On W List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Wuthering Heights (1939)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
6/15
6/15:
Wuthering Heights?
Ha! If they say so. The viewers are going to be divided into two camps: those who have read the book and those who haven't.
Unfortunately, I belong in the first.
Although Wuthering Heights's place among the literary classics is deserving, I didn't like the book because it had
no likeable characters. Most critics called it a "love story" when "hate story" should be the more appropriate label.
Watching the 1939 film version, I'll say it captures roughly 5% of the book while the rest is made up. In fact, it
might be the worst cinematic adaptation of a classic novel I've ever seen. So, what's the point of calling it
Wuthering Heights? They should've given it a different title in order to not mislead the viewers. Maybe this explains why
the movie wasn't such a box-office draw when it was first came out and had to be re-released at a later date.
I have a mixed opinion of Laurence Olivier; there are times he can act, but there are times he really belongs in the
theater. In Wuthering Heights, he fails miserably in capturing who and what Heathcliff is all about. Instead, Laurence
Olivier gives a sensitive, passionless portrayal that's totally unlike Heathcliff. That's why I wanted to yell at him:
"You missed the point!" The real guy would've made Olivier's life miserable for such a laughable imitation.
That...I can guarantee.
On other hand, Laurence Olivier's co-star Merle Oberson is no Catherine. She lets her wide-open eyes do the acting and is
never into her character. It's possible Merle never read the book during her preparation of the role. On deathbed,
she hasn't looked so healthy and alive.
As for the rest of everybody else, there's no point in beating them up for their lack of thespic abilities. Even David Niven
does a great job of never blending in, looking every bit the star of a daytime TV soap opera show. There's no passion, depth,
or understanding to any of their characters. They're merely given a script and asked to follow along with the production.
Like I said before, the movie only captures a smattering of Emily Brontë's story. It also ends at halfway through the book,
leaving a lot on the table with many characters and their relationships thrown out of the window. Thus, I can forget about
comparing and contrasting these two.
But I'll like to point out something else that's significant. As noted, Gregg Toland won the Oscar for the black-and-white
cinematography which is highly amusing due to the fake background scenery. What he failed to capture is the raw power and
beauty that are hidden in the moors. It's because the movie was never shot on location in England but Thousand Oaks, California,
along with the imported heathers. Also, there's no sense of isolation among the characters which was essentially the core theme
of the book.
All in all, they should've taken the risk to film Wuthering Heights by the way it was portrayed in the book.