Emerald Fennell added quotation marks to her movie to signal that it was a subjective interpretation and not an adaptation of the beloved classic. But the quotation marks were not big enough in this instance, instead it should have changed the title all together.

We’ve seen retellings of classic novels before and accepted them wholeheartedly. Clueless, the retelling of Emma. Ten things I hate about you, is Shakespeare’s Taming the shrew. Bridget Jones diary is Pride and Prejudice. And even the Lion king is supposed to be a sort of retelling of Hamlet. All movies that have been accepted and lauded by the public as a whole. There are very few critics to these examples of retellings. But for some reason, (which may just be the title) society as a whole seems very upset with “Wuthering heights”.

The New York Times called it “florid and overstuffed”. The Guardian said it was “too hot and too greedy”. With 61% rotten tomatoes calling it hollow and Letterboxd reviews like “Emily Bronté died of tuberculosis 177 years ago, and yet this adaptation is the worst thing to ever happen to her.”

I think it’s safe to say it has not been well received. Before the movie even came out Fennell was getting backlash for some changes she made to the cast. One being casting Jacob Elordi a white australian man in a role that is written as a person of color and has previously been played by black actors. Not to mention Cathy’s dark curly locks have been exchanged for Robbies long blonde hair. Hollywood whitewashing by an elitist posh white woman. Yeah, it doesn’t look good. But it’s about to get worse.

Isabella in the book is married to Heathcliff and is a victim of domestic abuse. In the movie Fennell makes Isabella a willing participant in what we might describe as BDSM? or something like that, she’s definitively submissive. It’s one of the most disturbing scenes of the movie if you know the original story. If you don’t, well, then it’s just a convenient way to use Isabella as a tool to drive the story further.

Are there other things? Yes, a ton. The story is unrecognizable. It’s unfinished. Wuthering heights speaks about race and class difference, it showcases generational trauma, domestic abuse, sexism, animal abuse, while being a gothic ghost story that haunts you with the same name for different characters. “Wuthings heights” the movie has none of that. It just boils it all down to obsession. The movie, could even be called a love story. The book would never be called that.

And while the movie has been called hollow and braindead I would have to disagree. But saying that it’s missing the point – absolutely. It does not even try to resemble the original story. But the romance is present in the movie. In the longing looks and desperation to be close to eachother, Heathcliff and Cathy doesn’t miss. But the real depth in the movie lies in the relationship between Nelly and Cathy. In the book, Nelly is the old maid that has worked for the Earnshaws for generations. She tells the story of Wuthering heights to a tenant named Mr.Lockwood. His character has been completely removed and the story is no longer told by Nelly. She’s instead become an integral part of the story, being the one that intervenes in the relationship between Heathcliff and Cathy. The reason for their despair. For her own gain, as the lady in waiting for Cathy. This relationship, I felt was underdone. It could have been so much more. But the final scene between Nelly and Cathy had me in a puddle. The bond between the two women mirrored in the bond between the lovers, but not given any attention, as if it barely matters. There’s something so heartbreaking about it. How little we women value our besties compared to our partners. As a single woman without a life partner, this is what struck me the most.

And then there’s the raison d’etre for the entire movie – the visuals, the art of it all, the thing that makes the movie worth watching. Nobody can deny the stunning cinematography, set design and costumes. It’s not anchored by the story, the time period or any reason. It’s just created out of artistic vision. Cathy’s room is wallpapered in her skin for gods sake. You can see her veins and moles and the walls are soft with foam.

At wuthering heights everything is unbalanced, raw, dark and the natural materials are everywhere. But at Thrushcross Grange everything is balanced, clean, drenched in color with different materials of luxury. And between them are the foggy moors with the sharp rocks and wild terrain with views that look into eternity. Set to the sountrack mood of Charli xcx. It couldn’t possibly be any better visually. So I would dare to conclude that Shakespeare was wrong. A rose with any other name might smell as sweet. But I think “Wuthering heights” could have benefittet from changing the name since they changed the story completely and pulled it out of the 18th century. It would remove the expectation of staying true to the source material. Anyone can see from these visuals that it is not a representation of the book! (They didn’t have pink “cellophane” dresses back in 1850 did they??)

Could the movie had gotten away with just being called “Wuthering”? It sounds better to me, because it amputates the title much like they did the story and it signals that this is not Wuthings heights as we know it. Adding the quotation marks was just too discreet.