This movie and story is laughable
-
AliciaHuberman59 — 18 years ago(December 26, 2007 12:10 PM)
I think the film is a good example, if not one of the best, of the Gothic romance. I've always found it hard to find Cathy's character sympatheticshe was a vain, shallow fool who threw away true love for a bunch of peacocks strutting around in the yard!
-
KMoran55 — 18 years ago(January 07, 2008 09:28 PM)
I believe you all are forgetting the social conventions of the time. Although, from time to time, women followed their hearts and married as they chose, the economic realities of those times were very harsh. Women were essentially treated as chatteltransferred from father to husband as part of a business deal. If the woman was lucky, she and her husband did come to love one another, if not, well that's why books like Wuthering Heights and Anna Karenina were written. The story is intended to show how many lives were destroyed by these conventions. (BTW, that which you call overacting, I think of as passion.) In the book, it even shows how the destruction carries on to the next generation. I've always considered it an indictment of the social conventions of the 1700s and 1800s.
But, to each his (or her) own. -
jacowium — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 09:57 PM)
Six years since your post, but I'd still like to reply
just to say thank you, thank you, thank you! I find it so frustrating how latter-day readers and movie lovers forget that the original stories were written in another era altogether, and social conventions were markedly different from today. Judging characters' actions using modern values is just off, and will lead to a very murky understanding of the novel (or movie).
It is indeed true that in the early 19th century, a wife's fate was largely dependent on the wealth (not necessarily status) of her husband. Status didn't necessarily mean wealth. Anyway, if one has learnt a bit about the historical conventions of the era, then Cathy is indeed not (necessarily) a shallow person, but is only doing what almost every other young woman in her situation would have done. Women did not receive the same level of education, and had very few (if any) prospects of generating their own income and taking care of their own lives. Spinsters had it tough. It was therefore impossible for young women like Cathy to ignore those realities of her life. All of this do not excuse her actions, but rather explains it.
But as you said, from our perspective today, the circumstances portrayed in the Bront sisters' books, Jane Austen, Henry James, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, etcetera, indict the conventions of their eras.
Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks. -
rondine — 18 years ago(January 10, 2008 09:18 PM)
I agree that you are totally arrogant- to think that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong, is terribly self-centered.
Is it possible that you are right and so are we? that is allowing for different tastes and different opinions? After all, if every movie was as you say, with only likeable, perfect characters, what a dull world it would be. Part of this movie's appeal is that some people understand what it is to have unfulfilled love and to suffer because of it. Not all stories in real life are happy endings either.
Besides, there's great acting, the cinematography is to die for and the music is wonderful! imho. -
rondine — 18 years ago(January 11, 2008 08:44 PM)
you kidding is hilarious "I kid."
but yes, to each his own and thanks to whatever gods may be that we DO have different movies. I actually work in a place where the only good movie is sex, shooting and violence. I am usually sitting over there watching "Judgement at Nuremberg," or "Auntie Mame" or something like that. You know, STORIES, dialog, stuff that's stimulating for the mind.
Laughable is harsh- maybe you were trying to push some buttons??
-
ContinentalOp — 13 years ago(December 15, 2012 10:22 AM)
''But I do enjoy watching these films,just to get a vibe on what the general public was into back then, I wonder if people will watch films that we have made #1 in the present day and wonder what were we thinking.''
I would respect your opinion if you didn't always bring up modern films. Most modern films are tripe because the film industry has become mediocre and completely artless. The fact that 'Twilight: Whatever It Is Called' is at No. 1 shows how bad the modern film industry is.
Attacking films like 'Rebecca' (which is a great film by a good but overrated director to be fair) whilst talking as if our default setting is to love modern films makes you just seem ignorant. I'd take teh flawed 30s version of 'Wuthering Heights' over trash like 'Transformers' or any action-packed, explosive blockbusters any day of the week.
Upon reading the thread, I see that you like at least one great film 'Fargo'. However, the early 90s is now a long time ago when it comes to filmmaking, and I'd say that film quality, style and themes of that era were still closer to the 1970s (the golden age of film) than they are to the films of today. The 90s was the last really good era for films, though you do have some good films made today, in small numbers.
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget. -
YupPirateLove — 17 years ago(April 24, 2008 03:33 PM)
It's a movie. Who said it had to be realistic?
Movies, to me, are supposed to pull you away from real-life; make you forget about your own problems, maybe restore some faith, or just for plain entertainment. -
alanlit96 — 17 years ago(May 13, 2008 01:48 PM)
I am a fairly significant movie-buff who, for some reason, had just never gotten around to seeing this film. Finally saw it last night. I can understand why some people say they love it (although I'm sure there is some PC effect there for some of you) and can also understand why the original poster of this thread found it ridiculous and laughable.
I think the greatest problem with the movie was its relative brevity. The main characters were highly flawed individuals (frankly, all of them were), a fact that does not mean that the movie is necessarily good or badmany great films have been made with no likable characters. But we are clearly also supposed to believe that they are complex, and that their actions and emotions are worthy of understanding/empathy or that we will at least care about them. I don't think the movie earns this. Heathcliff goes from shunned foundling to Cathy's inseparable chum in about 1 minute of screen time. If Wyler had expanded upon this to show why and how that change came about, it would have deepened our interest in their relationship and our stake in their happiness. Then, two minutes later in the film, Hindley has taken over Wuthering Heights and has completely subjugated Heathcliff and Cathy. We are shown only quick glimpses of this, when more detail would have again provided more depth to both the narrative and the characters. Cathy shifts her (stated) approach to Heathcliff with such frequency that it defies understanding. If all this is supposed to represent is her being a free spirit and somewhat unfocused, that would be fine, but you sense that the film wants to have it both ways: to allow this conduct for its effect, but to have the audience admire and care about Cathy much more than this sort of character would warrant.
The bottom line is that, to me, this is three-star movie instead of a true classic. It is saved by the atmosphere, cinematography, some good dialogue and some of the acting (I frankly think Oberon was below average and Olivier slightly disappointing as well). Put this up against Rebecca or Casablanca and it's not even a fair comparison. There are also at least a half-dozen, maybe a full dozen, Wyler films that are better (everything from The Letter to Ben Hur, maybe even The Collector). -
petelato — 17 years ago(May 13, 2008 02:13 PM)
I am original poster, and thank you for expounding on my comments, you helped to properly spell out what I was trying to say. I agree 100% with you.
I actually like the Kate Bush song Wuthering Heights more than this movie, you should check it out if you never heard it.
Peace and Love to all. -
jblunt — 17 years ago(May 31, 2008 06:19 AM)
petelato said:
"I actually like the Kate Bush song Wuthering Heights more than this movie, you should check it out if you never heard it."
I prefer Pat Benatar's hauntingly beautiful 1980 cover of "Wuthering Heights". As one online comment noted, Benatar's version "captures the spirit of [Bronte's] story". Bush recorded the song twice: in 1978 and in 1986. I think the 1986 version is a vast improvement that seems to indicate that Bush heard and liked Benatar's rendition. I love Kate Bush, but her original version of "Wuthering Heights" sounds as if it were recorded by Alvin and the Chipmunks.
Beauty may be only skin deep, but arrogance and stupidity go down to the bone. -
petelato — 17 years ago(June 01, 2008 08:24 PM)
Hey jblunt, thanks for the heads up on Benatar. I checked it out and actually do like her voice better than Kate's, however I felt the piano was a hauntingly beautiful addition in Bush's version.
If only there could be a version with both Pat's vocals and Kate's piano.
Not sure what version of Bush's I have but I am fond of it, but Pat's is right up there with it.
Thanks again for the recommendation.
Pete -
aviane — 16 years ago(February 07, 2010 01:20 PM)
Heathcliff goes from shunned foundling to Cathy's inseparable chum in about 1 minute of screen time. If Wyler had expanded upon this to show why and how that change came about, it would have deepened our interest in their relationship and our stake in their happiness. Then, two minutes later in the film, Hindley has taken over Wuthering Heights and has completely subjugated Heathcliff and Cathy.
Maybe the problem then was that two hours was not enough time to tell this story. They were probably trying to accomplish the impossible in 2 hours. This story was better of as a tv miniseries than a full fledged film because there are way too many subtleties to the characters that the need for action in hollywood film would allow. The book is very slow and deliberate, so the requirements of classical hollywood would probably not allow for a slower paced, longer development of story and plot. -
g_dekok — 17 years ago(May 29, 2008 11:42 AM)
fr petelato:
Finally, after years hearing about the classic Wuthering Heights I got to see this movie. It is ridiculous. What a contrived story.<
So why did you watch it? Why not change the channel to WWF Smackdown? -
petelato — 17 years ago(September 17, 2008 12:52 PM)
You are one angry dude!
I see by your history you enjoy jumping around defending what you deem as a good movie and insulting the poster. Can't someone have a different opinion than you, or are we in Nazi germany?
And you love to tell people to go watch something called WWF, I guess it a wrestling thing. Just by the mere fact you are aware of it tells me you probably watch it yourself.
As you say, if you don't like my comments, then why read them?
I didn't know I wouldn't like this silly, stupid movie till I saw it Einstein, how else do you find out what you like/dislike.
Let people be themselves.