#wuthering-heights-film

#wuthering-heights-film

James Lorimer, writing in the North British Review, promised that the novel would 'never be generally read.' Nearly two centuries later, it's regarded as one of the great works of English literature.

In Emily Brontë's 1847 novel Wuthering Heights, the moors of Yorkshire are wet with rain, fog-and symbolism. The rugged landscape separating the titular home from the neighboring estate, Thrushcross Grange, represents danger and harshness, but also a kind of wild freedom for the star-crossed lovers Catherine and Heathcliff, who explore the land together in childhood and spend their adult lives yearning for each other.

When a woman directs boldly, it's trashy. When a man does, it's visionary

"Hurlevent": Is that like when you watch 28 Years Later? Is it some kind of French adjective that's like, "This movie is so emotional you'll cry until you yak"? Even so, why would the cast and crew of the film take photos in front of a random word and not, say, the title of the film? These questions, while well-intentioned, proved very stupid:

Remember when "Wuthering Heights" first screened and all those glowing early reactions flooded social media-with even one "critic" calling it a "God-tier classic"? It turns out that was a carefully calibrated mirage concocted by Warner Bros. A report claims that "Wuthering Heights" had "one of the biggest global marketing juggernauts the world has ever seen." Hyperbole? Maybe. But what do you make of the claim that "almost 2,000 social media influencers were paid by Warners to post nice things about the film"?

It has now been revealed that Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi have matching rings decorated with two hugging skeletons and the phrase Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same. It's all getting a bit Wicked, isn't it? Do we really need to form parasocial relationships with actors to enjoy their films? Maybe if that was the extent of it, this would be fine.