Wuthering Heights (2011)

[autumnsoliloquy90]

I didn't have much expectations going for this one, but I have to say it's better than I expected. My biggest beef with the film is the total lack of horror and supernatural in it, which is a shame because Wuthering Heights is perhaps the epitome of classic Bronte gothic horror. That's partly due to the complete lack of soundtrack -- totally unheard of for a period drama book adaptation -- and the gritty realism the director seemed to be going for. That explains the "Blair Witch Project" shakiness of the camera, which seemed to have put off a lot of negative reviewers. It fits the tone of the film, though I'm not too sure if that gritty realism really suits Wuthering Heights. It's a novel about dangerous passions, crazy obsessions and spooky moors. I mean, I liked the realism of it; it does have the authentic feel of what you'd imagine living in Victorian English countryside with farms and dirt and backwardness. So many shots of mundane farm work and lots and lots of dirt. But it's definitely nothing like the novel.

I really liked the scenery though. I should visit these places one day. The moors were beautiful.

The actors were... average at best. Granted, most of them are upcoming or amateur actors. The only one who really stood out was Young Heathcliff, played by the unknown Solomon Dave. Such a beautiful boy and really powerful performance. The older versions of the tragic couple paled in comparison to their younger counterparts though. Kaya Scodelario wasn't too bad, but she was boring. She wasn't Catherine Earnshaw at all. She had that style which I always categorized with Emma Watson's acting without the eyebrows. As for the older Heathcliff... physically I guess he's my favourite of all the other adaptations. I've always felt Heathcliff was black anyway. Or at least of mixed parentage with dark skin. Ergo, not a Caucasian. In the book he was described as "a little Lascar, or an American or Spanish castaway", while Nelly once said to him "Who knows, but your father was Emperor of China and your mother an Indian queen... And you were kidnapped by wicked sailors and brought to England." If that isn't enough of a hint then I dunno what is.

In any case, regardless of what Heathcliff's true heritage is, I do feel it's a good choice to make Heathcliff black. It only emphasized the Earnshaw household's unfriendly welcome towards him when he was first taken into the house by Earnshaw Snr. I mean, this is Victorian England, after all. I mentioned before how this was the era where anything foreign was exoticized or demonized (see Jane Eyre). That still applies to WH, it would seem. I've been thinking about Cathy and Heathcliff for a while now since Soonae and I discussed it recently, and I've come to my own personal conclusion that Cathy's love is probably nothing more than exaggerated exoticization of The Other. That would definitely explain why she chose luxury, convention, comfort and basically the "well-trodden path" when it came to marriage, despite her soul apparently belonging to Heathcliff.

But I digress. My favourite part of the film is definitely the first half concerning their childhood lives. Of course it helps that the better actors are in this part of the film. I know Heathcliff is a really horrible person, lacking the redemption most dashing Byronic heroes in literature had in the end, but I really found myself having a lot of sympathy towards him in this adaptation. Maybe that was the point of the film. I mean, he still had no redeeming quality in this version, but somehow he felt more human. The ironic thing is that he was never treated like a human, so therefore he never acted like one. All his actions were done on impulse, like how an animal would react when threatened, or how it would lash out when it's been hurt. So I guess that's how he seemed like the monster he was in the book (I haven't read it for quite some time now). But I dunno, there was so much violence in this film, towards Heathcliff and by Heathcliff, that somehow it all made sense for him to be that way. Not everyone has the capability to rise above what's the expected human behaviour and take the moral high ground. Not all of us can be Jane Eyre. And I guess that's the difference between the Bronte sisters; Emily didn't bother to put any of her characters on a pedestal, someone for us to emulate. They're all mortally flawed; so fucked up it hurts.

The cinematography was great, I thought. I really liked the recurring effect of Heathcliff forever looking in from the outside; through windows, from afar, through a sliver of light of a slightly ajar door. Really reinforces that feeling of alienation we get from Young Heathcliff. Basically, they did a good job with the portrayal of his horrible childhood.

Stark contrast to the godawful injustice that is the second half of the film. Heathcliff was just so...morose. I mean, yes, as per book, the actions he did were shocking and appalling. He was manipulative, vengeful, insane, violent in his actions all right. But that vindictive rage, that hatred towards the universe you'd expect emanating from someone whose life is so shitty like his was just not there. The violence wasn't gory; in fact it was deliberate and had a purpose, to show Heathcliff's descent into madness and fall to the Dark Side as well as its consequent effects on the people around him. (I shuddered when I saw that Hindley's son had been taking pointers from Heathcliff on hanging dogs by the neck on trees.) It wasn't that horrible really, but somehow it lacked something. Passion, maybe? I mean, passion IS Wuthering Heights. Any adaptation would just feel odd without that.

And without the Gothicism too. They'd kept the necrophilia scene alright, but I thought it was more wild and cray-cray in the novel? Like with raging storms overhead, in the dead of the night, digging up the grave and all? There was some attempt at portraying the dangerous obsession, but it just fell short somewhere. I dunno I guess the lack of music and the whole realistic feel just aren't favourable to a Gothic atmosphere.

It's definitely a different sort of WH adaptation, I have to say, it's perhaps even an avant garde sort of film considering it's totally not the kind of period drama you'd expect it to be. Seems like 2011 was the year when people thought, hey, let's add another adaptation to the Bronte sisters' novels but maybe try and make it shockingly different. By that virtue alone, they make unique adaptations but that doesn't necessarily mean they haven't missed the mark. No wonder people are calling bluff on this version, calling it "a film masquerading as an Bronte adaptation". A pity too, since it really had a lot of potential.

Comments

[yanneng.livejournal.com]

It's Solomon Glave! I don't think I'll watch it then! It looks sad and serious.