REVIEW: Wuthering Heights

The cold winter nights are always perfect accompaniments to a Bronte novel and as the evenings draw in and the windspeed rises, Andrea Arnold's adaptation of Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights is the latest to hit the big screen.

For those who don't know the story, Wuthering Heights follows the stormy relationship between Cathy Earnshaw and Heathcliff, a 'gypsy' boy adopted by her father, following it from their childhood friendship, through their doomed love affair and the consequences it has for those around them. Running wild across the moors together from children to adults, a deep bond forms between the two characters. However, after an accident at Thrushcross Grange, the Linton family residence, Cathy is raised in a more civilised atmosphere and chooses to marry Edgar rather than attempt any sort of romantic attachment with Heathcliff. Overhearing her intentions, Heathcliff leaves, only to return years later as a wealthier man, intent on wreaking revenge on Hindley Earnshaw, his main tormentor and on Cathy herself, for choosing Edgar instead.

First of all, the film looks beautiful and the Yorkshire Moors setting of the novel is well realised through Arnold's direction, especially in the wide shots that show the vastness of the landscape in relation to the characters wandering through it. It is perhaps through the cinematography that the film is most faithful to the book, with the violence and changeability of the weather, both visually and aurally emphasising these themes of Cathy/Heathcliff relationship. In terms of sound, rather than relying on incidental music to create the mood, Arnold uses the wind across the moors or the sound of rainfall to punctuate scenes. Whilst this is very atmospheric, it does have a rather negative effect on the dialogue, meaning that when characters speak, which in itself is sparse to begin with, it can be a little jarring. For me this can also be attributed to the screenplay itself. It felt too modern for an adaptation of a Victorian novel, using profanities and modern phrases that works against the rest of the film, pulling you out of the situation rather than drawing you in. The conflicts between Hindley and Heathcliff are the best examples of this; often, the language used sounds more like a confrontation in a street or a bar fight than the meeting of two lifelong enemies. Similarly, the dialogue between Heathcliff and Cathy never really evokes a sense of the extreme emotions that this relationship creates. They are supposed to both love and hate each other to the point where violence between them is inescapable, be it emotional or physical. Without this, it all falls a bit flat.

My main criticism of the film though is the rejection of the supernatural aspect of the book in favour of the raw, gritty presentation that we are given. Although the story does lend itself to this sense of the primitive, by stripping back the ghostly elements, Arnold's more realistic interpretation loses some of the dramatic atmosphere that makes Wuthering Heights the popular novel it is. Heathcliff is so conflicted because he is literally haunted by Cathy; their relationship is so strong and so essential that they cannot be parted even by death. We get a hint of this towards the end of the film with the token reference to necrophilia. The embodiment of this problem is the building that is used for the Heights itself. It is white and clinical, sparsely decorated and lacking the darkness and shadows that the novel emphasises. It also leaves out one of my favourite moments of the novel. It is Cathy's appearance at the window, clamouring to be let back in to the Heights and into Heathcliff's life. This appears in a form of translation in the film, with Arnold using the repeated image of a branch tapping at a bedroom window but, had you not read the book, the moment does not carry the same significance. The tumultuous relationship of Cathy and Heathcliff is one of the most passionate, most famous in all of English Literature, but this presentation of it is curiously lacking in emotion.

This is partly due to the depiction of Heathcliff himself. By focusing primarily on the development of the Cathy/Heathcliff relationship, the film presents a watered down version of him. Although he's often seen as the brooding Byronic hero, he is incredibly cruel, violent and manipulative and the film only really hints at this, using quick scenes of him hanging a dog or hitting someone to briefly demonstrate his character. This serves only to suggest the lengths to which Heathcliff would go to satisfy his need for retribution, but never really goes far enough to demonstrate just how awful he is. Both James Howson and Soloman Glave (Young Heathcliff) give fairly good performances in their debut film roles, capturing the alienation of the character very well whilst, again, only hinting at the violence and torment within. But therein lies the problem. There seems to be a reliance on the audience to have read the book so that whilst you are watching the film, you have prior knowledge of Heathcliff's machinations. Had I not been aware of this, however, I'm not sure if the subtle performances would have carried the same meaning.

Also, the casting of Howson, a black actor, caused a bit of a furore when it was first announced with fans divided between thinking that it was actually quite faithful to the book and those who thought it was a bit too much for them. I was personally in the 'faithful' camp as the details of Heathcliff's origins in the novel are sketchy at best; he's found by Cathy's father in Liverpool and is described at various points as having a "dark complexion" and as a "gypsy". Therefore, Arnold's casting makes a lot of sense and is one of the more positive aspects of the film, emphasising Heathcliff's isolation from those around him. In terms of the other performances, Kaya Scodelario of Skins fame, puts in a decent performance for the older Cathy, depicting the capricious nature of her character well and providing a decent foil for Howson's Heathcliff. Sadly though, the other performances fall a bit flat, especially Hindley Earnshaw who isn't so much the other main villain, but more of a chav in Victorian dress. Similarly, Nelly, a central character in the book, is relegated to the sidelines, appearing every now again to support or insult Heathcliff, depending on which is required.

If considered as a film within its own right and separated from its inspiration, Arnold's Wuthering Heights would be a brilliant exploration of alienation. However, as an adaptation of Emily Bronte's novel, the emphasis on presenting a raw, more realistic version of the story serves to lose a lot of what is central to Wuthering Heights. The relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff is not one that solely affects them, but serves to destroy the lives of those they come into contact with. Arnold's focus on the development of the relationship, rather than the consequences of it means that the film never really feels complete. It is a snapshot of the novel, a collection of scenes that look very beautiful but never quite string together to make a love/hate story that captures the imagination.