Emerald Fennell’s adaptation of “Wuthering Heights” can best be described as romantic period fanfiction written by a teenage fangirl who watches too much “Bridgerton.” This is to say, it surely isn’t your grandma’s beloved classic, nor is it Emily Brontë’s. Fennell’s iteration fails to stick to the original source material and instead romanticizes problematic relationships and behavior.

The movie explores the obsessive nature of intimacy that crosses the border of codependency. It depicts love as torture and degradation, featuring a sexually violent third act that is purposefully uncomfortable to watch. The story is one of sadistic protagonists, if you could even call them that, who engage in treacherous, sordid affairs. It is a cautionary tale for audiences to consider their personal values and other things that they may sacrifice to feel loved. 

Why, then, is this film being marketed as an epic, sexualized romance?

Long before the movie’s Valentine release, Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” stirred up quite the controversy. The film relies heavily on marketing material that emphasizes the overly erotic nature of the classic adaptation. It makes sense for media intended for mainstream audiences to water down the darker tones and themes of the plot, but to completely erase that aspect from trailers is irresponsible. It frames a story rife with twisted emotional and physical abuse as something to be swooned over. It sends the message, intentional or not, that studios don’t care about the real social issues from which they are profiting. Physical and emotional abuse is not sexy, and studios need to stop acting like it is. Have we learned nothing from “It Ends With Us”?

The film faces additional criticism for certain casting decisions. The main male protagonist, Heathcliff, is described in Brontë’s book as being “dark-skinned” and possibly Romani, though his race is kept ambiguous. However, Heathcliff was cast as Jacob Elordi, a white actor. Critics were quick to respond with justified annoyance, calling out the move as racial erasure. Fennell defended her choice, explaining that Elordi reminded her of Dirk Bogarde and looked like the illustration of Heathcliff she pictured on her first read of the book. 

As previously stated, Heathcliff’s race is never defined in the original source material, and various quotes from Brontë’s classic insinuate that Heathcliff could have had one of a number of ethnic and racial backgrounds. No matter the definite answer, it’s very clear that his character is not white. This casting is especially disheartening considering the importance that his race and ethnicity have on his character. In the book, Heathcliff’s racial or otherwise perceived differences account for his mistreatment by other characters and society at large. It also plays a role in his character development, which develops the story’s themes and message.

The fact that Fennell ignores this important context regarding the reference material is honestly not surprising. As a director, she makes many choices, listed above and otherwise, that water down and diminish original themes, character development and plot points. It’s not just the director’s fault, but also the supporting production and writing staff. The film’s casting director, Kharmel Cochrane, especially makes faulty decisions with arbitrary justifications. In a Q&A session at Scotland’s Sands Film Festival, Cochrane made telling comments on her vision for “Wuthering Heights,” as reported by Deadline. She claims that casting for this movie doesn’t need to be accurate, as the source material is just a book. It’s not based on real life. It’s all art.

The truth is, it’s not just art, as she so crassly put it. It is art imitating life, exposing the real-world lived conditions and experiences of the time. To completely ignore the experiences of people of color, especially in a time of immense stigma fueled by classist and racist ideology, is completely ignorant and irresponsible. Its erasure from the story, alongside the inclusion of numerous intimate scenes, boils the once multifaceted, complex narrative into one of shock value and erotic interest. 

This story clearly wasn’t made for literary fans, nor traditional romance fans. Fennell crafted a loose interpolation that cherry-picks twisted romantic moments from the source material and stuffs explicit, intimate scenes to cater to an audience of modern dark-romance consumers. What Warner Bros could have easily fixed with a simple name change was instead wrongfully marketed to capitalize on the beloved classic title. “Wuthering Heights” is not an epic love story, and no amount of explicit content can change that.