“Wuthering Heights”: The Danger of the Book-to-Movie Adaptation
Creativity can change reputations, for better, or for worse.
by Georgia Seward ★ MARCH 5th, 2026
Design by: Maisy Wood
This past Valentine's Day, Emerald Fennell’s newest movie, “Wuthering Heights,” made its debut in theaters. It is one of many adaptations of the 1847 novel of the same name by Emily Brontë, following the toxic relationship between Catherine Earnshaw and her adoptive brother, Heathcliff. So why is this anticipated release getting more pushback than most?
The film is visually stunning, the cast is stacked, and despite box office success and initial praise, the media surrounding the film has been lackluster. Fans of the book have been vocal about their opinions. Critics and netizens said they left the theater feeling unsatisfied and are missing some context. The truth is they’re right.
The Missing Piece
Book-to-movie adaptations have always been popular, made mostly for those who have never interacted with the original story or those who wish to see their favorite book or novel in a new, exciting way. Those walking into the theater always expect changes; it’s hard not to when fitting a 300-page book into a two-hour runtime. However, some changes can be deemed too far, and this label has fallen upon “Wuthering Heights.”
Fennell has excused her changes to the public, stating in interviews that this is her “interpretation” of the film and is not a direct adaptation. Even going as far as to put the title into quotation marks to make it known to the average viewer. Fannell admits in an interview with Fandango, “The thing for me is that you can’t adapt a book as dense and complicated and difficult as this book. I can’t say I’m making Wuthering Heights. It’s not possible. What I can say is I’m making a version of it.”
Some of the best versions of classic media are completely different interpretations of the film. Clueless is an adaptation of Jane Austen’s Emma; 10 Things I Hate About You is Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. The difference between these adaptations and “Wuthering Heights” is that they understood the story to its deepest soul, its themes and messaging, and Fennell did not.
Why Are There So Many Upset?
Fennell’s artistic changes to the story inherently change what Wuthering Heights is about. One of the most drastic changes was that of Healthcliff. In the novel, Heathcliff is described as “dark-skinned” or of Romani descent, a trait Fennell decided to change in favor of Australian actor, Jacob Elordi. Book fans went online to vent their frustration, arguing that the changing of Heathcliff takes away the discussion of how race and racism influence class that Brontë was trying to create.
When taking that away, the context of why Catherine and Heathcliff can’t be together is gone. The reason why Heathcliff is constantly mistreated is gone. The deeper themes and ideas Brontë was attempting to express are no longer there. So the question becomes, is this even a version of Wuthering Heights or an original story with the same name?
Fennell’s Creative Legacy
When something comes to adaptation, or what Fennell calls interpretation, it’s important to remember that the source work is popular for a reason. Wuthering Heights is a beloved piece of work that has stayed relevant for nearly 200 years. Fennell clearly has talent when delving into more sensitive topics of obsession, revenge and class, like in her previous films, Promising Young Woman and Saltburn. So, for many, seeing her version of Wuthering Heights fall flat is disappointing.
Creativity, finding new and interesting ways to evolve old stories, should always be welcomed and celebrated. However, the danger of adaptations is trying to find the middle ground between creative liberty and creating something completely new. Unfortunately, for many, “Wuthering Heights” left many audiences with distaste rather than praise.
Edited by: Bree Lauder-Williams