How to Make a Good Adaptation

- Wearing an earring as an homage to Jacob Elordi is very distracting, gigantic earring in the second half of the movie. What happens when you combine a 200 year old Gothic romance with the director most known for onscreen bathwater drinking and grave banging? Well,

you get Emerald Fennell's 2026 adaptation of "Wuthering Heights". Rest in peace Emily Bronte. You would've Loved "House" by Charli XCX and John Cale. In all seriousness, the music did

Bronte. You would've Loved "House" by Charli XCX and John Cale. In all seriousness, the music did go off. I feel like Charli XCX should have been graded individually for her contribution to the

go off. I feel like Charli XCX should have been graded individually for her contribution to the group project. I actually got to see this movie in an early screening. Took a lot for me to keep my

group project. I actually got to see this movie in an early screening. Took a lot for me to keep my mouth shut about it, though, with that said, I can't say I walked into the theater with a completely neutral stance. You know, I was a little scared. From the moment the news broke that Fennell was getting her hands on Bronte's work, people were already rallying against it,

and that noise was definitely coloring my theater experience. If you don't know what I'm talking about, basically for months classic literature fans and non-fans alike were concerned that Fennell was going to bastardize an influential classic given her penchant for making movies chockfull of shock value. Promising young women in "Saltburn" come to mind.

- What are you gonna do when Emerald Fennell calls you about her next project where you play Carrie Mulligan's coworker in the bridal section of Herod's and then Act three takes a sexually violent turn, and you have to pretend to be surprised by that turn?

- It hasn't helped that Fennell has been doubling down on the fact that her version of "Wuthering Heights" is her own take on the novel based on the version of the book she imagined when she first read it as a teenager. When asked by the quotation marks around the film's title, Fennell responded with, "I can't say I'm making "Wuthering Heights". It's not possible. What I

can say is I'm making a version of it. There's a version that I remembered reading that isn't quite real, and there's a version in which I wanted stuff to happen that never happened. And

so it is "Wuthering Heights" and it isn't. But really I'd say that any adaptation of a novel, especially a novel like this, should have quotation marks around it." According to the BBC, Fennell wanted to make something that made her feel how she felt when she first read the book, something primal and sexual. I don't know if she really excelled at arousing audiences. I

feel like I've personally seen raunchier stuff like in "Bridgerton" and, I mean, we can agree to disagree on how sexy Jacob Elordi's whispering was because I feel like that was really what Fennell was relying on to carry this film.

- Meet me on the mows and I'll give you a bit of a finger bang, oh, Kathy.

- And Trust, one of my best friends, has become a total a Elordi stan, so I feel like I've expired on how much I can think about him, but alas, we must talk at the very least about his casting, which raised a ton of controversy online. For those unfamiliar with the novel "Wuthering Heights" centers on romance between Cathy Earnshaw, an original tenant of the "Wuthering

Heights" estate, and Heathcliff, an orphan and servant at the estate who is sort of adopted into her family. There is much scholarly consensus on Heathcliff being a person of color, perhaps a formerly enslaved child with a black parent or parents. In the text, Kathy's father brings Heathcliff to the estate upon returning from Liverpool,

and Heathcliff is described as a dirty, ragged, black-haired child speaking some gibberish that nobody could understand. Importantly at the time in which "Wuthering Heights" is set, Liverpool was a prominent slave port. Elsewhere in the book, Heathcliff is described as a little Alaska or an American or Spanish castaway, a lad who looks an out and outer and as dark almost as

if it came from the devil. Another estate servant Nelly also describes him as not a regular black.

With that said, while Heathcliff's ethnicity isn't specifically described in the book, it's clear that he is canonically, racialized and othered. Many critics argue that making Heathcliff white, especially the sort of like upper crust whiteness, that Elordi and Owen Cooper who plays the young Heathcliff have erases some of the key themes and points of tension in the original text,

especially when Shazad Latif, an actor of color, is playing the role of Edgar Linden. For context,

Edgar is the man Kathy chooses to marry over Heathcliff, which only adds to the adaptations backwards racial politics because it's pretty clear in the novel that Kathy chooses Edgar because she's choosing wealth and proximity to whiteness. However, Fennell has doubled down on the fact that Elordi is closer to the Heathcliff she imagined as a teenager.

- You can only ever kind of make the movie that you sort of imagined yourself when you read it, and then you can-- - Have you ever had a dreams that you, you had, you you, you could.

- Even mentioning that he resembles the character on the cover of the books that she read. That

might be true, but I feel like in 2026, when making an adaptation, you should be taking book covers, especially ones designed like 20 years ago with a grain of salt. Lest we forget Lolita, in which writer of Vladimir Nobakov explicitly said he did not want a young girl to be on the cover.

And look what happened with that one. Given these inaccuracies, some people have called Fennell's adaptation a misuse and exploitation of IP. In an Instagram reel, comedian Claire Parker said.

- If you are going to use the clout from IP, you need to be held to the standard of IP. Margot

Robbie and Emerald Fennell were cashing out on the fact that everybody in the English-speaking world knew the title "Wuthering Heights" because everyone had to read it in ninth grade.

- Some of Fennell's defenders have explained it's, you know, unfortunately necessary to lean on IP these days to get good Box Office turnout, and they're kind of right. The

movie made back its budget in just one opening weekend. I'm not sure if that would've been the case if it was an original story. And as for the inaccuracies, Fennell may have also faced pressure from producers to make the film more titillating to suit modern audiences, hence her working with Charli, including Barbie adjacent flashy costume changes, amping up or trying to

amp up this mightiness and casting A-list actors to boot. I want to, you know, hold space for the fact that movies are a collaborative effort, and while the director does have a lot of control, they also sometimes unfairly take on the full blame when some of the more unseemly creative decisions could have come from studio heads or producers or a number of other people.

I don't know what happened behind the scenes of "Wuthering Heights", so I just wanna have that as a disclaimer. I'm not really criticizing Emerald Fennell as like an independent artist, but more so the movie product in all, even though I am, you know, talking about her. That's just

what I wanna say. With all that said, there's been a million think pieces on this adaptation already, and I've noticed a common thread of people being upset about the inaccuracies above all else.

And don't get me wrong, while I absolutely do not defend whitewashing or colorblind casting, I'm really interested in what people mean by this, like misuse of IP, because this is honestly where I deviate. I don't actually think accuracy is the number one thing we should be grading adaptations on, and I'd argue that most audiences don't actually want that either. So

what is it that we really want? Before we get started, I have to brag about my new glasses.

This video is sponsored by Warby Parker, a glasses brand that I've been a patron of for years.

Actually, these are my last pair. But, you know, every year my vision changes, so I have to give myself a little treat, a little treat being a new pair of glasses. These frames that I'm wearing, they are called the Franny, and I'm super into them. I've honestly always struggled with finding a pair of glasses to fit my face, and this has been an ongoing struggle because

I've literally been a glasses wearer since I was six years old. But I used Warby's Virtual try-on feature on their website, which is super easy to use. And these are my favorite in terms of like what looked good on my face, and I honestly think the picture was pretty accurate. While Warby has a bunch of fun color frames, I opted for black ones just because they're neutral. They match with any

outfit that I put on and they feel very practical. Like these glasses are very light on the face, while also serving like 90 chic realness. Glasses start at $95 with prescription lenses that include anti-reflective and scratch-resistant coatings. There's free shipping and free 30 day returns, plus there's a buy a pair, give a pair program, so every purchase helps someone in need receive

vision care. You can match with me and explore my exact frames at the link below.

vision care. You can match with me and explore my exact frames at the link below.

Before we get started, I wanted to get into some of the scholarly discourse on adaptations 'cause we're thinkers on this channel. In "The Task of the Translator", Walter Benjamin posits, that translation doesn't merely involve copying, paraphrasing, or reproducing a text. Rather,

translation is an engagement with the original text that makes us see that text in different ways. Essentially, adaptations can be acts of creation in their own right.

ways. Essentially, adaptations can be acts of creation in their own right.

- How to start.

- Writer Jorge Luis Borges similarly argued that even the idea of a translation being inherently inferior to an original work stems from the false notion that literature is definitive.

Borges believed that there is no such thing as definitive work, and that a translation isn't detrimental to a source text. He even suggested that a good translator might treat an original work as a good writer treats a rough draft. According to this view, a work is never considered finished. There is always more meaning to create through adaptation. Despite what these

considered finished. There is always more meaning to create through adaptation. Despite what these academics say though, adaptations have long been considered inferior to original works.

Just think about the cultural uproar that occurs whenever Disney announces a new live adaptation of a beloved animated movie, or the wave of criticism that hits Twitter when the casting for a new young adult book to film adaptation is announced. I mean,

I was personally a big hater of the Twilight movies when they first came out. I'm sorry.

- I'll never fail you again.

- And that was because I was a Twilight book obsessive and I just could not get behind Robert Pattinson as my Edward Cullen. Pattinson, you know, has since endeared himself to me in the way of Papa's Orchard, but 12-year-old me was not happy because for hours while I was reading, I created this entire world in my head that I was really dedicated to.

- Get dish. Get off the screen.

- Film adaptations of books in particular are considered especially culturally inferior when compared to the original work. In "A Theory of Adaptation", literary scholar Linda Hutcheon's cites Brian McFarlane's book "Novel to Film, An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation", in which the author lists the moralistic words commonly used to attack film adaptations of

literature, including tampering, interference and violation. Other scholars describe film adaptations as perversions or betrayals. Hutcheon theorizes that our disdain for adaptations stems in part from people valuing original creation and genius in the post-romantic era. We might view adaptations as a way to detract or strip

an original creator of their brilliance. But if people are so morally opposed to adaptations, why do we keep making them? Well, money, of course. Just kidding, kind of.

- Know what everything is for money.

- But surprisingly, there is an artistic purpose to adapting. After all,

we've been adapting for much of human history, evidently, adaptations as a form of storytelling, like passing down stories. It's an ancient human practice tracing back to the figure of the griot, or the West African oral storyteller, as well as the tradition of oration in ancient Greece. In the

ancient world, imitation was viewed as a form of creativity. According to creative imitation in Latin literature, Imitatio is neither plagiarism nor a flaw in the constitution of Latin literature. It is a dynamic law of its existence. Thus, Hutcheon suggests that it may be more logical for us to evaluate adaptations, not based on their faithfulness to an original text,

but by their ability to make a work autonomous or one's own. For better or for worse, right?

- It's "Wuthering Heights" and it isn't.

- [Interviewer] Yeah.

- You know, it's-- - [Interviewer] Yeah, it's just so-- - But then if adaptations are viewed as sites of original creation, as Hutcheon suggests, how important is accuracy really? Can we have a sort of inaccurate adaptation that is still good? To best answer this, I'm gonna pull in one of my favorite film adaptations,

Greta Gerwig's 2019 Adaptation of "Little Women". "Little Women" is a coming of age novel by Louisa May Alcott that follows the lives of four sisters growing up during the American Civil War. Since

its publication in 1868, the book has received several theatrical and cinematic adaptations because, you know, its themes of sisterly love, domesticity and self-actualization remain evergreen, hence the impulse to continue reintroducing the story to new audiences.

- Hey!

- Hey! Hey!

- Greta Gerwig's "Little Women" is one of the books more critically and culturally revered film adaptations for good reason. It's my own personal favorite adaptation despite it being quite different from the source text. For example, not only does the costuming stray a bit from the book's time period, also gotta love those UGG Boots in the BTS photos, but the plot

is presented in a non-linear narrative style, bouncing between childhood and adult timelines, which the book does not do. But I thought this was a fantastic narrative device to really emphasize nostalgia and illustrate the bittersweet experience of growing up as the adult scenes are all in this cooler color palette. The film also contains a metafictional ending in which

it's unclear whether Joe March ends up with the professor or if the protagonist in the book she's writing does. The ending reflects a real life dilemma that Alcott face when trying to publish

writing does. The ending reflects a real life dilemma that Alcott face when trying to publish little women. Alcott famously had a different ending in mind than a conventionally romantic one,

little women. Alcott famously had a different ending in mind than a conventionally romantic one, but was pressured into marrying off her heroin by her publisher. In Gerwig's adaptation, Joe faces a similar dilemma as Alcott when trying to get her own book published.

- If I'm going to sell my heroin into marriage for money, I might as well get some of it.

- And ends up agreeing to marry off her protagonist as a compromise. This ending serves to subtly collapse Alcott and Joe. At the end of the movie, Joe even holds a copy of her novel titled "Little Women", boldly highlighting the Similarities between protagonist and author. Film

critic Justin Chang writes of the ending, "150 years later, Gerwig sets out to gently redress the wrong Alcott faced with a clever metafictional twist that both honors and subverts the original.

It's enormously satisfying to see Gerwig bridge the gap between the expectations of readers then and the desires of audiences now. She hasn't just made little women her own, she's made a movie that rightly belongs to all of us." The success of Greta Gerwig's "Little Women" shows what's possible when artists don't clinging so tightly to the structure and style of source text. Yet our

automatic instinct as audience members is still to evaluate adaptations based on their accuracy.

Why? For one, academic Thomas Leitch argues that the audience's desire for fidelity stems from an appeal to anteriority or the primacy of classic over modern text. It's assumed that classic literature in particular is owed a certain amount of accuracy as it's considered too good to touch.

Emerald Fennell's "Wuthering Heights" adaptation is controversial in part because the novel is a widely known and beloved classic, and so to adapt it with inaccuracy is thought to do Emily Bronte herself an injustice, hence all these like Emily Bronte is rolling in her grave memes.

- That's not what the fans wanna see. That's literally what the fans don't want to see.

- Also, we often compare adaptations to source text subconsciously. Hutcheon writes, "If we know that prior text, we always feel its presence, shadowing the one we are experiencing directly."

On the flip side, if we aren't exposed to the original work before watching, the adaptation will likely find the adaptation more possible or even enjoyable. For example, not to bring up resident bigot J.K. Rowling, but growing up, I really did love the Harry Potter movies precisely because I started reading the books after I had watched the first film. Because of that, I didn't

have any lingering impressions of what the main characters or Hogwarts should look like. When I

started reading, my Harry was Daniel Radcliffe. In a way, I was able to consume the films like within their own context without any preconceived notions from the book coloring my experience. In addition

to that, we crave accuracy because it brings us comfort as nostalgia and repetition do. We like

knowing what to expect and we find satisfaction in our expectations being completely met. As Hutcheon

writes, "Like a ritual, this kind of repetition brings comfort, a fuller understanding and the confidence that comes with a sense of knowing what is about to happen next." But Hutcheon also explains that as there's no such thing as a literal translation, there can be no literal adaptation. Thus, an accurate adaptation may be an oxymoron altogether. Just from the fact that we're

adaptation. Thus, an accurate adaptation may be an oxymoron altogether. Just from the fact that we're transposing a book to a new medium, like to the screen means that we have to inherently take some creative liberties. It's not like a one-to-one thing. As an example, it's you know, usually

creative liberties. It's not like a one-to-one thing. As an example, it's you know, usually challenging to convey a character's psychic world on screen in the same way that an author can do in the book. Narration, Inner monologues and visual imagery often appear differently on screen than

the book. Narration, Inner monologues and visual imagery often appear differently on screen than on the page. Dialogue usually needs to be cut for runtime. Scenes need to be cut, especially if the book you're adapting is like an absolute beast. I mean, there's a reason why Denny Villeneuve adapted the first "Dune" book in two parts, but I'm sure David Lynch wasn't offered that same

deal when he made his adaptation of the book. He had to make do with just a little over two hours.

- We never get any time to experiment. We never get to, you know, go dreamy or anything. You know that it's just is sick.

- So in conclusion, I don't think accuracy is how you should measure an adaptation because it's an almost impossible task. So you might be wondering if not accuracy, then how should we grade these IP bastardization? Well, I personally think an adaptation is good when I can tell that the artist has closely read and sat with the original text and allowed their deep feeling or

interpretation to guide their creation. Sometimes, this does result in a more traditionally accurate interpretation, and sometimes it results in a work with more artistic variants, and sometimes that variance actually adds to a deeper understanding of the text. For "Fight Club", author Chuck Palahniuk even said, "Now that I see the movie, I was sort of embarrassed of the book because the

movie had streamlined the plot and made it so much more effective and made connections that I had never thought to make. There's a line about fathers setting up franchises with other families, and I never thought about connecting that with the fact that "Fight Club" was being franchised and the movie made that connection. I was just beating myself in the head for not

having made that connection myself." With that said, adaptations also allow for subversion, turning the text on his head, and this is what I think Emerald Fennell was trying to do, it was just sort of unsuccessful. One of my favorite Hamlet adaptations is James Ijames's Pulitzer Prize winning play, "Fat Ham". "Fat Ham" is subversive. For one, it takes place during a

family cookout during which the protagonist named Juicy, a gay black man, is visited by the ghost of his father who tells him he needs to avenge his murder. But the story deviates from Hamlet as Juicy tries to break the cycles of violence and end generational trauma. It's an amazing play and it's so uplifting, and also it's like wonderfully reframed to reflect contemporary social ideas,

you know, touching on black masculinity, queerness, all that good stuff. It's awesome.

I luckily saw it at the public theater in New York a few years ago. I highly recommend seeing it as a play if you can, but you can also buy a copy of the play to read on your own. The writing on "Fat Ham" is wonderful, but I think the play was particularly well received

own. The writing on "Fat Ham" is wonderful, but I think the play was particularly well received because Hamlet has been around for centuries. The story's well known. It's been adapted to oblivion like we've gotten the four hours long, more accurate Kenneth Branagh film version.

- To be or Not to be.

- [Narrator] We've also gotten the modern day version starring - To be or not to be.

- [Narrator] We've gotten the Japanese neo-noir version, thanks to Kurosawa.

We've got "The Lion King" for God's sake, and we've gotten new theatrical versions every single year at high schools, community theaters, Broadway, and the West End.

- That is the question.

- Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is also an adaptation itself inspired by the story of Hamlet, a Scandinavian legend, but also to say this is not an untouchable story. It's almost prime to be subverted. "Fat Ham" also brought something uniquely fresh and progressive to the text. In

be subverted. "Fat Ham" also brought something uniquely fresh and progressive to the text. In

an interview with "The Guardian", Ijames said that he was deliberately told to swerve away from Shakespeare when doing his acting MFA. He said, "The thing I kept hearing over and over was that my regionalism, the slowness of my southern accent would make it difficult for me to do Shakespeare.

I did avoid it for those reasons. That's a little bit of what's in this. I wanted to take this thing I was told I couldn't access and see if I could make it work for me." I don't feel like I really need to explain why it's different to take white roles and give them to people of color rather than the reverse, because I'm assuming we all understand, right? You know, racism, colonialism,

et cetera. People of color are marginalized, have less access to representation and jobs. So yes,

et cetera. People of color are marginalized, have less access to representation and jobs. So yes,

as a baseline, an adaptation that allows for more people of color to be involved is going to be compelling. Plus, as I said, we've experienced a lot of whitewashed movies, and honestly a lot of whitewashed "Wuthering Heights" is with the exception of Andrea Arnold's version. It's getting tiring. And on top of that, in comparison to "Hamlet", it feels like

Arnold's version. It's getting tiring. And on top of that, in comparison to "Hamlet", it feels like "Wuthering Heights" has never been treated with the same reverence and respect, and so it feels almost wrong to subvert it, even though the story has been around for a long time. I also think that people are further taking offense to Emerald Fennell's version because it feels inherently

tied to our cultural context. Like derogatory. DEI continues to get rolled back in schools, workplaces and Hollywood. Anti-intellectualism is running rampant in our schools and government, which makes this romantic see version of "Wuthering Heights" feel especially bleak.

I've been saying that we shouldn't look at a adaptations for accuracy. Instead,

we should look for what many theorists refer to as the spirit, aura or essence of a text.

But essence can be subjective. It's tricky to describe and can be perceived differently person to person. While it might be difficult to land on an objective definition, we can at least try to describe essence by examining four main elements of an adaptation. The genre,

atmosphere, affect and theme. When audiences push past their desire for complete accuracy, I think they're ultimately looking for the adaptation to communicate something truthful in relation to the original. This doesn't mean copying the original word for word or frame for frame, but retaining

original. This doesn't mean copying the original word for word or frame for frame, but retaining at least some kernel of truth, which usually involves maintaining at least one of these four elements in some capacity. To me, the defining question to ask when evaluating an adaptation is, does it either capture, subvert, engage with or recreate something true about the piece? Let's

look at how Emerald Fennell utilizes each of these elements in her version of "Wuthering Heights".

Starting out with genre. Emily Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" is a Gothic romance, a genre that typically centers a vulnerable heroine and an anti-heroic man trapped in a gloomy isolated setting, haunted by secrets, obsession, and psychological distress, which is often heightened by supernatural elements like ghosts or curses. Love this genre, it's a

lot of fun. Guillermo Del Toro's "Crimson Peak" is a great example of a modern Gothic romance.

The movie features an original story that pays homage to the Gothic genre, drawing direct inspiration from Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre", Edgar Allan Poe's "The Fall of the House of the Usher", as well as Rebecca Northanger Abbey "Uncle Silas", and even, you guessed it, "Wuthering Heights". On "Crimson Peak", film critic Matt Zoller Seitz writes, "Guillermo

"Wuthering Heights". On "Crimson Peak", film critic Matt Zoller Seitz writes, "Guillermo Del Toro has Gothic in his blood. It ticked every box in terms of classic Gothic elements, including an innocent and trusting heroin, a brooding and troubled suitor, a gigantic mansion in remote area, many dark secrets and constant intimations of supernatural forces at work." While

not a direct adaptation of any particular Gothic novel, "Crimson Peak" manages to create something new within the bounds of the Gothic genre. On the other hand, critics of Fennell argue that her version of "Wuthering Heights" operates too far outside classic Gothic romance, with some claiming that she doesn't understand the genre at all. In a TikTok, user Polish Laura Palmer says.

- Emerald Fennell, who is my villain, by the way, does not understand what makes Gothic romance fascinating. What makes it intriguing to an audience. What about it is so disgusting and

romance fascinating. What makes it intriguing to an audience. What about it is so disgusting and so depraved, but we still wanna keep looking at it? All it is truly providing for us is, to be honest, very vanilla acts of love and sex, and if anything, in a kind of,

in a kind of quirky way that you would never see In a Gothic romance novel.

- She argues that Fennell's "Wuthering Heights" lacks the more perverted monikers of Gothic romance found in Bronte's novel like Heathcliff opening Kathy's grave after her burial so the two can be together for eternity. Instead, Fennell relies on a more contemporary YA Forbes of perversion in her adaptation, like the characters engaging in "50 Shades" esque BDSM.

- Moving on to another closely related to genre, atmosphere. The atmosphere of Emily Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" certainly helps place it within the Gothic romance genre. The novel takes place in a desolate Yorkshire moor setting. The atmosphere of the book could be described as dark, stormy and eerie, helping enhance the twisted tumultuous turns plot itself takes.

- Well, I finally found a name for this place, Wuthering Heights.

- Hutcheon, and another adaptation theorists note that, you know, music, pacing, cinematography, these can all help build a film's atmosphere. Bearing this in mind, it's clear that Emerald Fennel sought to subvert the book's atmosphere by adoring the main characters in vividly colored costumes and sound stages. The modern textiles like latex and cellophane used in the costumes

along with the Charli XCX core make the film dance across time periods. Fennell may have been trying to draw parallels between 19th and 21st century conceptions of romance as Sophia Coppola did with youth culture in her Marie Antoinette. But also to say, Fennell's "Wuthering Heights" feels much more modern, likely because it feels more synthetic. This is distinct from the wild, untamed nature

of the book's atmosphere. You know, this might have worked on its own, but since Fennell warps or eliminates many of the hallmarks of the Gothic genre, altering prominent aspects of "Wuthering Heights", distinct atmosphere makes the movie feel even more distant from the source text. Critic

Jackson McHenry summed it up well for "Vulture", writing, "Fennell goes for more explicit sex and romance in the sense that this is all playing out on a soundstage, and I'd be down for an adaptation that channels more of the tangle of weird Northern England atmosphere and its economic and historical reality, how the books plots all buffeted by the 19th century currents of industrialization and

globalization. Give me sheep, I guess. This movie only has one taxidermied sheep." You know, here,

globalization. Give me sheep, I guess. This movie only has one taxidermied sheep." You know, here, here. I want more sheep too If you wanna talk about a good example of atmosphere, Kate Bush's

here. I want more sheep too If you wanna talk about a good example of atmosphere, Kate Bush's music video for her song, "Wuthering Heights", version two. Ghostly vocals, filmed at an actual moor, fog machine. Strange but captivating dance choreography. Yes. Next we have affect, an element

that viewers appear to be a bit more split on. Given the dark, tragic atmosphere and plot of "Wuthering Heights", the book is thought to elicit a disorienting and murky feeling of heartbreak in readers. On the other hand, Fennell's adaptation has been described as quirky and outlandish. Many

readers. On the other hand, Fennell's adaptation has been described as quirky and outlandish. Many

movie theaters are even filled with laughter. I mean, I gave it a chuckle when those stupid eggs came back into the story Of the tonal differences between Bronte's novel and Fennell's adaptation, film critic Alison Wilmore aptly wrote, "While the book is weird and jagged, the movie is outlandish and moist. It's very much its own thing." Others find the tone of the original novel and the tone

and moist. It's very much its own thing." Others find the tone of the original novel and the tone of the 2026 film to be well aligned. For example, Jess Harrison, Publishing Director for "Penguin Classics" describes "Wuthering Heights" as, "Wild and unhinged, an extreme book for extreme times." Indie wire editor Ann Thompson, similarly described the film as a rip-roaring

extreme times." Indie wire editor Ann Thompson, similarly described the film as a rip-roaring bodice-ripping, crowd-pleaser," writing that, "Audiences will fall for Emerald Fennell's garish visuals and unrestrained direction. Everything is big." Some viewers definitely find the big, bold visuals well suited for the novel's big feelings, but I personally think that the book would be

better served by, you know, an equally intense but more intimate and constrained adaptation. This

would better feed into the sense of romantic and sexual restraint during the time period. I can't

stress this enough, guys, this is all my personal opinion. I will not be like Kathy, I will not die on the hill of "Wuthering Heights". Or I guess she dies at "Thrushcross Grange", but you get my point. Finally, we have the core theme, and I would tie in story to this as well. You might

my point. Finally, we have the core theme, and I would tie in story to this as well. You might

think that story would be the most consistent element across adaptations, right? You know, like the actual like plot happenings, but even that can differ as we see in the narrative and ending restructuring in Greta Gerwig's "Little Women". Hutcheon writes that stories can be transformed through pacing, timing, plot reordering or shifts in point of view. Strategic changes

in adaptation can even make personal crises into political or systemic ones or vice versa, playing with the scale of the conflict in the source text. In Fennell's "Wuthering Heights", she also takes liberties on story, completely acting the second half of the book. Originally, the book is also like narrated through Nelly. That changes. There's a lot of things. Like there's a brother,

Kathy has a brother that's not Heathcliff. He doesn't exist at all in this in this movie.

I mean, I think most notably the second half of the book is gone. That's not like, I guess a huge deal because a lot of film adaptations actually choose to only focus on the first half, but I think this is sort of lame because it robs us from experiencing the cycles of trauma that continues to affect their children. Like I feel like going overboard on the romance detracts from

what Bronte wanted to say in totality about this relationship and the repercussions that it has, which, okay, brings us to theme. Regarding theme, Hutcheon writes that, "Themes are perhaps the easiest story elements to see as adaptable across media and even genres or framing context." Adding

that, "Many romantic ballets were derived from Hans Christian Andersen's stories, simply, some say, because of their traditional and easily accessible themes." Returning full circle to the white Heathcliff controversy, many critics identify racial politics as a core theme in "Wuthering Heights". Casting a white actor as Heathcliff not only changes the central theme, but it also doesn't replace it with anything particularly interesting, I'd say. It doesn't

alter the scale or tone of the book's tragedy in any meaningful way. It doesn't add anything particularly compelling to the already compelling 200 year old story. If anything, it just upholds the tradition of casting white Heathcliffs to the detriment of what Bronte wanted to say about race.

- It's clear that adaptations don't need to be accurate for them to be good. That being

said Emerald Fennell's adaptation of "Wuthering Heights" didn't necessarily need to be completely accurate to Emily Bronte's novel for it to be good, but it needed to commit to something, whether that be genre, atmosphere, theme or affect, and in my opinion, it just didn't deliver on any of those. That's really the problem that I have. It's not the accuracy,

it's just that it wasn't really that good. It was messy. In all the press for the film, Fennell stresses that she's a diehard fan of the book and has loved it for years. And while this may be true, I'm not denying that, when watching her adaptation,

years. And while this may be true, I'm not denying that, when watching her adaptation, I didn't really get the sense that she engaged with the material that closely for this reading.

It didn't feel like this adaptation was guided by a deep sense of feeling from the source text.

If this had been an original story with a different title, paying homage to some aspect of "Wuthering Heights", I don't know, maybe I would've received it differently, but there are some standards that we have to hold adaptations to. There are some. At the LA Premier, Emerald Fennell told "The Hollywood Reporter", "The great thing about this movie is that it could be made

every year and it would still be so moving and so interesting. There are so many different takes."

- I think every year we should have a new one.

- No.

- Honestly, I hope we don't get a new "Wuthering Heights" adaptation for a while because after looking into it, it also just seems like it's just way too difficult for anyone to adapt.

Irina Husti-Radulet reported that there have been over 20 screen adaptations of the novel already, including a 200 episode Filipino series, which I'm kind of curious about, a California set MTV adaptation and a 1966 Bollywood movie. But despite that, she claims that the story is plagued with the reverse Midas touch in the sense that almost every director who touches the book ends

up tarnishing it. Even director Andrea Arnold, who I love, "Fish Tank" is one of my favorite movies. She tried to make an adaptation in 2011, casted it correctly, but has later reflected,

movies. She tried to make an adaptation in 2011, casted it correctly, but has later reflected, I don't like that film. I think you're allowed to not like your own film. Peter Kosminsky,

director of the 1992 version, also concluded that his film was not a good film in any way.

Steven Mince explored in his Substack, "The myriad of reasons why "Wuthering Heights" is a fickle story to translate to screen." For one, it has a layered narration. Once again, the fact that Kathy dies midway through the novel, the general disrespect to the Gothic genre by trying to make it more romantic, to make it more Hollywood, as just a few of the reasons, right? That have

uniformly plagued these adaptation attempts. I'm beginning to think it would take a real genius to put together something Emily Bronte would be proud of. There certainly are a few bright spots in the midst of the noise that I wanna give a shoutout to. It's not just all doom and gloom. For one, the movie has led to an influx of people reading and discussing the book. According to "The Guardian",

sales of Emily Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" have increased by 469% in the UK since last year. In January of this year, 10,670 copies were sold compared with 1,875 in January, 2025.

year. In January of this year, 10,670 copies were sold compared with 1,875 in January, 2025.

Jess Harrison of "Penguin Classics" shares, "I can't remember the last time a film adaptation generated this much excitement for the book. "Wuthering Heights" is one of our evergreen bestsellers, but I do think the film is coming out at the perfect moment. There seems to be a real yearning among readers for intense maxima, tragic love stories." The film's release has also brought

book lovers together for real life meetups. For "Publishers Weekly", Sam Stratford report that "Wuthering Heights" events, watch parties and meetups have taken over bookish corners across New York. Alamo Drafthouse Cinema's book clubs screenings invited readers to debrief the film

New York. Alamo Drafthouse Cinema's book clubs screenings invited readers to debrief the film amongst fellow fans of the novel. Liz's Book Bar in Brooklyn hosted a Valentine's Day event featuring special editions of the book. "The New York Times" and New York Public Library both ran "Wuthering Heights" book clubs to consider its new place in the zeitgeist. Stratford writes,

"What many outside of publishing circles may not realize is that people are reading the book. Not

just any people, but the sort of people whom classics gatekeepers are most worried about."

Maybe Emerald Fennell is owed and now it's more credit. At the end of the day, it's nice to see people reading and engaging in a monocultural moment when we're so often siloed off by our algorithms. Maybe the next discourse cycle will center something that's actually good, but that's probably wishful thinking. Okay, that's all I have to say about this. Let me know what your thoughts

are on "Wuthering Heights", the movie or the book or both, and I'll catch you later. Okay, bye.