The water is wet, the weather is terrible on the English moors and a psychological romantic drama about two brutally cruel soulmates has taken the Internet by storm.
Perhaps like Heathcliff and Catherine, a 2026 film adaptation was destined to happen Wuthering Heights The controversial will-be moral inquiry about a troubled love story is as old as the original 1847 Emily Brontë novel.
In fact, ever since it was announced that A-listers Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi would be playing the lead roles, people have gone crazy over the adaptation of writer-director Emerald Fennell’s book. People said Robbie was too old, Elordi was too white and Fennell couldn’t be trusted with stories of class and violence – all fair criticisms, leveled at her long before they suited up in the wrong costumes from time to time to yell at each other in the rain.
So is the movie good? To do something. Will it be a financial success? It’s already on its way and has grossed $34.8 million in ticket sales in three days. But what beats the usual metrics is the film’s ability to generate conversation, and Wuthering Heights This has clearly broken the minds of people watching for a number of reasons, including our rage-bait media environment, our culture’s current tendency towards puritanism, and the fact that Catherine and Heathcliff have always been considered sociopaths.
It’s been great to see all the discussions unfold – cinema is back, baby – so let’s dig out all the rancor.
Wuthering Heights Enraging critics for 179 years
Wuthering Heights Not a good book. As a child, Catherine’s family takes in Heathcliff, an abused boy, and she is forced to work for them. Catherine and Heathcliff are best friends, although they are divided by class and status. As she grows up, Catherine realizes with a mean spirit that she must marry rich to get out of here. She does this by deceiving Heathcliff, who runs away – and also becomes unexpectedly rich.
When he returns, they continue their toxic situation, torturing each other by flirting with their wealthy neighbors, the Linton siblings. They’re both worthless – they’re cruel and sadistic towards everyone around them – but they have a supernatural attraction to each other, fueled by a series of some of the greatest lines in literary history: “You say I killed you? Bother me!” come on. “He’s so much better than me. No matter what our souls are made of, his souls and mine are the same.” The grandeur of the writing distracts from the evils they inflict on each other and others. It’s uncomfortable to watch, but it inspires complex discussions about love, abuse, and class dynamics, which is why it’s a major topic in English classes.
They’re both worthless – they’re cruel and sadistic towards everyone around them – but they have a supernatural attraction to each other, inspired by a series of some of the greatest lines in literary history.
Those not familiar with the saga may have been disappointed by the way Fennell’s adaptation was presented – as the greatest love story ever told.
How could the greatest love story of all time, wrapped in fantasy aesthetics and stunning gowns, be so dark and unsettling? Because it is great, as in epic; Not good, as is moral. Catherine and Heathcliff are evil people who are doomed to torment each other into oblivion. They are also soulful. You shouldn’t be like them, and they shouldn’t end up together, but it’s hard to digest that nuance in an age in which people compare the moral purity of media with its artistic power.
In 2026, people are struggling to enjoy even mildly emotional shenanigans, like Netflix’s romantic comedies People we meet on holidays. They dislike character studies of selfish characters based on their behavior, as in Timothée Chalamet’s film about a ping-pong-playing menace, Marty Supreme. Undoubtedly, he is having trouble with narcissism and aggressive displays of vengeance.
However, we can’t entirely blame modern audiences – this was also the case when the book came out. Original Wuthering Heights It inspired outrage for its “vulgar depravity and unnatural horrors” and Brontë originally published the work under a man’s name. A reviewer in 1848 wrote, “How a man could have attempted a book like the present without committing suicide before completing a dozen chapters is a mystery.” How dare anyone question society by displaying the barbarity of love and human selfishness!
Fennell’s version is a weak retelling
The film’s writer-director has a bad reputation among online film lovers: his films like promising young woman And saltburn, are ridiculously stylish, but some say they misdirect their moral and thematic message, sidestepping observations about gender and class in favor of shock value and vibes.
Here, Fennell was given a big budget to adapt her beloved book, and other emotional, voluble women from multiple generations have a deeply personal connection. Official title contains scare quotes Wuthering Heights, As seen in the film’s poster, the intention is to remind you that this is just one woman’s take on the story – as if she were very clearly saying, “Please don’t be mad at me, it’s just my opinion.”
Critics nevertheless panned the film for being excessively silly. Alison Wilmore of Vulture lauded its “smooth-minded sensuality”, adding that “Fennell surveys Brontë’s saga of destructive passion, obsession, and multi-generational resentment and presents it as the story of two incredibly messy bitches who can’t stay away from each other.” Slate’s Dana Stevens calls it “gorgeous, throbbing, and proudly silly.” Both noted that Fennell’s adaptation dismisses the underlying story of class and race relations to focus on the tension between two very hot leads. To which I say, yes, of course it does!
Much of the book – which includes depictions of incest, attempted child murder, animal abuse and necrophilia – is not in the film. It focuses on one relationship, eliminating several characters and the second generation of torture Heathcliff and Catherine inflict on each other through life and beyond. Without that layer of nuance, what’s left is essentially fan fiction.
There’s an argument that Fennell learned from the book what she could handle as a white and rich storyteller, and this is just that story. In his painting there are walls made of meat and large strawberries. By Vulture’s count, we have 31 other adaptations to choose from. Why does it require so much exercise?
Still, discussing the differences between the movie and the book is a great pastime that encourages reading and media literacy, and even inspires newcomers to pick up the novel and fall in love with it. I consider it an overall win.
It’s too sexual (or aroused in the wrong way)
Wuthering Heights Is sexy. There’s a lot of sex thrown into the movie that was never in the book, complimented by constant allusions – a hanging that looks terrifyingly erotic, foods that look like body parts and shit everywhere. There has been a lot of disdain directed at people who find it attractive. At the same time, some critics argue that it does not go far enough. Despite all the juxtaposition of animal slaughter with strange sex, which may not have yet entered the Victorian consciousness, The Ringer’s Adam Neyman writes that Fennell does not reach the edgelord status she would like, instead becoming a “mischievous, frictionless spectacle”.
Perhaps the most surprising criticism I’ve seen of the film online is this. Wuthering HeightsThe book, originally written by a young unmarried woman and read by high school students everywhere, is “an erotic film made for virgins.” well yes!
We know that the culture has become increasingly sex negative in recent years. For people online, Wuthering Heights This is somehow too much sexual fantasy and not sexy enough.
Look, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to call a movie stupid or dislike its performances, but the hate has grown to such an extent that people who are affected by it are worried they’re being stupid. I think it’s beautiful how some people can ignore the auto-tuned score of Charli XCX screaming over a swamp in a particularly emotional scene. It is acceptable that some people cannot do this. Falling on the less ostentatious side is not a moral failing.
The peace of mind and good-natured entertainment of debating about media becomes much less productive when it results in people being embarrassed for having a little fun in the theater. Let’s settle our differences on the internet in a civilized manner and leave the barbarity to Heathcliff and Catherine.
<a href=