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.
After 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
producing 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 the cast, 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 in 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, Hollywood should've taken the risk to film Wuthering Heights by how it was portrayed in the book.