I am an English major, and I loved Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights.”

I fell in love with Wuthering Heights at seventeen for its intricate language and unconventional perspective that was ahead of its time. Each sentence felt like a knot to untangle in a web of paragraphs and chapters—the satisfaction of each knot coming undone kept me in anticipation for the next. The subject matter at hand was not to be expected from a lady of the time, but such vulgar behavior is the pinnacle of Bronte’s point. Class and marriage would have been on the forefront of women’s minds—Wuthering Heights just draws attention to it in an unexpected way. Behind the complex character map lies a tragic love story, generational curse, and a direct call out to the flaws of a classist society.  

Emerald Fennell, the director of “Wuthering Heights,” the 2026 film adaptation of the novel fell in love with Wuthering Heights at fourteen for its primal obsession that it instilled her as a young reader. This is an attribute of the novel that drew many young female readers in—including me—whether we’d like to admit it or not. Catherine and Heathcliff’s narrative is objectively tumultuous and violent, but upon reading we found ourselves begging for more. I would not have enjoyed the novel if there was not this obsessive tension throughout it because otherwise the trauma and tragedy would have been dismal. Fennell leaned into Catherine and Heathcliff’s love in her film adaptation to satisfy the version of the novel that she saw when she read it as a young girl.  

The main differences between the novel and film adaptation are how themes of violence were portrayed and the exclusion of the second volume.  

Heathcliff’s literary character is a violent and brutish man who became all the anger that life had handed him. His difficult childhood being orphaned then taken in by Mr. Earnshaw, who berated and physically abused him, taught him that taking out his violence on others was easier than communicating. His worst moments such as leaving Wuthering Heights abruptly in the night, abusing Isabella, and even killing her dog, all were reactions, retaliations, or responses to Catherine. Catherine brought out the worst in him because violence is the only way he knew how to accomplish something. In the film, we do not see Heathcliff as a physically harmful character as much as we do as an intimidating and degrading individual. This comes out in the sexual nature of the film as sex and violence are metaphorically tied from the opening scene. As a man is being hanged in the town square he gets what is referred to as a death erection due to the pressure of the noose around his neck. Two young boys laugh at his “stiffy,” while the crowd cheers at the execution. This subtle moment was very intentional in setting up the themes to follow. The next sexual encounter occurs between two servants, Joseph and Zillah, in a masochistic scene in the stable where Zillah is whipped and put in a horse’s bridle and bit. This is also Cathy’s first introduction to sex which catalysts her increased interest in Heathcliff beyond friends. Later in the film, when Heathcliff marries Isabella out of spite for Catherine, he degrades her to the point of having her chained to the fireplace and barking like a dog. This sick behavior is the most grueling in the film, while in the novel he physically abuses her and her dog. I appreciate Fennell’s discontinuation of the level of violence from Heathcliff because domestic violence is not easy to watch. I admire how this change from violence to sex was done because it acted the same plot wise but did not turn my stomach inside out. On the other side of the coin, sexual violence is also a major trigger for many people, so this does not irradicate discomfort. The unfortunate part about this switch is that it went over many viewers’ heads who did not read the novel, so the glorification of sexual degradation was interpreted by some people—especially with Heathcliff being cast as the hearthrob, Jacob Elordi. 

One of the largest criticisms of Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” is the exclusion of most of the plot. This adaptation focused solely on Cathy and Heathcliff’s story. Right off the bat, I noticed that Hindly Earnshaw, Cathy’s brother, was not included which alters the continuation of hostility toward Heathcliff after Mr. Earnshaw’s death. Instead, Mr. Earnshaw just lives longer. The entire second half of the book focuses on the generations after Cathy and Heathcliff and how their story casts a generational curse. In the film, neither Cathy nor Isabella have children, which cuts off the possibility of that story line to be explored. From a film perspective, I do understand the necessary cuts needed to make visual art, but from a writer’s perspective, I don’t enjoy the idea of the second half of a piece of work being excluded. The artistic and creative interpretation makes up for this fact which is why I am not angry with the decision. It also has been made very clear that the title is in quotation marks and it is not an exact copy, but a mere adaptation. Now, take that with a grain of salt because a better title such as “Wuthering Heights: Catherine and Heathcliff’s Story,” would have effectively made this distinction even clearer.  

The other largest debate, one whirling around since the preview came out, is the race of Heathcliff and it being played by Jacob Elordi, a white man from Australia. I have debated diving into the racial commentary at all because I do always wish to see diversity in media—especially in this age—and I do not want my point to be misconstrued. The only thing I will question is: do you really think that a young, privileged woman in the 1800s had racial discrimination at the forefront of her mind? I think that classism was much more of a prevalent discussion in this era which was the primary focus of Emerald Fennell’s adaptation regarding differences. Clearly, we cannot go back in time to ask Bronte what her intent with this character’s race was, but the reason many people claim Heathcliff to be a person of color is because the description of him as dark-skinned, black hair, and dark like the devil. These three descriptions lumped together seems to describe a black man, but I can’t help but think that if this was Bronte’s intent that there would be many more instances due to her already descriptive language. The entire novel has a recurring theme of light/dark, white/black, and heaven/hell, so the extremities of Heathcliff’s characteristics could also be a continuation of that extended metaphor. This is a tough debate because it would also explain why he is treated so poorly by characters in the novel, but I always interpreted it as classism, protection against Cathy, and agitation that creates the monster that Heathcliff becomes. From Fennell’s perspective, she carefully cast Edgar and Nelly as non-white to immediately show that her intent to have Heathcliff be white was not out of racism, but people still have much to say. An argument to that is that she can cast smaller roles as people of color but not the main actor. Similarly to the switch from violence to a sexual portrayal, the color of Heathcliff’s skin does not change how people interact with him in the film because they still look down on him as if he were dirt and tainting Catherine’s image.  

Other main differences include Nelly becoming the villain of the film as she chooses to hold back from telling Cathy that Heathcliff was listening at the door the night before she accepted Linton’s marriage proposal. I think that this choice gave Nelly more of an involvement as a character because in the novel she is the one narrating the story, so the exclusion of that flattens her character immensely. This adaptation is also majorly sex-ified which I interpreted as interchangeable with violence, but many people are not happy with it as it feels very Hollywood. I would agree except for the fact that there is zero nudity in the entire film, despite how sexual it is. That was a very intentional point which I think aids my interpretation heavily. Overall, this adaptation took the word adaptation to the extreme, but it still kept the integrity of the story which I appreciate as a lover of Wuthering Heights. Honestly, nobody wanted a boring period piece because we already have many versions of those—this was an artistic expression, and it should be treated as so.  

If you read this far you are clearly as passionate about literature and media as me, so please share your thoughts! I have loved the discourse about this film and am so curious to see how it will stand the test of time.

-Emma Claire Ritter