Customer Reviews

Wuthering Heights

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I've probably seen every film and TV version of "Wuthering Heights" (in addition to having read the book several times). When I ordered this DVD I wondered if it would really add anything to my collection. The answer is yes. The actors manage to pull off the most difficult task for this story: Making the characters sympathetic. Considering that faithful family servant Ellen is the only voice of normalcy and stability in a nest of emotionally driven and self-centered people, most of them obsessed with revenge, self-destruction, and/or death, that's a feat. (The four episodes are titled "The First Revenge," "The Second Revenge," etc.) Angela Scoular as Cathy Earnshaw comes across as wayward but often enchanting--in many films Cathy is just a, ahem, female dog. A young Ian McShane plays Heathcliff. He has the same deep (but somewhat less gravelly) voice as in "Deadwood," the same semi-scarcastic, semi-Shakespearean delivery--and having not yet acquired jowels, he's broodingly handsome. The 1960s black-and-white format seems a bit primitive today, but it some ways it adds power. The climate looks cold and wet, the fields look stony, the scarce trees look blasted. The Wuthering Heights farmhouse looks drafty, dirty, and crudely furnished. Food looks unappetizing; it consists largely of porridge and tea. This cheerless atmosphere is greatly aided by a soundtrack of constantly whistling wind, for both indoor and outdoor scenes. I was literally so cold that I turned the heat up to watch this series.

First off, I am not rating this film as a romance, nor am I critiquing how well Ian McShane or Angela Scoular can act in misfitting roles. Instead, I am critiquing this adaptation of Wuthering Heights in comparison to Emily Bronte's novel, which I have read numerous times.

Now, let me say that this adaptation of Wuthering Heights, 1967, is NOT worthy of being called a BBC classic, as the cover tries to convince the potential buyer.

Why?

Answer: Because the plot of this production is horribly badly because it alters important dialogue. It is the equivalent of a Hamlet production, by the BBC under the label "classic," where Hamlet says "Should I kill myself or no?" instead of "To be or not to be, that is the question?"

Yet, the plot is not the only problem. Also, Ian McShane is too old to play Heathcliff, at least the teenage scenes (which have been altered into youth adult scenes thanks to horrible script-writing).

Born in 1942, this MAN plays Heathcliff for the whole film, except for the first eight minutes, when some little five year old (or someone who appears five) is brought home by Mr. Earnshaw from Liverpool. Now, I understand the desire for constancy in acting. Four different individuals playing Heathcliff over 30 years might make some viewers disappointed. Yet, in this adaptation, how can anyone feel sorry for Heathcliff when 50 pages of the novel are removed - the most important 50 pages in understand why Heathcliff becomes so bitter and angry. Forgive me, but when 25 year old Ian McShane loses 23 year old Angela Scoular so some other actor playing an equally elderly Edgar Linton, I just do not feel much sympathy for the approximately 16 year old Heathcliff of Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, who runs away from Wuthering Heights after Cathy says, "Marrying Heathcliff would degrade me."

Now, I understand the 1992 adaptation, the 1998 adaptation, and the 2009 adaptation are also unfaithful portrayals of a wondering work of literature. Yet, this adaptation takes first prize. I simply wonder why the producers just didn't have Ian McShane as the bundle Mr. Earnshaw brings back from Liverpool. I do wonder what the script writer could possibly have been thinking by having other characters call Heathcliff a 'gypsy' at least 20 times. [Certainly, Heathcliff may have been a gypsy, just as he may have been something else. However, in this film, there is great concensus that Heathcliff is a stupid gypsy.]

Continuing with this point, MacShane plays a Heathcliff who reminds one of a highly evolved monkey. He is stupid - not passionate. He is gready for Cathy - not a soulmates with her, who suffered abuse as a teenager. Bronte's Heathcliff needs Cathy and relies upon her - he is the teenager who can accept all the bullies's abuses as long as the girl he loves, loves him back. Such a Heathcliff does not exist in this adaptation.


One Thing I ABSOLUTELY DETESTED about this adaptation:

If you read Emily Bronte's novel, you would learn that Heathcliff is a teenager when Mr. Earnshaw dies - 14 years of age is a good estimate. Now, imagine Hindley (who hates Heathcliff), taking a 14 year old boy, overworking him, repeatedly whipping him very severely, and keeping him from the one thing he loves and depends upon (his soulmate Cathy). All of this is non-existant in this film. Hindley's wife does not ever die until after Heathcliff has left Wuthering Heights. Therefore, all those wonderful scenes where a drunken Hindley takes out his anger on Heathcliff for his wife's death, are non-existent. Heathcliff and Catherine clearly have a childhood together, grow up together, and bond together as teenagers, but you would never know this based upon this sorry excuse for a film.



BOTTON LINE:

Again, if you are into the romance, and care nothing for understanding the motivation of human behavior - why Heathcliff behaves as he does, why does Hindley behaves as he does, well, this film might be right for you.

However, if you expect this film to, in some way, resemble the BBC classic adaptation of "Jane Eyre" (1983) starring Timothy Dalton or the 1973 BBC "Jane Eyre" adaptation starring Michael Jayston, you will be as disappointed as if Bertha Mason's character were completely eliminated from of these two relatively faithful adapations.

This is an early recording of Wuthering Heights by the BBC and is in black and white. Despite this it seems to have more atmosphere than later productions, acting is good, and seems to be quite an accurate rendition of the book. Very pleased with this but beware - this is a USA zone DVD (if in UK, check playable zones).

EXCELLENT DVD AND THE SERIE IS JUST GREAT. IT WAS A GREAT PURCHASE. I RECOMMEND IT TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT LOVE THIS NOVEL OF EMILY BRONTE.

Emily Bronte is one of my favorite authors. Bronte displays the human soul as it struggles with many of the terrible experiences of human existence. In Wuthering Heights, a classic story, several characters develop personality traits through human experiences. Hindley, the older brother, becomes jealous when it appears that his father favors younger, adopted, brother Heathcliff. Heathcliff and sister Catherine acquire a love bond Cathy views as "soul mates." Heathcliff develops a growing feeling of hatred of his older brother. Emily Bronte's novel is a masterful narration of deep human emotions.

In any film of this great novel, I expect to see the story build later motivations. So, in this case, why is Hindley increasing cruel to Heathcliff? Why does Heathcliff endure Hindley's abuse instead of leaving Wuthering Heights or fighting back? What drives Heathcliff's later hate of the Linton family. In this film I see little attempt to build the psychological elements so marvelously told in Bronte's novel.

I expected to see Heathcliff and Catherine as young teenagers, instead both appear to be older. I expected scenes depicting a drunken Hindley abusing characters and taking his anger out on his siblings. This film shows few of the psychologically motivating scenes that are in Bronte's novel.

This BBC movie of Wuthering Heights was produced in 1967, in black and white. Color was available, but I think the producer opted for black and while to enhance the mood. During most of the film a strong sound of howling wind underlies the dialogue. Scenes within the house are mostly shown as poorly lit and dreary. All this combines to produce a dismal mood, but after awhile the wind became distracting to both me and my wife.

I highly recommend the novel Wuthering Heights. This particular film rendering of it, however, does little justice to Bronte's work. I suggest another of the films, either Samuel Goldwyn's production starring Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, and David Niven, or The Paramount production staring Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes.

Not a bad rendition of the story on film, but nothing special. It did tell the entire story from beginning to end and I give it credit for that. Somehow, the characters were as listless as the black and white DVD. In my opinion, there are better versions of this story on DVD including the one with Timothy Dalton and Anne Calder-Marshall. It was disappointing to see Ian McShane in such a lackluster performance as he is a much better actor.

I didn't even know this version existed. It's been a while since I read the book so I can't speak to any liberties taken with Ms. Bronte's source material. I very much still like the Timothy Dalton version with the lovley Michel Legrand score, but there was much to like in this 60s British TV version. A nice companion to the also neglected made-for-TV George C. Scott/Susannah York "Jane Eyre." Those Bronte girls could certainly write up a storm!

This was almost unbearable to watch with Ian McShane as Heathcliff, and I did not like it. It's very long, and follows the book closely, but Heathcliff did NOT slit his wrists in the end as this movie portrayed. The earlier one with Olivier and Oberon was shorter, but better, and I liked Timothy Dalton as Heathcliff as well - even Ralph Fiennes was most believable. But, McShane became more like a gorilla than a man toward the end, or would make an excellent Wolfman.

I wanted to see Ian McShane when he was a younger actor, I didn't realize the story went on longer than the one with Laurence Oliver, it does, it's not as good as the one with Oliver, but with this, the story does go on, perhaps it follows the book which I did not read.

Though this was filmed with the usual extremely limited BBC budget
in 1967, it somehow works for this particular epic story. Director
Peter Sasdy later made a minor name in horror films in the '70's,
so he has a great sense of the Gothic. The adaptation by award-
winning playwright Hugh Leonard preserves the entirety of Emily
Bronte's story, closer than most versions made before this time.
Ian McShane is, hands down, one of the best Heathcliffs ever.
He really was born to play this role. It's too bad his performance
is somewhat sabotaged by having to play opposite one of the worst
Cathys ever. Angela Scoular, (a future Bond girl - see 'On Her
Majestys Secret Service') is simply dreadful. Granted, Cathy
is an extremely difficult role to play. That aside, the fact
this version is broken down into four 45 minute episodes makes
it very easy for the unacquainted (i.e. literature students) to
watch and absorb.