Brontë museum staff hail racy Wuthering Heights film as a bold, divisive reimagining
Staff at the Brontë Parsonage Museum in Haworth have offered an enthusiastic defence of Emerald Fennell’s highly sexualised, radical reworking of Wuthering Heights, calling it “amazing”, “exciting” and “fantastic” even as academics and some readers warn the version departs dramatically from the 1847 novel.
Museum workers embrace a fever-dream take on the classic
Employees who watched the film at a preview screening in Keighley described a visceral, modern response to the story. Housekeeping staffer Zoe said she was moved by the adaptation, while colleagues praised its costumes, sets and soundtrack as elements that create a vivid, transportive experience. One member of the digital engagement team likened the film to a "fever dream, " and a visitor experience coordinator suggested it captures certain truths about the tortured relationship at the heart of the novel.
Several museum staff emphasised that, for them, the film functions as an autonomous artistic statement rather than a literal translation of the book. "Is it faithful? No, " an outreach officer conceded, but added that it is "an entertaining riff on the novel, " and that it could attract new readers to Emily Brontë’s work. Staff also praised the casting of Jacob Elordi in the role of Heathcliff, saying his performance and accent work for this particular vision of the character.
Bold sexual content and major narrative changes spark debate
The film reimagines significant episodes from the novel with a pronounced focus on sex and physicality. Viewers have encountered startling, explicit imagery and newly invented scenes: sexual dynamics that venture into BDSM territory, on-the-moors masturbation, eroticised set pieces involving eggs in beds, and repeated rain-soaked encounters. The adaptation opens with an attention-grabbing, controversial tableau that sets the tone for a version of the story that favours mood, sensation and shock over strict fidelity to the original plot.
Beyond the explicit content, the film streamlines and reshapes the novel’s structure. Several characters are omitted or merged, key plot threads are altered, and the second half of the book is reportedly abandoned in favour of a tighter, more immediate focus on the central relationship. That approach has unsettled some scholars and fans who view the omissions as losses to the book’s complexity; others embrace the changes as a valid contemporary reinterpretation.
A creative provocation that could pull readers back to the book
Museum staff repeatedly voiced hope that the provocative film will send viewers back to the page. Members of the programming and learning teams suggested the adaptation’s theatricality and relentless intensity might act as a gateway rather than a replacement. One staff member who works with visitors said the film may intrigue a new generation and prompt debate about what it means to adapt a classic.
At the first public screening in Leeds, the novelist and biographer present described the film as both fun and intense, commending the performances while acknowledging it is clearly a personal spin on Brontë’s novel. That remark underscores a larger cultural conversation: whether a loose, provocative reimagining should be judged on its own artistic terms or measured against the expectations of literary purists.
Whatever view prevails, the film has already stimulated strong reactions from those who care for the Brontë legacy. Museum staff offered a broadly celebratory response, while critics and some academics remain cautious or critical. The result is a high-profile reinterpretation that promises to keep Wuthering Heights in the headlines and on discussion lists for months to come.
