Wuthering Heights (2011)

OK I'll start off with what I definitely found disturbing about this film and did not like. As others have mentioned there is some worrying animal cruelty in this film - no I don't mean the trapped hare or the killing of rabbits - I can easily stomach this. What did worry me is the hanging of the small dogs from fence posts by their collars which clearly left the dogs in a distressed state - I can't believe this was generated by special effects so can only assume that some dogs were left dangling in this way for the purpose of producing this film - not acceptable in my book.

That aside I actually enjoyed this film and would have given it 8 out 10 had it not been for the unnecessary cruelty. I have yet to see 'Red Road' so this was my first experience of an Andrea Arnold film. What struck me is how little dialogue there was - instead we are treated to the Yorkshire moors in all their bleakness. I think this has been done to great effect - the wind noise as the camera is bouncing along the moorland is surprisingly effective at immersing the viewer in the wild Yorkshire landscape.

The first half of the film - where Heathcliff and Cathy are still children, has some very powerful moments. Unfortunately I found the grown up versions less convincing, although it is my opinion that Arnold deliberately chose actors that did look somewhat different to their younger versions; there are many flashbacks in the second half of the film and these are made more prominent by featuring the different actors.

Other reviewers have pointed out how dark this film is and that there are no likable characters. Well surprise surprise it's an incredibly bleak book and it's a relief that this has been retained here. What is unfortunate is that the whole of the second part of the book featuring Cathy's daughter Catherine has been completely omitted, but at the slow pace of this film it would have required at least another 2 hours to cover this. Also I might suggest that Isabella was actually quite likable!

Would I recommend anyone to see this? Not to an animal lover for sure - it's unfortunate that these scenes are included and I'm slightly surprised that this is permitted in filming. But for the wonderful experience of being immersed in the wildness of the moors, definitely.

Fmovies: This is nothing more than Andrea Arnold's feeble attempt at mimicking Terrence Malick, and she does it oh so badly. Surreal long shots of moths and feathers are fine if they're done well, but if they're just peppered in, in lieu of actual explanation or development, it cheapens the entire experience of watching this admittedly already terrible piece of artwork.

This film was not remotely true to the novel, and to even entitle it "Wuthering Heights" is such a bastardization that one wonders if the director even read the book. (Notably, the film ends at the midpoint of the book... and takes upwards of two, agonizing, poorly-directed hours to get there).

Also. Gypsies aren't black. Worst casting imaginable.

Bronte is rolling in her grave.

Andrea Arnold's take on a well-known tale falls flat for a number of reasons. Her hand-held camera, non-linear montage, and bouts of frenzied physicality arguably complement her two tales of modern ennui and angst, Red Road and Fish Tank. However, they seem incongruous matched against a classic from the literary canon. The audience coming along expecting to see a period piece are getting a surprise, and unfortunately it is not a pleasant one. They were the ones walking out at the screening I went to. The writing was on the wall when their heart sank as the curtains whirred into place and settled on a 4:3 aspect ratio. That was a bizarre decision - these moors, this landscape, demand widescreen.

The decision to spend most of the film with the early years of Heathcliff and Cathy also seems ill-conceived, as the two youngsters frolic in the mud for an eternity without the story moving forward very much. They are earthy people of and from the land, the film screams, like the interminable procession of animals we see depicted. We get that in the first ten minutes - the rest of the time we are just going over established territory.

The return of the now successful Heathcliff in the latter half of the film means the grown up cast having the same effect as substitutes in a football game - imbibing the audience/spectators with a glimmer of hope. Alas, it is not to be, as the actor playing Heathcliff is wooden beyond belief, pipping the actor playing Edgar for the prize. The actresses around them can act, but it is a poor return on the ticket price. The film overtly attempts to appeal on visual grounds and as a result dialogue appears to have been an after-thought, as most lines are flat and predictable. The racial epithets are not shocking; they seem more a cynical ploy to garner publicity.

TV frame, incongruous mise-en-scene, poor casting and dodgy racial politics - any one of these could sink a film, but all four together is a very tough sell. The biggest sin, however, is to take Wuthering Heights and imbue it with absolutely no passion at all. The moors look suitably wild, and there is a strong sense of mud, but beyond that there are few positives to take from this film.

Wuthering Heights fmovies. Saw this at the Venice film festival last week. It had quite a few walk outs near the beginning (probably the strong Yorkshire accents with lots of background noise made it unintelligible for non native English speakers) and they were the lucky ones as it certainly did not improve over the following 2 hours.

The director's main aim seemed to be to try and shock audiences who thought they were coming to an Emma Thompson type costume drama by making the film as morose as possible and throwing in lots of swearing, violence and a bit of necrophilia. Unfortunately the only shocking thing was that they had managed to make such a bad film out of a classic novel.

There were numerous petty things which annoyed me about this film, e.g. the use of pathetic fallacy with the weather is way over the top (the Earnshaws live under a constant biblical downpour whereas there rich neighbours in the next door valley have a climate from a fruit juice advert); the cameraman either had Parkinson's or had been previously employed in one of those American police series where reality is represented by a constantly jerky camera; the actors playing the adult Cathy and Heathcliff look nothing like their younger selves - Heathcliff even appears to have changed race!; would a 19th century strict Christian father be happy with someone sleeping with his teenage daughter in the house?; would a 19th century Heathcliff be able to swan around Edgar house willy nilly? I could go on.

Most importantly I think the director fails completely in making us feel any sympathy for her characters. Heathcliff has a hard time of it in his youth but has no redeeming features. It's not helped by the fact that the actor playing the adult Heathcliff is atrociously bad at his job.

I have no problem with making Wuthering Heights dark and brooding but make it a bit less daft.

This is a film about domestic violence, racism, cycles of abuse. It contains many scenes involving the infliction of pain. This is quite apart from the love story. So why did it leave my partner and I so unemotionally affected, apart from the rush of relief at leaving the cinema?

Wuthering Heights started well for me; I thought I was going to enjoy the experience of wild moorland, naturalism, authentic dirt, etc. Unfortunately, too little attention seemed to be paid to the quality of some of the cast's acting (some of which was, frankly, embarrassing) and after the nth roll on the wet moorland grass I began to lose patience with the lack of attention to the narrative detail.

Yes, the moors looked fantastic. Yes, we got that life was grim.

But the affectation of the hand-held camera is a metaphor for the film as a whole. It wobbles about and makes you feel a bit nauseous. And then it does it over and over again and again until you want to beg for mercy.

This adaptation is a valiant effort to depict the 'dark' side of WH. The dark side that anybody who has read it knows about. For this reason, the film was void of purpose. Shrouded in real animal slaughter (true), over sexualisation of the innocence of C&H's youths, and necrophilia, this film quickly became nothing more than that shocking viral video your friend enjoyed too much ages ago.

If the book had never been written, this could be acceptable. Sadly, the book is a tad bit of a classic. If you have not read WH, please do not watch this film. While trying to display a deeper WH, an already difficult task, the film has become a shallow and ultimately senseless waste of a couple of hours. The plot is bastardised, the characters make no sense, and the 'artistic' approach to film always winds me up anyway.

Watch the black and white Hollywood version. They new how to follow a plot.