Approximately fifty percent of all Hollywood films are adaptation of not only fictional books, but also of other literary texts such as non-fiction, comics, video games as well as popular films and other forms of media. Although most creators stay loyal to the original texts and often prefer them over film adaptations, films adapted from books tend to be more successful than original screenplays, as they generate 53% more revenue than original scripts. Currently, the majority of the highest grossing films in the industry happen to be part of a franchise or are stories that we have already read or seen before in another medium. At a time when audiences complain about movie productions constantly making unnecessary sequels, remakes and adaptations, claiming “give us something original”, do we actually go out and support these “original films”? Wuthering Heights (2026) directed by Emerald Fennell, hit theatres in February and was the most popular and controversial film of that month and possibly the year so far. P.S. This is written from someone who has neither read the original novel nor watched the film, so some of the details mentioned may be inaccurate.
From the title, we can see that this film is yet another adaptation of Emily Brontë’s classic novel Wuthering Heights. From the start of the film’s announcement, Emerald Fennel received backlash due to her previous project Saltburn (2023), which was a success among audiences; however, I personally did not enjoy the film. When the casting of Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi as Catherine and Heathcliff was announced, the project received even more backlash, especially from book lovers who criticised what they believed to be a miscasting. Many claimed Heathcliff had been “whitewashed”, as he is described as a person of colour in the novel, and they also criticised the ageing of Catherine. Regardless of this, the film went ahead, with viewers expressing their annoyance at the promotion of the film, as it was marketed as a cute romantic story. It was also revealed that some of the cast members had not read the original source text. The film finally hit theatres and opened to a mixed response from viewers. Reviews that criticised the film pointed out exactly how they imagined, where it is not faithful to Brontë’s original work and that Emerald Fennell took what some described as an absurd and immature approach to the classic text. However, there are some fans, mainly those who have not read the original novel and who are the once a year movie goers, that are praising the film.
So what went wrong with this film? This is not the first time a film adaptation has been severely criticised and received backlash; this happens every year. Was Emerald Fennell wrong for creating own version of the classic novel and writing what audiences seem to call her “fan fiction” of it? Definitely not! Filmmakers have the right to be inspired by other source materials and not always remain faithful to the original text, which is where the concept of fidelity comes in. Fidelity refers to the process of evaluating how similar or faithful an adaptation is to its source material. In the majority of adaptations, fidelity tends to be quite high, however there are cases in which filmmakers make adjustments to the overall plot and shape it according to their own style, which is known as authorship. This has been done by many filmmakers, especially well known directors like Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick. Stanley Kubrick did not adapt Stephen King’s The Shining exactly like the novel, which led Stephen King to despise the film and eventually create his own television adaptation. So why does it matter if Emerald Fennel does the same with this film?
Before answering that, it is important to understand the terms adaptation and appropriation. Film theorist Julie Sanders differentiates adapting and loosely adapting through the term “appropriation”. She states that an adaptation “is nevertheless involved in offering commentary on a source text”. In adaptations, films can be seen as interpretations of the original text, and they signal a clear relationship with the source material. She also states that “adaptations signal a relationship with an informing original” suggesting that a film adaptation is a particular version of that source text usually with minimal changes. An appropriation however, is what would be considered loosely adapating a film. Julie Sanders explains appropriation as “frequently affecting a more decisive journey away from the informing source into a wholly new cultural product and domain”. Unlike adaptation, which is another version of the original text, appropriation involves rethinking the terms of the original text with a sense of originality in the film. Prime examples of appropriation include 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) and West Side Story (1961 & 2021), which are loosely adapted from William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew and Romeo and Juliet, respectively. Now, is Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights an adaptation or an appropriation?
The bitter answer is that it is neither. One thing to acknowledge about appropriation is that, regardless of how much the writer changes the characters, setting or major aspects of the story, they still manage to keep the moral and soul of the story the same. For example, William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, the core of the story is about forbidden love and two rival groups, which is exactly what West Side Story follows but adds a few contexts and themes such as race onto the story. One could argue that Baz Luhrmann’s version of Romeo and Juliet could also be considered an appropriation due to its unconventional style; however, it still keeps the overall story and characters intact. From what most reviews and trailers suggest, it seems that Emerald Fennell may have failed to achieve even that.
One of the biggest aspects the film seems to get wrong is promoting it as a romantic story. Nearly all promotional material includes the tagline “Inspired by the Greatest Love Story”. Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights was never a conventional love story! It is a gothic novel centred on cruelty, abuse and anti romance. From the trailers, promotional posters and interviews with the cast, as well as from Fennell’s previous project Saltburn, it appears that she has taken a unique approach by sexualising elements of the story and incorporating similarly absurd moments. Although Stanley Kubrick changed a lot of Stephen King’s The Shining, in his adaptation, he still kept the film a horror. Another major issue is the portrayal of Heathcliff. Aside from the criticism regarding miscasting and claims of whitewashing, the character is romanticised in the film. In the novel, Heathcliff is written as a complex character who, although he is a victim of abuse, he also becomes cruel and abusive himself, standing off as an antagonist. Yes, I get that Emerald Fennell’s ideal man is a man like Heathcliff who happens to look like Jacob Elordi and she has crazy sexual fantasies, but portraying another artist’s character designed as one of the most evil figures in literature as a “sex icon” is a significant and disrespectful departure from the source material, which then no longer makes it Wuthering Heights. It becomes even more frustrating when actors in the film supports this romanticised image, where the actor playing Heathcliff states, “you don’t find your Heathcliff, Heathcliff will find you.”
When A-List celebrities like Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi are cast as the main characters, directed by someone who delivered a commercially successful film for today’s generational audiences just a few years ago, it should not be difficult to promote an original film with an original title. It could have also been a film moderately inspired by a well known classic but with different characters and a different title. Naming the film Wuthering Heights (with quotation marks of course) and republishing copies of Emily Brontë’s original novel with the movie’s poster as the cover appears to be nothing more than a cheap marketing strategy designed to attract attention for the extreme casual once a year cinema goers and generate profit.
