Being a bit of a literature geek, it may surprise some people to know that I’ve only recently read Wuthering Heights. This is mainly because until the last few years, I had a bit of a rampant dislike of the idea of “costume drama” novels. This was because I perceived that it was mainly rich people swanning about being in love and wearing daft bonnets.
![]() |
| Exhibit A. |
WUTHERING HEIGHTS IS NOT A ROMANCE NOVEL!
But the moors! The brooding! Heathcliff! Cathy! I hear you say? – NO. Not a romance. If I were to pick a genre I’d go for family saga or slow burning revenge novel. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we’ll stop having disappointed romantics cluttering up the place. Yes Heathcliff and Catherine are in love but that takes up quite a small chunk of the book. I would say it is the catalyst for the events of the story rather than the story itself.
![]() |
| So Brooding! Be still my beating heart! |
Romantic eh? Nothing says cute couple like corpse desecration, dog hanging and family ruination. I like Heathcliff though. I like him because he’s not a dashing hero but a deeply flawed and troubled man who doesn’t pretend to be anything else. That’s refreshing. I think a lot of popular culture tries a bit too hard to redeem him. We’re like abuse victims who ignore the abuser’s violence because deep down he has a heart of gold and will treat us the way we deserve… A bit of an extreme metaphor but we need to deal with the fact that Heathcliff isn’t brooding and troubled, he’s messed up.
So with this in mind, I want to say that I’m quite a fan of the new adaptation by Andrea Arnold.
It’s nice to see a traditional book told as though it’s a brand new story. It’s also nice to see that they’ve shown life on the windswept moors as cold, muddy and hard. Also muddy. Did I mention mud? This is a film that likes to remind us that if Heathcliff and Catherine are running around on the moors, then they’re getting wet feet.
So it’s grim oop north then? Well yes. This isn’t just Wuthering Heights as social realism though (the kitchen sink drama that British film seems to enjoy so much). It is beautifully shot and focuses heavily on the moorlands. There are wonderful shots of the animal and plant life that surrounds the characters. As characters live, die, and love, the moor is always there. It seems to reflect their emotions but is at the same time exists as a reminder that whoever anyone marries, it will still be there – bleak, windswept and covered in mud.
So yes, I joke about the mud but the mud is part of the other thing I like about this film. It’s sensual and tactile. Everything suggests texture, sensation and smell. It’s passionate in such a physical way that is a million miles away from delicate empire line dresses, turns of the room and discussions of good matches over bone china. Heathcliff and Catherine are not the most likeable of characters but they have a solidity that is refreshing. You care about them because they are tangible.
If you get the chance to watch it, I’d really recommend it. It’s a good cast and well thought out. If you want to read some useful reviews go for it. If you want to listen to an idiot who hasn’t read the book and likes bonnets, try this. How dare people in a period drama swear! Clearly such things are a purely modern invention… Silly woman. As for the book, go for it. Emily Brontë is an excellent writer and the characters are great. Just don’t expect a romance novel.
And to finish I'd recommend anyone who's read it and wants a laugh, to have a look at this, this and this over at Hark! A Vagrant! as the wonderful K. Beaton is currently doing some great comics about it.
I will also end on this because eventually any discussion of Emily Brontë's novel ends with Kate Bush. To make up for putting the song in your head (sorry!) Here is Noel Fielding's version.


I really enjoy your way of writing reviews, Emma. Especially this:
ReplyDelete"But the moors! The brooding! Heathcliff! Cathy! I hear you say? – NO. Not a romance."
I haven't seen the new film, hadn't even heard about it until you mentioned it some time ago, I'll probably watch it at some point.
Not that sure about the book - I find the Brontës very fond of storywithinastorywithinastory and so on, and it gets a) confusing and b) unexciting after a while.
One last point: In the book, I'm quite sure Heathcliff is meant to be dark-skinned as in gypsy-like, not actually what we'd call dark-skinned, or whatever is PC these days. I was always thinking more swarthy (love that word).
I'm glad you enjoyed it. :)
ReplyDeleteIn the book Heathcliff is indeed dark-skinned but as you say he's swarthy rather than black. The new film has taken that a bit further. There was review of it in The Daily Mail where the reviewer had got her knickers in a right old twist because it "makes the story about race rather than class". I personally think it was handled well. It wasn't one of those awful "let's put black actors in random historical settings and have no mention of it to be P.C." situations but on the other hand it was in the no way the whole point of the film. I guess the best way of putting it is that it worked. It didn't feel forced at all.
I like the word swarthy too. On a side note, when I was little I thought it meant slightly sinister or untrustworthy because I read all these old books that described things like "a pair of swarthy gentlemen lurked in the shadows at the corner of the pub". Swarthy characters always seemed like they were up to no good so I thought that was what it meant. Ah. Casual racism in old books. Fun fun.
Oh and I've added the link to Angry Daily Mail Lady that should have been in there first time around. Is it bad that I enjoy getting annoyed at her? Probably.
ReplyDelete