This post was originally published on here
Emily Bronte’s novel, “Wuthering Heights,” is classified as a Gothic fiction piece that warns readers about the unknown powers that exist within an unchecked obsession, specifically through Heathcliff’s complex relationship with Catherine Earnshaw.
I didn’t see any of those themes explored in the trailer for the 2026 movie adaptation of “Wuthering Heights” directed by Emerald Fennell.
In a two-minute trailer, the characters Heathcliff — played by Jacob Elordi — and Catherine Earnshaw (Linton) — played by Margot Robbie — are spliced together in many ambiguous and sexually charged montages, forgoing any indication of the story’s more complex plotline.
Not to mention that Heathcliff and Catherine only share one kiss before she dies in the middle of the novel.
Scoring a 72% from Rotten Tomatoes — which sits 13% higher than the score that’s considered rotten — the movie is set to debut in theatres on Feb. 13, where many classic literature fans won’t be in attendance.
According to the Independent, Fennell said there is “no need to be accurate” with the movie adaptation because the source material is “just a book.”
This mindset is behind many failed book-to-movie adaptations that only leave fans saying, “the book was better.”
Certain books become popular because dedicated fans attach themselves to the story’s beloved characters and complex
storylines. They resonate with the novel so much that they might read it again and again.
Fans dislike it when movie directors and writers go against the grain, compromising vital book details to fit within a movie’s strict two-to-three-hour time constraint, please a specific audience type or bring in more money.
Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” appeals to the quickly growing population of “spicy romance” readers who enjoy sexual tension plotlines and sex scenes. But it disappoints classic literature fans who enjoyed Bronte’s original storyline instead.
On Instagram, Collider’s movie review stated that “Emily Bronte is rolling in her grave,” adding in the comments that Fennell’s adaptation “turns a brutal, morally complex novel into a shallow ‘love conquers all’ story.”
“However, after cutting away nearly all the story’s characters and only adapting about half of the book, I have to wonder if Fennell has ever actually read the novel she’s based her passion project on,” the movie review states.
She isn’t the first director to face backlash while creating a movie adaptation: Carrie Cracknell’s “Persuasion” is heavily criticized for its use of modern slang and humor when Jane Austen’s original story is set during Regency England. It also has a 30% Rotten Tomatoes score.
While some fans cancelled the film, a Medium review asks if viewers can simply enjoy the film for what it is because it’s a “celebration of (Austen’s) work.”
“Simply put, fans are going to find fault with any Austen adaptation,” the review states.
After receiving backlash, Cracknell told the New York Times in 2022 that “The film was made with a massive amount of love and attention to the source material and a really openhearted respect for Jane Austen. There’s been no attempt to dismantle the original material.”
Movie adaptations are extremely hard to create and even harder to pull off. Fans like to see a true story retelling on screen with similar characters, plotlines and settings. When an element is changed, however, fans are likely to boycott the movie project.
The book will always be better than the movie, as the original material is why fans fall in love with that story anyway. But it boils down to whether the director truly understands the project. On one hand, Cracknell attempted to recreate an Austen adaptation for a modern audience, while Fennell held little regard for Bronte’s original work.
I only have one question for Fennell: why adapt the original book into a movie then?
Mirror Staff Writer Colette Costlow is at 814-946-7414
