Wuthering Heights

Wuthering Heights_720p(480P)

source: Wuthering Heights

Unfortunately I watched this on the big screen and it was one of the longest two hours I have spent in a cinema. The film lurches from rain (oh how it rains) to mud to violent beatings to inconsequential romance and death. Rushed and blurry hand-held photography is irritating. Relationships are not established and I could have done without the F and the C words. It was gloom, gloom and more gloom and in the end... I didn't care. The only slight glimmer of light was the actress who played the young Cathy. I wish I'd had the courage to disturb my neighbours and join the other members of the audience who walked out. If I could have got my money back I would have done so.

It is a shame that this version of Wuthering Heights was overlong and dull. Why? It was probably to do with the main characters being played by first timers who are unable, or unwilling, to do anything more than move about as instructed and simply do not inhabit their roles. They are leaden. In Andrea Arnold's latest "edgy" production, the only characters that have any depth, have anything going on behind the eyes, and therefore engage the audience, are the characters played by professionals – namely Paul Hilton, Steve Evets & Kaya Scodelario. And yet she proudly declares that she likes to use "real people" instead of professional actors because "real people" are "authentic". But it is these "real people" who let her down by not being able to act and by being unreliable (being late, not showing up for ADR etc). Andrea Arnold appears to be blissfully unaware of how insulting she is being to an ancient profession (actors are "real people" too) and she ignores the fact so many better films than any she has made are populated by pros. In this, as in her inability to explain why the film was shot 4:3, she reveals that she has little interest in movies and movie making. So why should an audience be interested in her movies? Thankfully, Andrea Arnold does use professionals behind the camera. The cinematography by Robbie Ryan, a professional and quite probably a real person, was superb. Although the over vigorous use of the hand held style meant that, for a lot of the time, the screen is filled with a meaningless mass of blurs which only serves to emphasise to the audience the presence of a camera. Thus the fourth wall is broken and any magic is lost. Since winning an Oscar for her short film, Andrea Arnold has now made three movies. She may well carry on making movies, so long as there are producers brave enough to take on a disorganised artist who might be better off working in a studio on her own.

This movie was disturbing. I went to see it because Wuthering Heights is supposed to be a classic and because I love period films. I knew it would be minimalist from the description, so I was not expecting elaborate costumes with frills. Not only was it utterly depressing, but there was a lot of needless violence to animals. If you are an animal lover, there are parts that are difficult to watch and really do nothing to enhance the film. Perhaps I am even more irritated than I would have been because I saw this at TIFF and ended up queueing for a total of 2 hours to see this film. Perhaps I might have felt differently if I had first read Emily Bronte's classic novel? I can say that I have seen modern film versions of Shakespeare plays that I felt were very well done. Unfortunately, I fear that this film has not done Bronte's classic work justice, and now I am so put off by it that I do not think I will be able to bring myself to read the book. If you like traditional period films and romance, do yourself a favour and watch a lovely Jane Austen film instead.

I would definitely not recommend this to someone who has read the book. Not because it didn't keep to the story (actually, it was pretty close, with a few exceptions, but that doesn't usually bother me), but because the entire second half was missed out! It probably goes up to about chapter 16 in the book, which isn't even half way through! (I'm not sure whether or not this would be considered a spoiler?) It just left me feeling like I hadn't finished watching it all, and I'm sure it would have been annoying for viewers who haven't read the novel, as it didn't really reach a satisfying ending. Other than that, I wasn't too keen on it anyway. I didn't feel like Heathcliff had been portrayed properly (not because of his skin colour or anything but because I felt like he was too quiet)- I know this is just my own opinion and view of the character but it annoyed me! Also, I wish Nelly and Joseph had had bigger parts. However, if you like 'arty' films, you might find this interesting. The shaky camera and the fact that you can hardly ever see clearly does make it does feel very real.

This 2011 adaptation of WUTHERING HEIGHTS commits the cardinal sin of attempting to update the material to make it relevant for modern viewers, forgetting the fact that those novels which are considered "classics" are already relevant to readers from all time periods, hence the word "timeless". In the end, those who attempt such updates just end up pandering to modern trends and after a span of twenty years or so end up with material more dated than that at the original source. In any case, I don't have anything nice to say about this version. The script is dull and lifeless, failing to draw out any of those oh-so-intriguing characters from the novel, with Heathcliff in particular a stodgy and insipid type lacking the resolution and raw power from the story. In this version, Heathcliff is black, which is also complete nonsense. Heathcliff was described as "dark" in the book, not black. If he'd been black, he would have been described in specific racial terms, not to mention that the book would have been even more controversial than it was. Making race an issue just allows the writer/director to explore modern themes of racial prejudice as part of a liberal, politically correct mindset, which is not what WUTHERING HEIGHTS is all about. This is also a heavily stylistic production, complete with lots of shaky cam work. Arnold is no Greengrass, however, and the shaky cam is nausea-inducing. The relentless dullness of the production, the lame padding of people rolling around in the fields, the ageing of certain characters and not others, and the complete coldness of everybody involved makes this the worst WUTHERING yet.

With Wuthering Heights being my favourite book of all time I was a little sketchy as to how this British independent would be, having seen previous film versions of the book and been reasonably disappointed. Andrea Arnold is of course a great director and Mumford & Sons are my favourite band so I couldn't wait to see this... I wasn't disappointed, what you need to understand is that the story doesn't focus a great deal on Heathcliff's life or back story. What it does it it focuses on the bleak conditions and harsh and realistic conditions in which the story will have actually taken place. The way it worked was very clever and you could almost feel the cold country air as you were watching it. I was happy with the film as it was a different take on a classic novel, 6 out of ten for me.

If this was Wuthering Heights then I'll stand hanging. I'm certain that Emily Bronte's book did not contain such disgusting language, nor did she intend to portray the gypsy Heathcliffe as a black man though I suppose, in 2011, that ticks a politically correct box. I live in Yorkshire and I can assure you that we do have fine days and the moors can look bleak on bad days but viewers of this film are given the impression that it is a constant hell hole of howling winds and driving rain. Scenes jumped from one thing to another without explanation. Many of them were so dark that I could not figure out who was in them nor what was going on and the lack of script made them devoid of clues. There was much totally unnecessary footage of animal cruelty including a sheep's dying glugs as blood spurted from its mouth and neck after Heathcliffe had stabbed it. I stuck it out up to the point in which Heathcliffe number two (who didn't bear any resemblance whatsoever to Heathcliffe number one) was trying to open the coffin lid then left in disgust. Total rubbish!

I wouldn't recommend this film unless you like endless shots of bleak moorland, mud, circling lapwings and the backs of peoples'heads. Funny how the poster show the back of young Heathcliffe's head. I don't mind slow moving films where not much happens, but I didn't feel this particular film had the artistic merit to carry it off. It could have done with much more rigorous editing to bring the running time down to about 90 minutes. Having Heathcliffe played by black actors was an interesting idea and worked well. I also liked it that a large part of the film concentrated on the early parts of the book -apparently in contrast to other film versions -especially as the younger actors performed quite well. It was as a shame that the acting deteriorated so much with the adult cast to the extent that I could detect no passion or chemistry between Heathcliffe and Cathy. I thought the film was overall a dreary waste of time. It seems to have been liked more by the professional critics than by the real audience - show people grim raw reality far removed from their comfortable lives (I am referring to London based critics who only spend weekends in the country) and they are easily impressed. I got the same impression with reviews of Winter's Bone -a film I thought equally bad.