Clarifier: I cap this off sounding like I’d prefer no rep over bad rep. NO. There really didn’t need to be any justification to just cast someone “dark”, commentary or no. Also, even if Heathcliff wasn’t “black” as we would imagine today, having an actor who isn’t white would preserve the sense of “othering” the book goes for. Emerald Fennel not even considering it makes me feel like she doesn’t have care for the othering aspect of the source material.
I think the book is very clear that Heathcliff is of mixed race, actually, but white/ mixed enough that they don't know any more than that for sure. Mixed enough that if he wanted to go to the Continent as the illegitimate son of a wealthy white man, he could do it, but at the same time he is obviously not only white European. I understand why that might have brought up some casting issues, but on the other hand it is very freeing, they could literally cast any poc in the role and have some textual legitimacy. Not doing that is... regressive.
The history of Romani as the 'black' people in northern europe is very long and varied, but a very clear example of a 'dark' 'other' (even if many travellers in britain and the nordics can have white-passing features in a global sense). Because most Romani groups still don't have a good political standing within their respective majority cultures, they often get left out of conversations like these as a very invisible ethnic minority.
The main complaint I’ve seen about Margot as Cathy is the age, because part of the tragedy of Cathy is that she dies pretty young around 18-19 years old and Margot is in her 30s and she looks 30 which is perfectly fine just not a match for Cathy
People have such a problem with black and brown actors being cast in period dramas but in this case the author herself has written a clearly POC character and they still wanna ignore it.
@@ritzee13 it’s so frustrating to see that this movie has like 10 adaptations and only 1 in 2011 casted an actor of color. Like, I think I play my own devils advocate too hard for “how dark” Heathcliff is. At the end of the day he’s othered by his appearance. Like…if you’re casting today, why is the “vagueness” still being used to cast a white actor…
@@ritzee13 Jane eyre? Is is also cast for Jane eyre? Tbh I could see her as Jane eyre (towards the end of the book, when the character is older and more mature) much more than I can see her as Catherine
@anonymous-zs9rn lol I had a brain fart and somehow linked Jane to Cathy, but I can't see her as Cathy either, but I'm less disappointed in her casting than Jacob as Heathcliffe. It's such a disservice to the character.
I'm a die-hard Bronte girl and let me tell you, I was peeved when I found out that Emerald Fennel was directing because I have a lot of issues with her, but I was absolutely LIVID when I found out that Jacob Elordi was playing Heathcliff!
@@spiceupyourafterlife Emerald Fennel makes me nervous. Saltburn and Promising Young Women both like to bring forward issues I actually care about in their works, and then kind of…forget to go anywhere with them
Okay…? If you don’t like the director, then don’t check out the adaptation? Why would you even care about her casting if you’re not expecting to like her take anyway?
wuthering heights is one of my favourite gothic texts and seeing the casting announcement broke my heart a little bit. esp because i was an indian kid who sympathised with heathcliff's othering and thought he was written with so much nuance and intrigue for what ends up being clearly the villain of the story. it's quite clear to me that brontë was condemning the othering and abuse of heathcliff based on his appearance and by extension class, and to me he was clearly brown. i only just found out it's being directed by emerald fennell which... does not fill me with hope. i've seen saltburn but only heard things about promising young woman and tbh, she does not have the range to do the novel justice. i don't think WH is a particularly complicated book compared to it's contemporaries, especially in nuance and subtext. but there's so much to be said of how systems of violence, abuse, and revenge weave together to create an avoidable, long drawn out tragedy. from what i understood of saltburn, fennel can't do class, or racial commentary, and her attempt at a gothic romance is both superficial and heavy handed at once. well whatever. i think margot robbie has the range for cathy tho, if nothing else.
The issue with Margot as Cathy is that Catherine Earnshaw dies around 20ish years old and Margot is doesn't really pass for that age. The majority of the character's page time she is a teenager. At least that's my issue with her casting.
@@bridgetthewisdomdragon6042 I feel dumb because I literally didn’t even think about age, but it’s so true. My mind was just like…she can put on a wig 😂😂😂
Given the age difference, I’m wondering if Fennel isn’t going to gender swap Heathcliff and Cathrine or isn’t going to make Heathcliff be the one who dies.
Plus, Catherine is very clearly described as dark, perhaps Romani herself (so people find it hard to place Heathcliff's place in WH because they could be related) and the Lintons, the antagonists are blonde, like Margot. It is about colourism, but the film has been colourist by casting the lighter woman as the heroine, disregarding what the book says. Her daughter is described as blonde, but with Cathy's eyes.
@@justdunkaroos not even street cred, I just wish that there was more expectation to consider Heathcliff’s origins when taking that classic work and bringing it to modern day, and even be flexible with it. Fennel casting any actor who isn’t white would be like the starting point given that you really don’t need a reason to make that change and not change the script but there’s so much you can dooooooo in addition now that we have our modern hindsight to contextualize Heathcliff further
I really liked your Dorian Grey video, but this one made me hit the subscribe button. You really put a nice bow on everything wrong with this whole situation, and i appreciated the refresher on Wuthering Heights! Emerald Fennel has also proven herself to be a creator who thinks she has something insightful to say and simply... doesn't. I was already cringing at the choice for her to direct this, and we're already getting some signs that maybe she, like me, has not read this book since high school.
Well, thank you for the subscription. I hope to do a lot more like this in the future 😁 Fennel’s an interesting director, at least, but yeah…that’s a pretty apt assessment
I only encountered this book in a university "visionary literiture" course and wasn't very prepared to unpack it,but this helps ground it a bit. We were much more focused on Heathcliff's depiction as some sort of dark magical counterpart to an also morally dark Catherine (the elder). The more phycological possible reading to find here relies on greater exploration of the racial politics that happen when Heathcliff is aquired and brought in as a child and later leaves to navigate his adult life away from Wurthuring Heights. There's spiritual and magical exoticism of Romani people implied here that serves to add layers to the wild, profound and creepy connection Heathclif has with Cathy (the elder). Whatever you make of them, they seem to be one wild, unconventional spiritual entity split in two against some natural law of their other-than-human being by the social rules of a world that expects them to act like they belong to a particual eathly society. Catherine can be every bit as shocking and metiphorically dark as Heathcliff for most of the book and neither seems to care about the moral/societal carnage arround them when their relationship is frustrated, but I remember being irked that the book eventually falls into a more sexist and probably also racist devide, where Cathy is desperately required as quite literally Heathcliff's mystical "better half" and a disciplinary/controling influence, whereas without him she pines away without the tendency for violent agreession. It does appear, however, that the spiritual drift of the book is to root for their relationship as one that MUST be, even after Cathy is physically dead . . . if only because whatever unexplainable weirdness they are and do when together, it pales in comparison to the mutually assured destruction of themseves and the order of the spiritual universe that occurs when they are forced apart.
@@myragroenewegen5426 I absolutely love this breakdown. I skid over Catherine in this vid, but the expansion on her is much appreciated. It’s so interesting that her matching wildness emphasized that spiritual connection of their characters & their tie to the moors. I always did find it a bit dissatisfying that Catherine accepts “civility” marrying Linton, and it’s like she shed that wild side for a much more collected, but passive character.
I loved Saltburn, but casting Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff when Rahul Kohli is RIGHT. THERE. Pains me! Also, if you like Wuthering Heights, there’s a semi-modern Japanese retelling called A True Novel (by Minae Mizumara) where the Heathcliff character is Korean and he’s the main character and is much more sympathetic. The story explores how he got his fortune as well. It’s a super good book and I highly recommend it.
Oooh this was delightful and it really explains a lot of complicated feelings I have about the credibility of Victorian metaphors and descriptors. Words mean different stuff all the time (slang or otherwise), but people's interpretations are valid and oftentimes different! In my personal opinion Emerald Fennel is not the best person to tackle racial problems, so her choosing not to is... telling but authentic to her. I hope we will get other kinds of interpretations of this work with more relevant voices and differing topics, though!
@@teodorapetkovic 2011 casted James Howson and did some interesting stuff with it. But I think the subtle thing to it is that Heathcliff’s description has been “othered” in the book but every movie adaptation bar 1 has casted a brunette. Not that the onus is on Fennel to tackle race in the book, nor that hers is the only interpretation, but I can see the renewed frustration in people when she wanted to work with her fav actor and “dark” flexibly used for that purpose.
Just FYI, I know at least one previous adaption of Wuthering Heights has tried and ended up struggling to explore the Romani angle for a lot of complicated cultural context reasons that I'm not equipped to explain myself. Imho, I think people keep coming back to this text because of the ambiguity of it all. The text forces the reader to come to their conclusions about these people, how they ended up like this, and whose fault it is and why. When it comes to race, it's impossible to tell if people merely assume he's Romani because that's the only context most of these people (most of whom have barely left the county their entire lives) have to understand a non-white person in the rural U.K or if it's actually an accurate description of his origins. Is Mr. Earnshaw his biological father? What are the implications of that? It's ripe for exploring. I try not to get too nasty about Emerald Fennel because while I think she's a hack, so are a lot of men with similar backgrounds and she's never been accused of anything besides bad taste, but she really is one of the worst choices to adapt this story in 2024. As for the casting: I think Cathy's behavior makes a hell of a lot more sense when you realize this woman went from being a borderline feral neglected child to a married woman over the course of a few months and was dead before the age of 25. Obviously Margot Robbie is beautiful (she's literally Barbie) but I don't think she can pass for a teenager, which is fine if you're not playing one. It seems like it was a choice made more of convenience (Robbie has produced Fennel's movies before and is considered a bankable star) than who is right for the role. Like, one of Jacob Elordi's Euphoria co-stars would have been more believable and better suited to the roll.
@@lexi6878 love everything here. And you’re right on the ambiguity thing. Though they refer to him as Romani often, this is a kid from a Port Town and even Nelly says he could be Indian or Chinese in her speech which just ads to the lack of definitive origin. I remember my headcannon was that Heathcliff was def Mr Earnshaw’s, thus my default to saying he’s half but yeah, it is a question the book poses and never gives answer to. I think Wuthering Heights overall keeps the message of him being singled out no matter the specific origin. And yeah. I don’t want to single out Fennel as if she’s a villainous director. I don’t think this choice would have only been made by her. I wish she chose someone else to at least update that singled out based on appearance aspect to Heathcliff, but it’s def not like just her specifically heading the project that’s the problem. Imo it goes wider than that.
@@FashionableCrow Thank you, I appreciate the detailed response. :) And yeah, it's also important to remember that while our modern conception of race was definitely in place by the time the novel takes place plenty of peoples from the same islands were also thought of as inferior races by the british upper class . As someone who is racially ambiguous and both lower and upper class, Heathcliff scrambles all these people's brains because his mere existence exposes their entire worldview as a sham. And it just reeks of executives focusing on trends above all. Saltburn was a big hit that focused on class tensions and moral ambiguity (I didn't like it because I think it was superficial and deeply conservative, but that is what it's about), the recent regency fad is still going, that white guy from euphoria is apparently a big heartthrob among the youths, and Margot Robbie is one of the most famous women in the world. I think both Robbie and Fennel are smart enough to realize Robbie is simply too old for the role, but who knows why that happened. Maybe it was just easier to get financing. Seems like a lot of people have been making bad decisions here.
@@lexi6878 I'm guessing they are going to make her a little older so that the daughter can be distinguished as a little younger, but personally I think that is wrong. The whole thing is that Cathy 2 is presented with a similar choice as Cathy 1 and fixes the cycle by making the opposite decision eventually, like I think it should just be the same actress with a different wig and outfit etc. as Cathy 2; even in the time the novel was written, the reader would have been able to imagine the sharp costume changes from full Georgian to Regency. Dead/ nightmare Cathy comes back to protect her daughter Cathy 2 from Heathcliff so she can marry Hareton as Heathcliff 2; Hareton, unlike Heathcliff, chooses forgiveness, while Cathy 2 chooses love over social position. Cathy 1 kills Heathcliff with kindness and then runs off with him (maybe - or Heathcliff hallucinates a way for himself to choose kindness over hate. Or Nelly is protecting herself with a bull story and she murders Heathcliff to protect Hareton and Cathy 2, because she is the real mother figure). Once Cathy 2 is safe Cathy 1 is free to roam the moors with Heathcliff; it is an animal instinct of a mother to protect the daughter, but by this point they are practically sisters in age difference, so it is a much more ambiguous legacy. Linton, who is probably the most educated in the book, describes Heathcliff as a Lascar, so brown Asian, but 'little' implying 'a little' of a different race, so probably more mixed. It is kind of a lightning rod though of how people think in the book; Nelly is the least educated, but she's the kindest, whereas the Lintons are cruel and the Hindleys are the cruellest Tbh, I think it would make it more interesting if Hareton, as Heathcliff 2, was also brown/ darker (I think he is described this way, without being racialized), so Heathcliff's cruelty is to imply that he is not Hareton's father, but that his mother had made a hasty marriage 'beneath' her to Hindley to disguise a scandal. There's a lot going on in WH that Nelly as a character obviously avoids, but the reader is allowed to think about.
Re Heathcliff's Fortune, I don't find its mystery much of an issue. Wuthering Heights is set as the East India Company is booming. People forget that for the majority of "British India" it was a private company and corporate colonialism, separate from the British state and with novel social dynamics developing outside the classical class system. It was also a time of a big cultural shift where people from non-nobility could make their fortune, either through the company directly or by ventures facilitated by the burgeoning globalized mercantilism (see 'nabobs' who returned to England with wealth of the EIC upending social/political norms). Mixed race Anglo-Indians could be high officers in the EIC, up till turn of the 19th century when the EIC started marginalizing Anglo-Indians from significant positions in the company. Anglo-Indians (a new ethnicity) potentially look similar to Romani, while caching in on the prejudice against Romani as a domestic racial other. But whether or not Heathcliff is literally Romani, Anglo-Indian (prob not), child of the slave-trade, or something else, is second order to the general British zeitgeist at the time of Bronte (and a reflection of the imperfect knowledge/novelty). The mystery of Heathcliff and his fortune is likely a more generic Colonial/Capitalist 'other', and a projection of the fear that the capital raised abroad (and people) could come back to purchase/disturb/destabilize the English countryside/hierarchy (a common trope of the time). The mysteriousness of the ethnicity/fortune is there to reflect this new globalized capitalism/colonialism and the anxieties of its origins and consequences. This isn't a fringe interpretation as those themes/fears would have been widely understood at the time of Bronte (see "nabobs," and the work of Terry Eagleton). The colonial context in english of the novels of the time is often alluded to, despite never being directly grappled with (see Edward Said, or Gaskell's North and South). Now regarding this production, this is the problem with all adaptation. What was un/intentionally left vague must now be concretized, beyond a precision that was ever in the book. If this production decides to drop the themes of colonial/capital/racial anxiety then that’s on them. And which given our modern lack of general knowledge about that period of english history/corporate colonialism, would likely be missed by modern viewers. But given my understanding of the period and novel, casting any POC (especially Romani, or mixed South Asian/Black) would be more faithful than casting someone who is primarily read as white/english/european.
@@howmanybeansmakefive thank you for such a wealth of insight. I knew of this in vague terms, but I really appreciate this additional detail. This is so interesting to think about in tandem.🤩
Heathcliff being described as looking like a gipsi should have made it clear he looked Indian, not half African or African English or Southern Italian but Indian.
He very specifically looks asian-that part where heathcliff is lamenting over not being fair like linton, nelly comforts him by saying that his father could have been the emperor of china and his mother an indian princess who lost him. We get descriptions of heathcliff’s skin, eyes, hair texture, the thickness of his eyebrows. Mr. linton suspects that he may be a lascar, who were sailors from india. If not romani, he is very likely to be of south asian origin. There was an adaptation that cast black actors to play heathcliff, but…plenty of black people have given reasons why this particular adaptation failed, and andrea arnold certainly failed to redeem herself in her handling of zoe kravitz’s character in big little lies.
Nellie Dean describes Heathcliffe as “a little Lascar”, and Mr Earnshaw found him in Liverpool. This suggests he was from South or South-East Asia and was working on a ship that docked in Liverpool and he got left behind in Liverpool. If Nellie Dean knew what a Lascar is, she knows that Heathcliffe does not look like someone of African origin. The Romani people originated in South Asia so if Heathcliffe is a Lascar he could appear to look like one of them.
@@ianyoung6881 yep. Even Charolette Brontë has the comparison in her preface to. She introduces Lascar and Romani together, both ambiguous, both discernibly non-white.
i read this book when i was 18 and i didnt know anything going into it. as a modern reader i definitely interpreted heathcliff as a man of color at first, but was continually confused because the novel didnt really develop or address that. i personally just enjoyed the salacious story. everyone was so horrible to each other in such a heightened way that it became comical and i compared it to watching "it's always sunny". i think an adaptation would have been a great opportunity to take those unexplored ideas in the text, and explore them in a fresh interpretation. maybe supplementing the story from true historical accounts of romani or biracial men at that time.
I don't understand why they always cast white men to play Heathcliff, when he is described as Gypsy/Lascar dark complexioned with dark eyes. No movie can truly capture the essence of the novel anyway and as for Robbie playing Catherine, no.
I feel like a lot of people had to willfully ignore that whole heavy dehumanization part right at the beginning when he's literally like 6 and called an "it" and then a slur based on nothing but appearance, if nothing else...
Im just holding out hope that Margot Robbies casting is changed for like Nellie, and in the case of Jacob like Hindley…. I know its unlikely, but I cant stand the fact that they are going to completly butcher the book with this adaptation
also i just got done with the whole vid and i really appreciate you talking about the romani community with so much care and respect :) also the amount that romani people are mentioned in historical novels is surprisingly insane like…they really loved to exoticize us ngl. we were very historically prevalent. but in that sort of “you can throw darts at the picture all you want, you still printed out a picture and hung it on your wall” way.
@@lyndsiedavis4490 the metaphor you use at the end is so strong. Very much that combination of “knocking down” but glad to include. I know whenever I read stories about my heritage in name it comes with this combination of amusement but also a slight grimace. I’d be fascinated to hear your take on Wuthering Heights as a Romani person. Like how Heathcliff’s character and personality came across to you? All good if not 😅
@@FashionableCrow hmmm. i read it when i started getting into classics when i was ~13-14 (guilty of seeing it on a list on pinterest or tumblr lmao) so more than ten years ago. i vaguely remember being like “hey me too!” but never actually realizing the significance of it until watching this video. which i know sounds goofy or naive but my fams very mixed and very complicated (just my dads fam is full romani, my mom is half white and choctaw, and they divorced when i was 2, so it only came up when other people who knew my dad were being overtly racist and they were pretty good about keeping me away from that for obvious reasons). so with that in mind, i think im going to go back and re-read wuthering heights to form a fully fledged opinion on it. but at the time i was much more rooting for him out of a very superficial relationship to him being made out as the “romantic damaged g*psie” trope that i was already so used to. i obviously feel differently about this trope now but it was books and movies like this that made me almost look up to this very foreign ideal of who i was supposed to be, and i definitely noticed who and what i was NOT. (kinda like heathcliff i see now…how ironic.) so yea. i will come back with a response that wasn’t written on my phone with a fresh perspective on the text. gimme 2 days 😂
Read it for a class in high school & DNF'ed it. I know there are thematic elements and parallels and whatever, but I'm fundamentally uninterested in reading a story that repeats halfway through, but with new characters.
If Bridgerton can cast actors who don't look like their book counterparts, then Wuthering is fair game too. Even the recent Percy Jackson series has an Astrid who doesn't look like her book counterpart. At this point, Emerald Fennel is more of an issue than who is cast as Heathcliff and Cathy.
@@OurLady_OfChaoticMischief such a great point! And on top of that, like…there’s no reason not to. I gripe about representing the experiences of a half Romani kid or a black man in 1800s England, BUT you don’t need any of that. At all. Heathcliff can be a boy in love with Catherine and whatever the specifics of his “otherness” are, it doesn’t matter in context of that relationship.
I disagree tbh, bc Heathcliff looking "different", specifically racially, is a big portion of his conflict. In Bridgerton and Percy Jackson, the race of the characters isn't particularly relevant, but to erase that from Heathcliff undermines some of the social commentary within the book.
I hate how they are turning margot robbie into the new scarlett Johansson when she was popular they were casting her in everything even if it made no sense (*squints at ghost in the shell*) now margot robbie is being cast in everything (i honestly assumed she was playing nelly since thats the only older woman in the story i could think of) next will either be Sydney Sweeney or jenna ortega playing 50 roles that makes no sense Now the next problem we do not need another adaptation of wuthering heights one it sucks and two there is a decent adaptation with a poc playing heathcliff and a white washed version with tom hardy in a jump scare wig there's also a 90s version and a black and white version adapt a classic that hasn't been done 80 times over
The vast majority of comments here literally say he wasn't black. He also wasn't snow white. You do realize there are a large variety of skin tones, yes? Maybe pay attention to the conversation. 🙄
@@HouseTargaryen24601 That's not what the vast majority of comments are saying at all. You do realise there are a large variety of skin tones amongst European populations that do not make someone a POC?
@@Moco_Cork1 It's almost like I said there are a variety of skin tones. And nowhere did I say he wasn't European. "POC" doesn't mean black, you nit. Those are some amazing third grade reading skills you have there, mate.
Heathcliffe is Romani not black and so should be white there are plenty of stories with black protagonists that you would not but a white actor in so why do you insist on putting a black actor in a white part it’s annoying. You could make everyone black if you want but that’s not true to the classic stories dont do classics if you want to cast actors of colour
@@ceciliasmith2047 I go into that in the vid. The point here is that in this book, Heathcliff is remarked on for his appearance and mocked for it and compared to other nationalities indicating he looks different enough to be noticeable. He may not be specifically black, but he’s distinctly “not-white” or the right kind. In Emily Bronte’s time that could be a different literal meaning, but in spirit, could be translated to a lot of different casting options. Given that we’ve had like 10 movie adaptations of Wuthering Heights, I see why people would want an actor they resonate Heathcliff’s experiences with. But I also understand why that doesn’t happen.
As I said he’s a Romani found in the slums of Liverpool but if you want to say that makes him potentially black then you do you but it doesn’t make him black no matter what you want to say, can we not keep the classics classic whatever the subject matter rather than casting what we want as I say there are plenty of black/ POC parts without altering the whole flavour of a main character
If Heathcliff is Romani, and it isn't clear in the book, he should be played by a Romani actor. They are harder to find because Romani people have been institutionally disadvantaged, which means jobs in the arts are more likely to be out of their reach, but many Romani people aren't white, and Heathcliff is described in that way.
Clarifier: I cap this off sounding like I’d prefer no rep over bad rep. NO. There really didn’t need to be any justification to just cast someone “dark”, commentary or no. Also, even if Heathcliff wasn’t “black” as we would imagine today, having an actor who isn’t white would preserve the sense of “othering” the book goes for. Emerald Fennel not even considering it makes me feel like she doesn’t have care for the othering aspect of the source material.
I think the book is very clear that Heathcliff is of mixed race, actually, but white/ mixed enough that they don't know any more than that for sure. Mixed enough that if he wanted to go to the Continent as the illegitimate son of a wealthy white man, he could do it, but at the same time he is obviously not only white European. I understand why that might have brought up some casting issues, but on the other hand it is very freeing, they could literally cast any poc in the role and have some textual legitimacy. Not doing that is... regressive.
The history of Romani as the 'black' people in northern europe is very long and varied, but a very clear example of a 'dark' 'other' (even if many travellers in britain and the nordics can have white-passing features in a global sense). Because most Romani groups still don't have a good political standing within their respective majority cultures, they often get left out of conversations like these as a very invisible ethnic minority.
@@jasminv8653 excellent addition, bc yeppppp
The main complaint I’ve seen about Margot as Cathy is the age, because part of the tragedy of Cathy is that she dies pretty young around 18-19 years old and Margot is in her 30s and she looks 30 which is perfectly fine just not a match for Cathy
People have such a problem with black and brown actors being cast in period dramas but in this case the author herself has written a clearly POC character and they still wanna ignore it.
@@ritzee13 it’s so frustrating to see that this movie has like 10 adaptations and only 1 in 2011 casted an actor of color. Like, I think I play my own devils advocate too hard for “how dark” Heathcliff is. At the end of the day he’s othered by his appearance. Like…if you’re casting today, why is the “vagueness” still being used to cast a white actor…
@@ritzee13 Jane eyre? Is is also cast for Jane eyre? Tbh I could see her as Jane eyre (towards the end of the book, when the character is older and more mature) much more than I can see her as Catherine
@anonymous-zs9rn lol I had a brain fart and somehow linked Jane to Cathy, but I can't see her as Cathy either, but I'm less disappointed in her casting than Jacob as Heathcliffe. It's such a disservice to the character.
@@FashionableCrow It's crazy that a black actor was cast in 2011 but not 2024, we have regressed.
Heathcliff should be portrayed by a black actor. In the novel, he's constantly beating up white women. Representation matters.
I'm a die-hard Bronte girl and let me tell you, I was peeved when I found out that Emerald Fennel was directing because I have a lot of issues with her, but I was absolutely LIVID when I found out that Jacob Elordi was playing Heathcliff!
@@spiceupyourafterlife Emerald Fennel makes me nervous. Saltburn and Promising Young Women both like to bring forward issues I actually care about in their works, and then kind of…forget to go anywhere with them
Okay…? If you don’t like the director, then don’t check out the adaptation? Why would you even care about her casting if you’re not expecting to like her take anyway?
@@alexbennet4195you didn’t have to comment either. She’s actually engaging with the conversation.
Thank you for discussing this. I’m Romani and always felt this didn’t get enough attention/exploration
I hope I did the basics justice. If you have anything more to add I’d love to hear from you😁 otherwise thanks for watching
wuthering heights is one of my favourite gothic texts and seeing the casting announcement broke my heart a little bit. esp because i was an indian kid who sympathised with heathcliff's othering and thought he was written with so much nuance and intrigue for what ends up being clearly the villain of the story. it's quite clear to me that brontë was condemning the othering and abuse of heathcliff based on his appearance and by extension class, and to me he was clearly brown. i only just found out it's being directed by emerald fennell which... does not fill me with hope. i've seen saltburn but only heard things about promising young woman and tbh, she does not have the range to do the novel justice. i don't think WH is a particularly complicated book compared to it's contemporaries, especially in nuance and subtext. but there's so much to be said of how systems of violence, abuse, and revenge weave together to create an avoidable, long drawn out tragedy. from what i understood of saltburn, fennel can't do class, or racial commentary, and her attempt at a gothic romance is both superficial and heavy handed at once. well whatever. i think margot robbie has the range for cathy tho, if nothing else.
New love test "Would you still love me if I was a desperate banshee-esque ghost haunting your guest room window?"
The issue with Margot as Cathy is that Catherine Earnshaw dies around 20ish years old and Margot is doesn't really pass for that age. The majority of the character's page time she is a teenager. At least that's my issue with her casting.
@@bridgetthewisdomdragon6042 I feel dumb because I literally didn’t even think about age, but it’s so true. My mind was just like…she can put on a wig 😂😂😂
Given the age difference, I’m wondering if Fennel isn’t going to gender swap Heathcliff and Cathrine or isn’t going to make Heathcliff be the one who dies.
Plus, Catherine is very clearly described as dark, perhaps Romani herself (so people find it hard to place Heathcliff's place in WH because they could be related) and the Lintons, the antagonists are blonde, like Margot. It is about colourism, but the film has been colourist by casting the lighter woman as the heroine, disregarding what the book says. Her daughter is described as blonde, but with Cathy's eyes.
Came for wuthering heights but stayed for the witty humor 😅
@@slawd7351 stay for my devolution into madness
Archie Madekwe was RIGHT there Emerald Fennell...she couldnt have given that man a break after making he audition for Saltburn over 4 times!?
YES, different words, different expectations- too much street cred without action to justify it.
@@justdunkaroos not even street cred, I just wish that there was more expectation to consider Heathcliff’s origins when taking that classic work and bringing it to modern day, and even be flexible with it. Fennel casting any actor who isn’t white would be like the starting point given that you really don’t need a reason to make that change and not change the script but there’s so much you can dooooooo in addition now that we have our modern hindsight to contextualize Heathcliff further
I really liked your Dorian Grey video, but this one made me hit the subscribe button. You really put a nice bow on everything wrong with this whole situation, and i appreciated the refresher on Wuthering Heights!
Emerald Fennel has also proven herself to be a creator who thinks she has something insightful to say and simply... doesn't. I was already cringing at the choice for her to direct this, and we're already getting some signs that maybe she, like me, has not read this book since high school.
Well, thank you for the subscription. I hope to do a lot more like this in the future 😁 Fennel’s an interesting director, at least, but yeah…that’s a pretty apt assessment
I only encountered this book in a university "visionary literiture" course and wasn't very prepared to unpack it,but this helps ground it a bit. We were much more focused on Heathcliff's depiction as some sort of dark magical counterpart to an also morally dark Catherine (the elder). The more phycological possible reading to find here relies on greater exploration of the racial politics that happen when Heathcliff is aquired and brought in as a child and later leaves to navigate his adult life away from Wurthuring Heights. There's spiritual and magical exoticism of Romani people implied here that serves to add layers to the wild, profound and creepy connection Heathclif has with Cathy (the elder). Whatever you make of them, they seem to be one wild, unconventional spiritual entity split in two against some natural law of their other-than-human being by the social rules of a world that expects them to act like they belong to a particual eathly society.
Catherine can be every bit as shocking and metiphorically dark as Heathcliff for most of the book and neither seems to care about the moral/societal carnage arround them when their relationship is frustrated, but I remember being irked that the book eventually falls into a more sexist and probably also racist devide, where Cathy is desperately required as quite literally Heathcliff's mystical "better half" and a disciplinary/controling influence, whereas without him she pines away without the tendency for violent agreession. It does appear, however, that the spiritual drift of the book is to root for their relationship as one that MUST be, even after Cathy is physically dead . . . if only because whatever unexplainable weirdness they are and do when together, it pales in comparison to the mutually assured destruction of themseves and the order of the spiritual universe that occurs when they are forced apart.
@@myragroenewegen5426 I absolutely love this breakdown. I skid over Catherine in this vid, but the expansion on her is much appreciated. It’s so interesting that her matching wildness emphasized that spiritual connection of their characters & their tie to the moors. I always did find it a bit dissatisfying that Catherine accepts “civility” marrying Linton, and it’s like she shed that wild side for a much more collected, but passive character.
I loved Saltburn, but casting Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff when Rahul Kohli is RIGHT. THERE. Pains me!
Also, if you like Wuthering Heights, there’s a semi-modern Japanese retelling called A True Novel (by Minae Mizumara) where the Heathcliff character is Korean and he’s the main character and is much more sympathetic. The story explores how he got his fortune as well. It’s a super good book and I highly recommend it.
@@Sharpe1502 The Japanese/ Korean dynamic instantly caught my eye because that’s not debatable, that is plain text right there. I need this now!
Oooh this was delightful and it really explains a lot of complicated feelings I have about the credibility of Victorian metaphors and descriptors. Words mean different stuff all the time (slang or otherwise), but people's interpretations are valid and oftentimes different! In my personal opinion Emerald Fennel is not the best person to tackle racial problems, so her choosing not to is... telling but authentic to her. I hope we will get other kinds of interpretations of this work with more relevant voices and differing topics, though!
@@teodorapetkovic 2011 casted James Howson and did some interesting stuff with it. But I think the subtle thing to it is that Heathcliff’s description has been “othered” in the book but every movie adaptation bar 1 has casted a brunette. Not that the onus is on Fennel to tackle race in the book, nor that hers is the only interpretation, but I can see the renewed frustration in people when she wanted to work with her fav actor and “dark” flexibly used for that purpose.
Just FYI, I know at least one previous adaption of Wuthering Heights has tried and ended up struggling to explore the Romani angle for a lot of complicated cultural context reasons that I'm not equipped to explain myself. Imho, I think people keep coming back to this text because of the ambiguity of it all. The text forces the reader to come to their conclusions about these people, how they ended up like this, and whose fault it is and why. When it comes to race, it's impossible to tell if people merely assume he's Romani because that's the only context most of these people (most of whom have barely left the county their entire lives) have to understand a non-white person in the rural U.K or if it's actually an accurate description of his origins. Is Mr. Earnshaw his biological father? What are the implications of that? It's ripe for exploring.
I try not to get too nasty about Emerald Fennel because while I think she's a hack, so are a lot of men with similar backgrounds and she's never been accused of anything besides bad taste, but she really is one of the worst choices to adapt this story in 2024. As for the casting: I think Cathy's behavior makes a hell of a lot more sense when you realize this woman went from being a borderline feral neglected child to a married woman over the course of a few months and was dead before the age of 25. Obviously Margot Robbie is beautiful (she's literally Barbie) but I don't think she can pass for a teenager, which is fine if you're not playing one. It seems like it was a choice made more of convenience (Robbie has produced Fennel's movies before and is considered a bankable star) than who is right for the role. Like, one of Jacob Elordi's Euphoria co-stars would have been more believable and better suited to the roll.
@@lexi6878 love everything here. And you’re right on the ambiguity thing. Though they refer to him as Romani often, this is a kid from a Port Town and even Nelly says he could be Indian or Chinese in her speech which just ads to the lack of definitive origin. I remember my headcannon was that Heathcliff was def Mr Earnshaw’s, thus my default to saying he’s half but yeah, it is a question the book poses and never gives answer to. I think Wuthering Heights overall keeps the message of him being singled out no matter the specific origin.
And yeah. I don’t want to single out Fennel as if she’s a villainous director. I don’t think this choice would have only been made by her. I wish she chose someone else to at least update that singled out based on appearance aspect to Heathcliff, but it’s def not like just her specifically heading the project that’s the problem. Imo it goes wider than that.
@@FashionableCrow Thank you, I appreciate the detailed response. :)
And yeah, it's also important to remember that while our modern conception of race was definitely in place by the time the novel takes place plenty of peoples from the same islands were also thought of as inferior races by the british upper class . As someone who is racially ambiguous and both lower and upper class, Heathcliff scrambles all these people's brains because his mere existence exposes their entire worldview as a sham.
And it just reeks of executives focusing on trends above all. Saltburn was a big hit that focused on class tensions and moral ambiguity (I didn't like it because I think it was superficial and deeply conservative, but that is what it's about), the recent regency fad is still going, that white guy from euphoria is apparently a big heartthrob among the youths, and Margot Robbie is one of the most famous women in the world. I think both Robbie and Fennel are smart enough to realize Robbie is simply too old for the role, but who knows why that happened. Maybe it was just easier to get financing. Seems like a lot of people have been making bad decisions here.
@@lexi6878 I'm guessing they are going to make her a little older so that the daughter can be distinguished as a little younger, but personally I think that is wrong. The whole thing is that Cathy 2 is presented with a similar choice as Cathy 1 and fixes the cycle by making the opposite decision eventually, like I think it should just be the same actress with a different wig and outfit etc. as Cathy 2; even in the time the novel was written, the reader would have been able to imagine the sharp costume changes from full Georgian to Regency. Dead/ nightmare Cathy comes back to protect her daughter Cathy 2 from Heathcliff so she can marry Hareton as Heathcliff 2; Hareton, unlike Heathcliff, chooses forgiveness, while Cathy 2 chooses love over social position. Cathy 1 kills Heathcliff with kindness and then runs off with him (maybe - or Heathcliff hallucinates a way for himself to choose kindness over hate. Or Nelly is protecting herself with a bull story and she murders Heathcliff to protect Hareton and Cathy 2, because she is the real mother figure). Once Cathy 2 is safe Cathy 1 is free to roam the moors with Heathcliff; it is an animal instinct of a mother to protect the daughter, but by this point they are practically sisters in age difference, so it is a much more ambiguous legacy.
Linton, who is probably the most educated in the book, describes Heathcliff as a Lascar, so brown Asian, but 'little' implying 'a little' of a different race, so probably more mixed. It is kind of a lightning rod though of how people think in the book; Nelly is the least educated, but she's the kindest, whereas the Lintons are cruel and the Hindleys are the cruellest Tbh, I think it would make it more interesting if Hareton, as Heathcliff 2, was also brown/ darker (I think he is described this way, without being racialized), so Heathcliff's cruelty is to imply that he is not Hareton's father, but that his mother had made a hasty marriage 'beneath' her to Hindley to disguise a scandal. There's a lot going on in WH that Nelly as a character obviously avoids, but the reader is allowed to think about.
Re Heathcliff's Fortune, I don't find its mystery much of an issue. Wuthering Heights is set as the East India Company is booming. People forget that for the majority of "British India" it was a private company and corporate colonialism, separate from the British state and with novel social dynamics developing outside the classical class system. It was also a time of a big cultural shift where people from non-nobility could make their fortune, either through the company directly or by ventures facilitated by the burgeoning globalized mercantilism (see 'nabobs' who returned to England with wealth of the EIC upending social/political norms). Mixed race Anglo-Indians could be high officers in the EIC, up till turn of the 19th century when the EIC started marginalizing Anglo-Indians from significant positions in the company. Anglo-Indians (a new ethnicity) potentially look similar to Romani, while caching in on the prejudice against Romani as a domestic racial other.
But whether or not Heathcliff is literally Romani, Anglo-Indian (prob not), child of the slave-trade, or something else, is second order to the general British zeitgeist at the time of Bronte (and a reflection of the imperfect knowledge/novelty). The mystery of Heathcliff and his fortune is likely a more generic Colonial/Capitalist 'other', and a projection of the fear that the capital raised abroad (and people) could come back to purchase/disturb/destabilize the English countryside/hierarchy (a common trope of the time). The mysteriousness of the ethnicity/fortune is there to reflect this new globalized capitalism/colonialism and the anxieties of its origins and consequences. This isn't a fringe interpretation as those themes/fears would have been widely understood at the time of Bronte (see "nabobs," and the work of Terry Eagleton). The colonial context in english of the novels of the time is often alluded to, despite never being directly grappled with (see Edward Said, or Gaskell's North and South).
Now regarding this production, this is the problem with all adaptation. What was un/intentionally left vague must now be concretized, beyond a precision that was ever in the book. If this production decides to drop the themes of colonial/capital/racial anxiety then that’s on them. And which given our modern lack of general knowledge about that period of english history/corporate colonialism, would likely be missed by modern viewers. But given my understanding of the period and novel, casting any POC (especially Romani, or mixed South Asian/Black) would be more faithful than casting someone who is primarily read as white/english/european.
@@howmanybeansmakefive thank you for such a wealth of insight. I knew of this in vague terms, but I really appreciate this additional detail. This is so interesting to think about in tandem.🤩
Heathcliff being described as looking like a gipsi should have made it clear he looked Indian, not half African or African English or Southern Italian but Indian.
He very specifically looks asian-that part where heathcliff is lamenting over not being fair like linton, nelly comforts him by saying that his father could have been the emperor of china and his mother an indian princess who lost him. We get descriptions of heathcliff’s skin, eyes, hair texture, the thickness of his eyebrows. Mr. linton suspects that he may be a lascar, who were sailors from india. If not romani, he is very likely to be of south asian origin. There was an adaptation that cast black actors to play heathcliff, but…plenty of black people have given reasons why this particular adaptation failed, and andrea arnold certainly failed to redeem herself in her handling of zoe kravitz’s character in big little lies.
@@littleseaslug1440 Roma*, not Romani
Surely the point is that you don't need to know where someone comes from, they should still be treated with dignity.
Nellie Dean describes Heathcliffe as “a little Lascar”, and Mr Earnshaw found him in Liverpool. This suggests he was from South or South-East Asia and was working on a ship that docked in Liverpool and he got left behind in Liverpool. If Nellie Dean knew what a Lascar is, she knows that Heathcliffe does not look like someone of African origin. The Romani people originated in South Asia so if Heathcliffe is a Lascar he could appear to look like one of them.
@@ianyoung6881 yep. Even Charolette Brontë has the comparison in her preface to. She introduces Lascar and Romani together, both ambiguous, both discernibly non-white.
i read this book when i was 18 and i didnt know anything going into it. as a modern reader i definitely interpreted heathcliff as a man of color at first, but was continually confused because the novel didnt really develop or address that. i personally just enjoyed the salacious story. everyone was so horrible to each other in such a heightened way that it became comical and i compared it to watching "it's always sunny".
i think an adaptation would have been a great opportunity to take those unexplored ideas in the text, and explore them in a fresh interpretation. maybe supplementing the story from true historical accounts of romani or biracial men at that time.
@@gleann_cuilinn I kind of want all always sunny remake episode of this book now…😂😂
I don't understand why they always cast white men to play Heathcliff, when he is described as Gypsy/Lascar dark complexioned with dark eyes. No movie can truly capture the essence of the novel anyway and as for Robbie playing Catherine, no.
Having never read this book. These people are messy. Also damn that was a lot of good takes
@@alonzonzo nothing but a mess. Like me🙃🙃
Work with her favorite Eiffel Tower 😭
I read the book a long time ago (I think I was 14 or 15) but I always interpreted Heathcliff as a poc. Like, it just makes sense?
I feel like a lot of people had to willfully ignore that whole heavy dehumanization part right at the beginning when he's literally like 6 and called an "it" and then a slur based on nothing but appearance, if nothing else...
Im just holding out hope that Margot Robbies casting is changed for like Nellie, and in the case of Jacob like Hindley…. I know its unlikely, but I cant stand the fact that they are going to completly butcher the book with this adaptation
QUEEN. BEAUTIFULLY PUT. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT PORTRAIT BEHIND YOU AT 19 MINUTES.
also i just got done with the whole vid and i really appreciate you talking about the romani community with so much care and respect :) also the amount that romani people are mentioned in historical novels is surprisingly insane like…they really loved to exoticize us ngl. we were very historically prevalent. but in that sort of “you can throw darts at the picture all you want, you still printed out a picture and hung it on your wall” way.
@@lyndsiedavis4490 thrifted: $30 at a coffee shop
@@lyndsiedavis4490 the metaphor you use at the end is so strong. Very much that combination of “knocking down” but glad to include. I know whenever I read stories about my heritage in name it comes with this combination of amusement but also a slight grimace. I’d be fascinated to hear your take on Wuthering Heights as a Romani person. Like how Heathcliff’s character and personality came across to you? All good if not 😅
@@FashionableCrow hmmm. i read it when i started getting into classics when i was ~13-14 (guilty of seeing it on a list on pinterest or tumblr lmao) so more than ten years ago. i vaguely remember being like “hey me too!” but never actually realizing the significance of it until watching this video. which i know sounds goofy or naive but my fams very mixed and very complicated (just my dads fam is full romani, my mom is half white and choctaw, and they divorced when i was 2, so it only came up when other people who knew my dad were being overtly racist and they were pretty good about keeping me away from that for obvious reasons). so with that in mind, i think im going to go back and re-read wuthering heights to form a fully fledged opinion on it. but at the time i was much more rooting for him out of a very superficial relationship to him being made out as the “romantic damaged g*psie” trope that i was already so used to. i obviously feel differently about this trope now but it was books and movies like this that made me almost look up to this very foreign ideal of who i was supposed to be, and i definitely noticed who and what i was NOT. (kinda like heathcliff i see now…how ironic.) so yea. i will come back with a response that wasn’t written on my phone with a fresh perspective on the text. gimme 2 days 😂
@@lyndsiedavis4490 no rush. Thanks for the overview here. I’m glad to read your thoughts on it
I read this book in middle school and never bonded with it. I’ve always wondered if I should give it another shot but it still sounds like a bummer 😭
@@-eight- eeeeee, maybe? But…like I said, I’m not much of a Brontë fan overall
It’s actually one of the few “classics” I like. It helps that I never saw it as a romance.
Read it for a class in high school & DNF'ed it. I know there are thematic elements and parallels and whatever, but I'm fundamentally uninterested in reading a story that repeats halfway through, but with new characters.
I wouldn't i read it with the annotated version just to get thru it specifically with Joseph's accent and by the end linton died waaay too slowly
Just watch the more accurate 2011 Andrea Arnold adaptation. It’s pretty good.
If Bridgerton can cast actors who don't look like their book counterparts, then Wuthering is fair game too. Even the recent Percy Jackson series has an Astrid who doesn't look like her book counterpart. At this point, Emerald Fennel is more of an issue than who is cast as Heathcliff and Cathy.
@@OurLady_OfChaoticMischief such a great point! And on top of that, like…there’s no reason not to. I gripe about representing the experiences of a half Romani kid or a black man in 1800s England, BUT you don’t need any of that. At all. Heathcliff can be a boy in love with Catherine and whatever the specifics of his “otherness” are, it doesn’t matter in context of that relationship.
I disagree tbh, bc Heathcliff looking "different", specifically racially, is a big portion of his conflict. In Bridgerton and Percy Jackson, the race of the characters isn't particularly relevant, but to erase that from Heathcliff undermines some of the social commentary within the book.
great nuance! nice!
I hate how they are turning margot robbie into the new scarlett Johansson when she was popular they were casting her in everything even if it made no sense (*squints at ghost in the shell*) now margot robbie is being cast in everything (i honestly assumed she was playing nelly since thats the only older woman in the story i could think of) next will either be Sydney Sweeney or jenna ortega playing 50 roles that makes no sense
Now the next problem we do not need another adaptation of wuthering heights one it sucks and two there is a decent adaptation with a poc playing heathcliff and a white washed version with tom hardy in a jump scare wig there's also a 90s version and a black and white version adapt a classic that hasn't been done 80 times over
Kate Bush ❤ hahaha
Wow, what a babe.
Have you all really convinced yourselves that Heathcliffe was black?
The vast majority of comments here literally say he wasn't black. He also wasn't snow white. You do realize there are a large variety of skin tones, yes?
Maybe pay attention to the conversation. 🙄
@@HouseTargaryen24601 That's not what the vast majority of comments are saying at all. You do realise there are a large variety of skin tones amongst European populations that do not make someone a POC?
@@Moco_Cork1 It's almost like I said there are a variety of skin tones.
And nowhere did I say he wasn't European.
"POC" doesn't mean black, you nit.
Those are some amazing third grade reading skills you have there, mate.
Heathcliffe is Romani not black and so should be white there are plenty of stories with black protagonists that you would not but a white actor in so why do you insist on putting a black actor in a white part it’s annoying. You could make everyone black if you want but that’s not true to the classic stories dont do classics if you want to cast actors of colour
@@ceciliasmith2047 I go into that in the vid. The point here is that in this book, Heathcliff is remarked on for his appearance and mocked for it and compared to other nationalities indicating he looks different enough to be noticeable. He may not be specifically black, but he’s distinctly “not-white” or the right kind. In Emily Bronte’s time that could be a different literal meaning, but in spirit, could be translated to a lot of different casting options. Given that we’ve had like 10 movie adaptations of Wuthering Heights, I see why people would want an actor they resonate Heathcliff’s experiences with. But I also understand why that doesn’t happen.
As I said he’s a Romani found in the slums of Liverpool but if you want to say that makes him potentially black then you do you but it doesn’t make him black no matter what you want to say, can we not keep the classics classic whatever the subject matter rather than casting what we want as I say there are plenty of black/ POC parts without altering the whole flavour of a main character
@@ceciliasmith2047 I think…you should prob rewatch the video. I think you missed what I said…
If Heathcliff is Romani, and it isn't clear in the book, he should be played by a Romani actor. They are harder to find because Romani people have been institutionally disadvantaged, which means jobs in the arts are more likely to be out of their reach, but many Romani people aren't white, and Heathcliff is described in that way.
@@kahkah1986I was liking your comment until you said "but" there isn't a but,if he is romani,the actor should be romani.
this video about wuthering heights has some great wuthering insights and info on wuthering minority rights
@@tokilladaemon the pun made my day