Wuthering Heights: A passionate elemental drama

EMILY Bronte’s landmark 1847 Gothic novel receives an inauspicious adaptation at the hands of writer director Emerald Fennell.

Known for directing the films Promising Young Woman Saltburn to impressive effect, Fennell bites off more than she can chew with her third film: a tawdry, emotionally shallow tale that comes across more like an erotic thriller than anything Bronte might have originally intended.

This is disappointing since the director in question probably should have done a whole lot better, given the good will her first two films have built up.

Despite committed performances from its capable leads; those unfamiliar with the book are unlikely to be impressed, while those who are will be horrified.

The film freely adapts the original novel so if you have read the book, this synopsis might cause some confusion. In 1771, young Catherine Earnshaw is in for a big surprise when her father (Martin Clunes) returns from town one day.

He has brought back to their isolated Yorkshire moors estate Wuthering Heights a boy of around Catherine’s age.

He has decided to adopt the boy after finding him on the streets of Liverpool.

Catherine names the boy Heathcliff and the two become fast friends, in spite of her father’s violent, alcoholic temperament.

Heathcliff works as a servant on the estate and over the years a puppy love blossoms between he and Catherine.

As the pair grow up, her father’s alcoholism worsens and the estate falls into destitution and so Catherine (Margot Robbie) decides to court a neighbor in the form of the opulently wealthy Mr Linton.

Catherine accepts Linton’s proposal but Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) is jealous leaves the estate on horseback unannounced.

By 1782, Catherine is pregnant with Linton’s child but as she looks forward to welcoming the baby, Heathcliff returns.

He is well-heeled, clean-cut and in possession of a mysterious fortune.

Before long, a passionate affair begins between them, one that will test the limits of their love and ultimately have devastating consequences.

There is a certain reverence around Emily Bronte’s original story, so influential it was on the Gothic romance genre.

This new version has already courted controversy as a result. It largely discards the novel’s Gothic leanings, aiming for a more erotic, sensuous approach.

In fact apart from the title and the two main characters, this film bears little resemblance to the original book.

Lurid and ribald without being particularly romantic or interesting, the literary-inclined will likely be appalled, while the rest will be put off by the overblown production design, unfaithful, repetitive dialogue and innumerable sex scenes.

The sets at time either resemble something form a silent horror film or interiors of a Barbara Cartland novel, while the director’s penchant red hues of decoration and costume prove rather distracting.

Suffice to say if you are looking for a mature, serious adaptation of the book, this is not the movie for you.

The cast do their best to make it work but they are often smothered by the sheer complacent excess. Robbie, who also serves as producer, is too old to be playing Catherine and never quite looks comfortable in the role but she gives it her all.

That alone is impressive, since many of the curious dresses she wears make it seem as though she and the costume designer were locked in a bitter feud.

Elordi cuts a fine Heathcliff and though his chemistry with Robbie is strong, his performance lacks the intensity of the best portrayals of the character, like that of Laurence Olivier.

Their performances are the best part, even if the film threatens to overwhelm them.

Lacking the sweeping power of the novel as well as its emotional complexity, this Wuthering Heights should not be let in the window.

RATING: **

Matthew McCaul