Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights provokes heat and praise from Brontë museum staff
Emerald Fennell’s new film version of Wuthering Heights has reignited fresh debate over how Emily Brontë’s classic should be handled on screen. The adaptation’s explicit sex scenes, tonal overhaul and substantial plot pruning have unsettled some admirers and academics — yet staff at the Brontë Parsonage Museum have offered an unusually robust defence, calling the film thrilling, emotional and likely to send viewers back to the book.
Museum staff hail a bold, feverish reinvention
At a preview screening in Keighley, museum employees responded warmly to Fennell’s interpretation. "I loved it, " said one member of the housekeeping team. Another colleague described the film as feeling "like a fever dream, " praising its costumes, sets and soundtrack as an immersive escape. A visitor experience coordinator argued the movie captures "some essential truths" in the Cathy–Heathcliff relationship, even as it departs from the novel’s specifics.
Staff made clear they were not involved in the film’s production, but they emphasised the value of a creative reworking. "Is it faithful? No, " said an outreach officer. "Is it for purists? No. Is it an entertaining riff on the novel? Yes!" Several employees expressed hope that the striking new version will intrigue audiences and prompt them to read the 1847 novel for themselves.
The museum’s director noted that the filmmaker had engaged with local Brontë-related events earlier in the year to discuss her personal response to the book. That connection, staff said, may help explain why opinions among museum personnel skewed positively despite acknowledging the film’s many departures from the source text.
How the film reworks the novel — and why some object
Fennell’s adaptation is emphatic in its choice to lean into eroticism and shock. The film opens with a provocative sequence involving a nun and a hanged man; further scenes introduce BDSM elements, masturbation on the moors, and recurring erotic imagery including beds staged with eggs. The movie places extended emphasis on physical passion, with rain-soaked lovemaking presented repeatedly.
Beyond sexual content, structural changes have proved controversial. Several characters are omitted or merged, key plot details are altered, and the entire second half of the novel is reportedly left out. That tightening and refocusing of Brontë’s layered narrative has prompted concern among some literary commentators who worry viewers might mistake this version for a faithful screen translation.
Casting choices have also sparked conversation. The lead performance drew praise from museum staff, who said the actor brought force and authenticity to the role and "nailed the accent, " even as debates continue about the novel’s original description of the protagonist’s appearance. One recent biographer of Emily Brontë attended a public screening and described the film as enjoyable, praising the performances and noting the work’s energy and dark humour alongside its intensity and tragedy.
Where the debate may lead
Fennell has made clear this is her personal spin on the story rather than an attempt at strict fidelity. That creative license has split responses: for some viewers the film is a daring, contemporary interrogation of Brontë’s themes; for others it is an irreverent pastiche that sacrifices narrative complexity for spectacle.
What is less disputed is the film’s power to provoke conversation. Museum staff hope the intense reaction will translate into renewed interest in the novel itself. Whether the adaptation stands as a bold new entry in the long history of screen versions or as a polarising curiosity, it has already reawakened public debate about how classics can be reimagined for modern audiences.
