The story of a dysfunctional relationship between a gypsy and a country girl which damages not only themselves, but many of those around them.
There are so many debates and themes to explore here that I don't think I can cover them all in my allotted 1,000 words, but let us start with the original book: While saying from the off that it is a fascinating piece of work from a family that managed - somehow - to produced three major literary talents (maybe the most improbable freak occurrence in the history of the arts?) the book will not settle in my mind long enough for me to come to any solid and unmoving conclusions about it, although I would defend overall.
While produced before the age of book editing (what a different - and probably better - book it would be if it had done!) WH is a bit of a shambles of a narrative and is clearly the work a beginner; however talented and imaginative. This was Emily Bronte's first and only novel; and it remains a tragedy that the world was robbed of any further work. Dead in her grave before middle age (dying of phenomena at 30) in total keeping with many of her WH characters.
Director Kosminski has done pretty well with the casting of Binoche and Fiennes as the star crossed lovers, because a lot depends on getting the viewer involved with the "difficult" central characters. While Binoche is French and doesn't even attempt any kind of Yorkshire accent (it is kind of over-enunciated "nowhere" English), she has the double task of playing Cathy and her daughter Catherine with only a change of hair colour for help.
Good support from Janet McTeer as the central and key servant Mrs Dean, but everyone else is a walk-on. The Lynton's - the upper-class neighbors which ruin everything in Heathcliff's eyes - are not really that bad and become even more lightweight here. Spoiled and thoughtless they may be, but they probably don't know any better.
Heathcliff (which is both his first and second name!) is indeed a rum character. A wild eyed gypsy (a presumption as we don't know for sure) with a horrible temper; as well as a violent streak that isn't reserved for men. Yet, paradoxically, can be poetic and soulful when needs be. In truth he is a bit of rough diamond drama queen with dirty hands and face; which seems to change shades (from orange to near normal) on a shot-by-shot basis!
His stepsister Cathy is best described as headstrong and lose-lipped. They are quite unalike and despite closeness in childhood (when the moors were their playground) she is a social climber who wants bigger and better in all things; while he (Heathcliff) is a dour farming type that wants the simple life - in riches as well as in rags. Meant for each other? I don't really think so!
Fiennes with his wild eyes and manic stares does a lot with very little and must be the most intense actor on the block. Binoche is more cool and doesn't really convey the selfish and ruthless streak that springs from the pages of the book. Indeed her scrubbed face and doe eyes are too benign to portray the character as written by Ms Bronte.
(When playing her own daughter she spins, teases and twinkles so presumably was saving her best acting skills for the more difficult part of the show.)
This is really a love triangle with the third element being the Yorkshire countryside. Yorkshire has to be the most varied and amazing place on earth going from industrial swamp (even then!) to landscapes that are both beautiful and amazing. The strange "stripple effect" rocks (used as an extended backdrop to Heathcliff's brooding) is actually the "Old Roman Road" on the Pennine Way.
(Don't try and find it without good footwear, a map and some wet weather gear, it is easy for strangers to get lost up there!)
The director uses all of Yorkshire (many of the scenes are actually the North Yorkshire Dales) rather than the moors around Keighley where the novel is clearly set. Nevertheless a good backdrop to be moody or romantic against; especially when the string section of the (soundtrack) orchestra gets in to overdrive.
I can understand why many don't respond to this film, for a start the pacing might be too leisurely for a world where whole stories can be told in 30 second adverts. Paradoxically I think they should have made two version's - one for TV and one for the screen because I could have lived with seeing the book told in full - if it was broken in to clear episodes. In actual fact it would make more sense in this form, as a BBC series once showed.
Wuthering Heights is far from a great film, but it couldn't be much better because the central novel is also far too limited to be anything more than a time-filler for the non hardcore romantic or English literature student. After all who dares do a strip-to-the-bone and rebuild on a classic?
While Dickens throws in a history lesson of his time while delivering the central story what does WH deliver as a sideline? What message to the masses are contained here? That we can't get what we want in life and that money doesn't buy happiness? That people that can't find happiness in the real world will find it in the afterlife? Not healthy or happy messages are they?
I sadly have to conclude that no film can be truly great when ball-and-chained to these downbeat messages so special credit to the producers and actors for making a couple hours of solid entertainment while being weighed-down by them.
There are so many debates and themes to explore here that I don't think I can cover them all in my allotted 1,000 words, but let us start with the original book: While saying from the off that it is a fascinating piece of work from a family that managed - somehow - to produced three major literary talents (maybe the most improbable freak occurrence in the history of the arts?) the book will not settle in my mind long enough for me to come to any solid and unmoving conclusions about it, although I would defend overall.
While produced before the age of book editing (what a different - and probably better - book it would be if it had done!) WH is a bit of a shambles of a narrative and is clearly the work a beginner; however talented and imaginative. This was Emily Bronte's first and only novel; and it remains a tragedy that the world was robbed of any further work. Dead in her grave before middle age (dying of phenomena at 30) in total keeping with many of her WH characters.
Director Kosminski has done pretty well with the casting of Binoche and Fiennes as the star crossed lovers, because a lot depends on getting the viewer involved with the "difficult" central characters. While Binoche is French and doesn't even attempt any kind of Yorkshire accent (it is kind of over-enunciated "nowhere" English), she has the double task of playing Cathy and her daughter Catherine with only a change of hair colour for help.
Good support from Janet McTeer as the central and key servant Mrs Dean, but everyone else is a walk-on. The Lynton's - the upper-class neighbors which ruin everything in Heathcliff's eyes - are not really that bad and become even more lightweight here. Spoiled and thoughtless they may be, but they probably don't know any better.
Heathcliff (which is both his first and second name!) is indeed a rum character. A wild eyed gypsy (a presumption as we don't know for sure) with a horrible temper; as well as a violent streak that isn't reserved for men. Yet, paradoxically, can be poetic and soulful when needs be. In truth he is a bit of rough diamond drama queen with dirty hands and face; which seems to change shades (from orange to near normal) on a shot-by-shot basis!
His stepsister Cathy is best described as headstrong and lose-lipped. They are quite unalike and despite closeness in childhood (when the moors were their playground) she is a social climber who wants bigger and better in all things; while he (Heathcliff) is a dour farming type that wants the simple life - in riches as well as in rags. Meant for each other? I don't really think so!
Fiennes with his wild eyes and manic stares does a lot with very little and must be the most intense actor on the block. Binoche is more cool and doesn't really convey the selfish and ruthless streak that springs from the pages of the book. Indeed her scrubbed face and doe eyes are too benign to portray the character as written by Ms Bronte.
(When playing her own daughter she spins, teases and twinkles so presumably was saving her best acting skills for the more difficult part of the show.)
This is really a love triangle with the third element being the Yorkshire countryside. Yorkshire has to be the most varied and amazing place on earth going from industrial swamp (even then!) to landscapes that are both beautiful and amazing. The strange "stripple effect" rocks (used as an extended backdrop to Heathcliff's brooding) is actually the "Old Roman Road" on the Pennine Way.
(Don't try and find it without good footwear, a map and some wet weather gear, it is easy for strangers to get lost up there!)
The director uses all of Yorkshire (many of the scenes are actually the North Yorkshire Dales) rather than the moors around Keighley where the novel is clearly set. Nevertheless a good backdrop to be moody or romantic against; especially when the string section of the (soundtrack) orchestra gets in to overdrive.
I can understand why many don't respond to this film, for a start the pacing might be too leisurely for a world where whole stories can be told in 30 second adverts. Paradoxically I think they should have made two version's - one for TV and one for the screen because I could have lived with seeing the book told in full - if it was broken in to clear episodes. In actual fact it would make more sense in this form, as a BBC series once showed.
Wuthering Heights is far from a great film, but it couldn't be much better because the central novel is also far too limited to be anything more than a time-filler for the non hardcore romantic or English literature student. After all who dares do a strip-to-the-bone and rebuild on a classic?
While Dickens throws in a history lesson of his time while delivering the central story what does WH deliver as a sideline? What message to the masses are contained here? That we can't get what we want in life and that money doesn't buy happiness? That people that can't find happiness in the real world will find it in the afterlife? Not healthy or happy messages are they?
I sadly have to conclude that no film can be truly great when ball-and-chained to these downbeat messages so special credit to the producers and actors for making a couple hours of solid entertainment while being weighed-down by them.