worst adaptation ever:bad script, acting, and ending, cinematography ok
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Wuthering Heights
hansel714 — 18 years ago(January 10, 2008 10:21 PM)
Before I get flame, you may want to listen to some of the reasons I have:
- The message of the book is completely lost in the movie. The movie focuses on money and vanity of Cathy, which isn't in the book at all. In the book, Cathy isn't obsessed about having money, but keeping up with appearances. She certainly didn't ask Heathcliff to run away and get rich. She wanted to use Linton's money to help Heathcliff.
- Nelly in the book tells lies; she's over all not a good person. Joseph's Christianity is made fun off, not revered; Cathy, Heathcliff, Lintons are basically horrible people in the novel. But here, everyone, maybe except for Heathcliff, is goody-two-shoes. Lockwood is supposed to be quite young in the novel. Everyone being so good in the movie just takes the edge off the story.
All the moral righteousness of Cathy after she marries is very revolting. - Cinematography is ok. Not one of the best cinematography in black-and-white as in one of the threads said. I can easily name 10 better ones.
- Oberon and Oliver's acting is horrible. Oberon looks so alive when she's dying. So much energy gone into acting a dying woman. Come on. And when Oliver carries her to the window, there is a slight moment when Oberon was out of character. She looked at Oliver at the corner of her eye, waiting for him to respond.
And Oliver is so miscast for this. Heathcliff is supposed to be a brute, a Byronic figure without the nicety of civilization. Heathcliff, as his name suggests, is supposed to be bestial and wild. But Oliver is as tame as a church mouse. Come on, Hugh Jackman would have done a better job. - And what is the ending about? The novel says that Heathcliff dies of anorexia, of slowly wasting away. It's very, very different from dying of hypothermia. Anorexia, to Emily Bronte, is a hint to read her novel.
And the doctor coming in to announce the ghosts on the moor kills the ambiguity of the novel's ending. Bronte's novel clearly makes it so that it may be people's imagination, imagination and reality being huge themes in her book.
-
rondine — 18 years ago(January 10, 2008 10:46 PM)
2 things:
- that's your opinion about the cinematography- Gregg Toland by those who know movies is HIGHLY regarded as one of the best. I already listed my reasons why I love it but that's just my opinion.
- This isn't the book. While that seems obvious, movie goers all too often seem to think that they can compress a book into 1.5-2 hrs of a movie. I too have read the book & realize that are vast differences- 99.8% of the time we book/movie lovers have to relegate ourselves to bad adaptations (one exception that springs to mind is "To Kill A Mockingbird" done by Horton Foote.) Just the way things are. I like the movie in its own right for what it is- which is not a book.
-
hansel714 — 18 years ago(January 11, 2008 11:40 AM)
- I'm not saying that Gregg Toland isn't good but this isn't his best work. His Grapes of Wrath, Citizen Kane, Ball of Fire, and Best Years of Our Lives are so much better than Wuthering Heights. To call Wuthering Heights the BEST cinematography EVER is such a hyperbole.
- Of course we should make allowances for artistic license in adaptations. I think the Grape of Wrath, Gone with the Wind, and even Oliver! are good adaptations even though they, especially Oliver!, change the storyline quite a bit. But Nelly is a liar, Heathcliff is a brute, Lockwood is young you simply cannot change the basis of the novel. There are two levels: (1) the core, and (2) the superficial. The core is the basis, basic facts in the novel. The superficial is the plot to make it fit into a 2-hour film. You can change the superficialI don't mind they took out the 2nd generationbut to change the characters' natures, I object.
-
rondine — 18 years ago(January 11, 2008 02:12 PM)
I think this is the best LOOKING film of his. I have seen all of those and there's no doubt that Citizen Kane ranks amongst his best, it is just my opinion (hyperbole aside) that this is the best looking of all his films. Perhaps I just like the way he lighted the faces, but more so than any other film of his, I like the luminous quality he acheived in this movie.
I would say the same of Jack Cardiff in "Black Narcissus" is a wonderful example of color cinematography - imho (key words)
-
gayspiritwarrior — 16 years ago(May 04, 2009 11:48 PM)
To call Wuthering Heights the BEST cinematography EVER is such a hyperbole.<<
Calling it the "worst adaptation ever" is hyperbolic too.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."Oscar Wilde -
schwapj — 13 years ago(November 27, 2012 07:36 PM)
I'm bumping this thread to repeat something you said eloquently: To change the characters' nature, I object.
That is the downfall of every character piece ever adapted into a disappointing movie (that and casting Charlton Heston where good acting is required). Why filmmakers don't get it, I'll never understand. -
loughhyne — 18 years ago(January 12, 2008 10:07 PM)
Wuthering Heights is my favorite book of all time. I think that it is one of the most original works of fiction in Western literature and I will whole- heartedly agree that the 1939 version of Wuthering Heights cannot compare. That said, I love the movie too. (The most glaring ommission is obviously that of Hareton, Cathy, and Linton, thats practically the other half of the book and changes the whole tenor upon which it ends)
But really.. I didn't think that Cathy was overly concerned with money in movie, I definitly get the impression that she is in love with genteel life at the Grange, something so foreign to the comparative courseness of life at Wuthering Heightsthe wild and the tame are the parts of her nature which she wrestles with(wild, roaming the moors is what really is, hosting parties in fancy house, what she wishes she was.i think the movie conveyed this)
As far as Joseph and Nelly are concerned, this wasn't a miniseries, they are necessarily relegated to secondary characters and their natures are not explored. Nelly is really just a narrator, but that didn't bother me, its a fine vehicle for a movie.
As far as oberon and olivier goI have no qualms with their acting. You just have to remember that even in the late thirities the motion picture industry was still perfecting the craft. Olivier had been a stage actor, and yes the music, dialogue and love scenes were rather over-wrought but I just embrace that as a part of watching an "old movie". Heathcliff is supposed to be a tortured Byronic figure, (much like Rochester)but that's difficult and confusing to convey in a short movie ( again, could've been accomplished in a miniseries)I agree that Olivier was certainly a "tame" Heathcliff.but I think it makes for a better, more enduring movie character
Overall, Wuthering Heights is book that could never be properly captured on film, no matter the era, I will always enjoy the book for what it is, and enjoy the movie as something separate with understandable limitations -
rondine — 18 years ago(January 13, 2008 10:04 PM)
well said, loughhyne!
I agree about Cathy, she is another Manon Lescaut- loves the good life, but loves her man too. After all, life at Wuthering Heights after the death of her father just declined can you blame her for wanting a better life? Hell, I'd get depressed living there too.
That said, her love for Heathcliff & her "wild, gypsy" side was just as much a part of her.
I agree that this book will never be captured on film, but like you, I enjoy both. -
marybon — 18 years ago(January 23, 2008 06:25 AM)
I agree. Having watched five versions of Wuthering Heights, I would say that this is the worst adaptation. As a love story in itself it's very good but as a version of the book, it is awful.
Half the novel missing; Joseph too pleasant; Heathcliff too handsome; Edgar and Isabella dark-haired; wrong century; Emily's name with the wrong accentI could go on for days. -
silcock-2 — 17 years ago(August 08, 2008 05:27 AM)
Amen, OP, amen. It does rape the orginal novel. But i understand why though. It was 1939 and there would certain aspects of the novel that people would not have taken well to on screen. Even as it is, the film was nearly not showned in Quebec. Strange though, considering they were all willing to read it.