Weathering the Highs and Lows of Wuthering Heights Adaptations

Welcome to the twelfth and final part of my series of analyzing various adaptations of Wuthering Heights and how they capture the spirit of the Emily Brontë novel. I can’t believe that I began this journey one year ago this month. It was a fascinating one to take, but I’m glad that I did it because it made me realize how delicate the art of adapting a book actually is.

I watched 11 versions, which included the following:

• 1939 movie with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon
• 1950 teleplay with Charleton Heston
• 1958 teleplay with Richard Burton
• 1967 miniseries with Ian McShane
• 1970 movie with Timothy Dalton
• 1992 movie with Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche
• 1998 television movie with Robert Cavanah
• 2009 miniseries with Tom Hardy
• 2011 movie with James Howson
• 2022 movie with Bryan Ferriter
• 2026 movie with Jacob Elordi and Margot Robbie

After viewing all of these versions, here are my final thoughts.

1. I can definitely understand why it’s difficult to adapt. Samantha Ellis from The Guardian said it best when she asserted that it’s too extreme for average viewers. You can check out her article at this link: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/dec/28/its-no-romcom-why-the-real-wuthering-heights-is-too-extreme-for-the-screen
2. The story lend itself well to a low-budget adaptation despite the results already seen. It has three sets and a cast of about 15 characters. Stories don’t always need a lavish budget in order to work, and Wuthering Heights is no exception.
3. None of the versions are perfect. Each one of them has some kind of flaw that prevented me from me giving it a full 5 stars.
4. Despite my issue of having a white guy play Heathcliff in most adaptations, Ralph Fiennes is the best at the role in the 1992 film. He fully understood that the character is a villain. Sure, he can be romantic in certain moments, but Fiennes knows that anger at his mistreatment defines the character and plays off of that, especially with his sadistic joyous looks while getting revenge.
5. I had more issues with the actresses playing Catherine. Most of them are portrayed as ladylike and an innocent victim. The character is not like that at all. She is just as responsible for how toxic the relationship is as much as Heathcliff. The only actress who comprehended this 100% was Angela Scoular from the 1967 miniseries. Her depiction of the character is unlikeable and psychotic, but one can see why Heathcliff would be drawn to her.
6. I blame the 1939 flick for sowing the seeds for how readers and viewers perceive the story. Even though it’s well made, it’s because of this film that people believe that the book is about a tragic romance as opposed to a gothic horror tale about the generational cycles of abuse. I mainly point to the decision to cut the second half of the book.
7. Just because something is well made doesn’t mean it’s the best version. Wuthering Heights is a good example of this. Although the 1939 movie has the best filmmaking, the 1992 film and the 2009 miniseries capture the spirit of the novel better.
8. In spite of my grievances with how the story has been adapted over the years, I truly believe that there is a great version out there. It has to follow these five things:
   1. It has to be a miniseries, so it can include as much from the novel as possible. The 2009 series serves a great model for this.
   2. It has to be made by a horror director. They would lean into the book’s gothic horror spirit.
   3. It has to cast an actor of color as Heathcliff. The whole reason for his mistreatment is because of his physical appearance. In addition, a handful of characters comment on his looks and otherness throughout the novel.
   4. It has to have Catherine and her daughter Cathy be played by the same actress. This is to drive home the point of how Heathcliff is tormented by the former even long after her death. This is used in the 1967 miniseries and the 1992 movie to great effect.
   5. (optional) Cast Kate Bush as Lockwood. She was inspired to write her hit song “Wuthering Heights” after watching the 1967 miniseries, so it would be a full circle moment. Another bonus point is to use the tune in the adaptation.
9. I’m aware of the second 2026 adaptation entitled Wuthering Heights: House of the Damned. From what I’ve seen, it fulfills two of the points mentioned above (horror and casting an actor of color as Heathcliff). I will have a review out when I get around to seeing it.
10. Bonus! Just like with my final thoughts on the Goodbye, Mr. Chips adaptations, I will provide my one word to describe each of the Wuthering Heights versions covered. Here they go:
    1. 1939: romantic
    2. 1950: Greensleeves
    3. 1958: (in a robotic voice) Heathcliff
    4. 1967: bleak
    5. 1970: provocative?
    6. 1992: villainous
    7. 1998: disturbing
    8. 2009: expansive
    9. 2011: avant-garde
    10. 2022: incompetent
    11. 2026: freaky?

It was a roller coaster ride to look at all of these, but a wonderful one nonetheless. The best way to close out this year on the story is to leave you with the best summary of plot. Take it away, Kate Bush!

Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates. Also feel free to email me here for any review suggestions, ideas, or new titles!