literally say what the meaning of the film is and still dumbing the story down) but I think GDT really does love and respect the book - both much better adaptations tho imperfect!
Poor things was fun but hardly feminist or intelligent. It was like the ultimate mansplain. I book written by a man reimagining Shelley and her feminism. Then they made the decision to have it adapted by a man and then directed by a man. It really stunk to high heaven to me of male fantasy on the matter!
I actually couldn't disagree with you more!!
This is excellent, thank you.
I won't be watching this because I absolutely despised Saltburn. The funny thing is that for the first half of the film it genuinely looks like astute class analysis - but it turns out that the silly aristrocrats are actually the smart and perceptive ones and the aspiring working class oik is really just scum after all. It's a huge waste of an excellent set-up.
Maybe I'm being overly charitable but I don't even think Fennell has any awareness of what she's doing. As far as I can tell she wants to want to make feature-length music videos/perfume adverts, with a couple of gratuitously shocking scenes added to shake things up, and the fact that they also keep demonstrating that the lower classes can never be trusted seems to be entirely innate and unexamined.
I haven't seen Saltburn but this is my partner's take on it too, almost exactly
About saltburn and this very on point comment- I feel that Fennel despises working/middle class and can’t even analyze why
YES. Saltburn begins with an amazing premise about the idiocy of the British class system and then doesn't know how to work with it without doing something genuinely radical so just massacres all its characters in the interests of preserving the fundamental status quo. Such a bore.
This is a phenomenally eloquent analysis of both the success and intrigue of the novel and the utter failure of the recent film adaption. I wish "front page" commentary was half as well thought out or considerate. Wuthering Heights in its whole is extremely topical as classism is rampant and more insidious than it ever has been before.
Exactly!! On my recent re-read I was so struck with how timely the book actually is now, and it only made me angrier about what she's gutted out of it for this film
"And worse: if you dare to criticise these films, you are called a misogynist, as if it is inherently a female concern to make shallow films for a shallow audience. Accept this slop, otherwise you hate women."
You hit the head on my issue with the movie and a lot of recent media in general. The argument of women being criticized more than men has turned into "anything made by a woman is inherently feminist," and I refuse to stand by it. I've read and watched books and movies and media by women crafted with love and nuance that don't treat the audience as brainless. Why should it be a general expectation for a film by a woman to be shallow slop to turn you brain off to? It's diminishing and sexist, and I want more from women directors and authors.
Having suffered through a screening of it yesterday, I couldn’t agree with you more. As you say, at least it’s driving people back to the book, but the film just scrubs any nuance in favour of flashy visuals and a facile reduction of the plot. I really hoped I’d like it for what it was, but what it is doesn’t work.
This is so great, I loved every minute of reading. I finally read WH two years ago, in February. I didn’t love Charlotte Bronte and thought I would equally dislike Emily. I expected a moody, emo story like Jane Eyre which is not my cup of tea. What I discovered was shock that the story wasn’t really about Cathy and Heathcliff in the way Jane Eyre was about Jane and Mr Rochester. I found it to be about the triumph of nature and spring. The 2 thirds of the book was almost unbearably cold, gloomy and troubling. The last bit - perhaps even just the last chapter - was like Easter morning. I closed the book at the end with the lingering deep-seated knowledge in my bones that, Nature will always triumph in the end. We can fight it, we can twist it, we can try to reinvent it, but behold it comes springing up like flowers in the concrete. There was something so deeply pure and comforting and beautiful in that ending, that I haven’t found in any other novel.
I’m waiting for someone to write a retelling of WH from Hareton’s perspective. He gets a front seat to the show of Hindley and Heathcliff destroying themselves and he is constantly put down by people he trusts. Then at the end he is finally able to find happiness after being beat down for so long because Catherine (also beat down) decides to hell with these social hierarchy roles we’ve been forced to play and reaches out to him in search of a companion. I think it would be a much more interesting retelling than all the movies only showing the first half of the book. Great analysis of the book, I read it recently and I plan to see the movie with a friend once she finishes the book (my expectations for the movie are low)
“Emerald Fennell has taken this book and made a film which, if it can be said to be about anything, is about how the highborn should treat the poor like shit because they will love them anyway, and constantly sacrifice themselves for their betters, which is good and correct” is the social criticism the film should strive for since the wardrobe and press tour designs seem to be lifted straight out of Gone with the Wind.
This essay was better than any movie adaptation I’ve seen of Wuthering Heights!
The argument that lands hardest here is that Fennell doesn't just simplify — she reverses. The novel makes ambiguity do the political work: you can't place Heathcliff, so you're forced to ask what placement even means. Stripping that doesn't make the story accessible. It makes it say the opposite of what it said. That distinction between a loose adaptation and an inverted one is the sharpest thing I've read on this film.
I hear Emerald Fennell's next two projects are Dicken's adaptations - Knickerless Nickleby and David Copafeel.
Followed by Sale of Two Titties I'm guessing.
I haven’t seen the film and don’t really intend to but I have seen the social media chatter and was interested in the issues brought up. I found this an interesting read, thank you for sharing and articulating your concerns so well!
I’m too tired to give you more but jesus this was brilliant. I love the book and have wanted to do my own adaptation for years, and everything you’ve written has reinforced my vision or challenged my interpretation and I’m so grateful. I feel so stupid and unintellectual so often but I really care about the text and its meanings, including the ambiguousness and complexity of it all. It makes me feel even more inspired to dive into the text with an open heart and a critical mind.
We are made to feel stupid and unintellectual! Discussing these things is what gives us that power back. I'm glad you took a lot from this ❤️
I don't think people are being called misogynistic for disliking this film. Most of the reviews are two stars. I think a lot of people are disliking this film. I personally liked it & feel expecting it to be something it never set out to be is a lack of media literacy and a way to ragebait oneself.
You are an amazing writer though!
I mean I am literally being called a misogynist in my Instagram comments.
Oh! Sorry to hear that, that can't be nice.
I mean, the general consensus of this film seems to be dislike, and that doesn't seem at large to be coupled with sexism. I wouldn't have known what type of comments you were party to personally on Instagram.
I was just disagreeing with you in good faith because I thought that's what we could do here. I'm all for the discourse and different takes!
As I said, I think you write really well. I just have a different opinion on how seriously to have taken this film.
Not trying to insult or discredit you!
I appreciate that and I don't think you are! I will say that I have seen exactly what I have described here, the argument that it's "for the girls" and therefore can't be critiqued, or that it's just a woman director being criticised because she's a woman (completing ignoring the fact the 2011 adaptation is by a woman). I think this is really diminishing to women which is why I have written about it in the essay. But I don't think that's what you're doing.
I also appreciate that some people will just like it for what it is. Unfortunately I don't think it can be decoupled from what its creation says about the current state of society and what art is pushed to the forefront. (Again not trying to sway your opinion - this is just mine)
I’ve never wanted to see this film, but boy, have you made me want to read the book…