Wuthering Heights reimagining divides readers as Brontë museum staff hail risqué new film
Emerald Fennell’s provocative reinterpretation of Wuthering Heights has split opinion ahead of its wider release. Museum staff in Haworth have publicly embraced a version that amplifies erotic elements and upheaves plotlines from Emily Brontë’s 1847 novel, while many academics and long-standing fans have voiced unease over omitted sections, altered characters and an unflinching sexual tone.
Museum staff praise a fever-dream adaptation
Staff at the Brontë Parsonage Museum in Haworth described the new film in glowing terms after attending early screenings on Thursday (ET) and at the first public showing on Friday morning (ET). Housekeeping, outreach and programming teams used words such as "amazing, " "exciting, " and "fantastic" to characterise a bold, sensory-heavy reworking that some said captured "essential truths" of the Cathy–Heathcliff relationship even while discarding fidelity to the text.
One member of the housekeeping team said the film made her "quite emotional, " while a colleague from digital engagement called it "a fever dream" and singled out costumes, sets and soundtrack as strengths. Visitor experience and programming staff expressed hope the film will prompt viewers to read or re-read the novel rather than replace it, and an outreach worker acknowledged the film is not for purists but applauded the filmmakers' ambition and key performances.
Sex, edits and a wider fidelity debate
The adaptation introduces startling new imagery and scenes not present in the novel: a provocative opening sequence featuring a nun and the vision of a hanged man, explicit sexual encounters staged on the moors, BDSM elements, and other erotic tableaux designed to shock and reframe the story’s emotional core. Filmmakers have also streamlined and reshaped the narrative, omitting the entire second half of the book, conflating characters and resetting key plot points, moves that will make the film a very different experience from the source material.
These creative choices have intensified an ongoing debate about what constitutes a faithful adaptation. Some viewers argue that radical reimagining can illuminate latent themes and modern sensibilities; others fear the changes will mislead newcomers and oversimplify Brontë's dense, multi-voiced novel. Casting choices have added fuel to the discussion: the lead’s portrayal of Heathcliff has been widely praised for its intensity, even as questions circulate about how that casting sits against the novel’s description of the character as "dark-skinned. "
A recent biographer of Emily Brontë, who attended an early screening, said she enjoyed the film and found much of it "a lot of fun, " describing standout performances and an energetic directorial stamp. The director has been explicit that the film is a personal spin rather than an attempt at strict period fidelity; that frankness appears to have tempered some criticism while inflaming others.
What comes next
The polarised reaction is likely to continue as more viewers see the film. Museum staff hope the adaptation will act as a cultural spark, encouraging fresh engagement with the novel and lively public debate. At the same time, educators and literary traditionalists warn that the film’s sensational elements and omitted material could complicate classroom discussions and casual viewers' understanding of Brontë’s complex narrative structure.
Whether embraced as a daring reinvention or decried as an uneven riff on a classic, the film has already achieved what many adaptations strive for: prompting renewed conversation about an enduring work of 19th-century literature.
