Wuthering Heights (1939) User Reviews (171)

Passion as an Undying, All-Consuming Energy

[nycritic · 9/10 · 19 February 2006]

If it weren't for Gregg Toland, there would be no CITIZEN KANE or THE LITTLE FOXES. With his unique, acute, textured treatments of light and shadow which transcend well beyond the black and white media, he creates palpable tableaux in which characters meet, interact, and pave the way for these timeless stories. Needless to say, he is the true star of William Wyler's WUTHERING HEIGHTS. In bringing such attention to detail, Emily Bronte's classic novel becomes a living, breathing creation drenched in the Gothic atmosphere that was its very raison d'etre. A rare thing, indeed.

The story is well-known. A traveller named Lockwood comes upon this dark house and is given shelter and care by the housekeeper, Ellen Dean. During his stay there she discloses the tragic events which have taken place in Wuthering Heights. It so happens that the place was owned by a Mr. Earnshaw, who brought a young gypsy boy, Heathcliff, to the house to live with his family comprised of his son and daughter, Hindley and Catherine. While Hindley takes an immediate dislike to Heathcliff, Catherine reacts as a friend and both form a fateful bond that turns into an explosive, untamed love which is tied to the moors itself. However, she is slated to marry Edgar Linton and cannot see herself wed to Heathcliff, who leaves Wuthering Heights. Later on he returns, now a wealthy man, buys the Heights from Hindley, marries Edgar's sister Isabella, and systematically ruins both his, his wife's, and Catherine's lives.

Wyler's adaptation of the novel stops midway from the entire story and decides to focus on the first generation. In doing so, I think, it somehow dilutes the fact that love can conquer time, but even so, it's a minor complaint. Laurence Olivier is Heathcliff from head to toe. Merle Oberon falters a bit -- while full of the dark looks that Catherine most likely is thought of she lacks some life within her. Vivien Leigh would have brought much needed rebelliousness and emotional gravitas to the role. Understated, but effective, is Geraldine Fitzgerald who was Oscar nominated for her performance as Isabella. The last scene, featuring Cathy and Heathcliff, reunited, walking hand in hand across the moors, is the one terrible spot -- hokey and lame. Even so, this is the adaptation that time has considered to be the closest to the novel in essence, as subsequent versions have been made, all with varying results.

Very moving film

[perfectbond · 8/10 · 24 August 2004]

I have not read the Emily Bronte novel on which this film is based so obviously I cannot comment on the effectiveness of it as an adaptation (I understand that almost the entire second half of the book was excised). However, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Oberon and especially Olivier, one of my favorites, are very convincing and moving as the doomed lovers Cathy and Heathcliff (according to my friend, Heathcliff is written as being much more likeable in the film than in the book). The supporting cast was also very good. Wuthering Heights just deals very poignantly with the effect that birth and status have on people's lives. Yet another winner from Wyler. My score 9/10.

No Wonder They Read This in High School

[poindexter_mellon · 7/10 · 3 November 2012]

Remember those annoyingly popular couples in high school whose drama-filled romance was more than you could stomach as they alternated between syrupy stargazing and enraged jealousy? Well, the lead characters in this movie are a little bit more mature than your obnoxious 10th grade friends but they share the same illusions about what love is.

Not that I'm an expert on love but like pornography I know what it isn't when I don't see it. This reminds me of the awful tabloid stories about that dirtball Chris Brown beating the hell out of his delusional girlfriend Rihanna and both of them imagining that theirs is some great love story for the ages when in reality they're just a couple of self-absorbed nimrods.

On the other hand, I did like this movie because I can certainly relate to eagerness for revenge, impure love, and self-absorption.

Brings to Life the Setting & Main Characters of A Great Novel

[Snow Leopard · 31 May 2001]

Director William Wyler and star Laurence Olivier bring to life the atmosphere and most important characters of a classic novel in "Wuthering Heights". While necessarily omitting much of the material for cinematic purposes, and having a slightly different emphasis, the film version will still be appreciated by those who enjoy classic stories.

The Emily Brontë novel on which the film is based is one of the greatest books of its kind. It is far deeper than any film version could be, so for this movie only a portion of the story is used, and several characters are omitted. The movie also has more of a melodramatic feel than did the novel. It does retain the flashback-style of narrative, which works just as well in the film as it did in the book.

The story opens with a weary traveler meeting up with a now-aging, hostile, and excitable Heathcliff (Olivier), after the main action of the story is in the past. Unsettled by this strange man, the traveler is told Heathcliff's story by the housekeeper Ellen (Flora Robson). This begins with Heathcliff's childhood, and goes through his relations with the Earnshaw family and the Linton family. The heart of the story is his troubled romance with Catherine Earnshaw (Merle Oberon), whom he has known since being taken in by her family as a child. This relationship in turn leads to conflicts with most of the other characters, and affects the lives of everyone involved in profound ways.

Olivier memorably portrays this difficult character, and helps the audience feel his longing and restlessness. Oberon is also ideal as Catherine - a mercurial character who is both a complement and a contrast to Heathcliff. The other main strength of the film is its realization of the main settings, which are almost as important to the story as the characters are: once-fine but now gloomy and declining Wuthering Heights; the pleasant but vapid Thrushcross Grange, home of the Linton family; and especially the wild, mysterious Yorkshire moors, the only place where Heathcliff and Cathy are ever really happy. These settings are all effectively created and photographed, and provide an appropriate background to the events and tensions in the characters' lives.

The result is a movie that, while lacking the complexity of the novel, is a satisfying realization of the most important aspects of the book, and which effectively brings the audience into the lives and hearts of the characters.

"I cannot live without my life! I cannot die without my soul."

[Sweet Charity · 10/10 · 16 July 2003]

Being a classic film buff, I had the chance of being introduced to this film by chance one late evening when it was being aired on TCM. I fell in love with the movie, and when I was told that it would be required reading over the summer, I was ridiculously happy. As many have noted, the 1939 adaptation of "Wuthering Heights" is, more or less, merely the first volume of Emily Bronte's beautifully and powerfully written classic -- focusing less on the detail of Heathcliff's wrath post Cathy's death, but moreso on the sheer complexity of Heathcliff and Cathy's relationship (the scenes at Penniston Crag of them among the moors and heather are not in the book because Bronte had to stick to Ellen's point of view -- it was nice that we could finally have an in-depth look at the tumultuous relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff). While characters are omitted (Frances, Hareton, Linton and the baby Catherine), it still retains much of the very nature of the novel. (If you will recall, many parts of "Gone With The Wind" were changed and characters removed in the process of transferring Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece into a screen epic. After all, this is Hollywood.)

The cinematography is divine (very much worth its Oscar), perfectly capturing the very essence of the bleak, chilling, haunting Yorkshire Moors that Bronte described in her book. Laurence Olivier is, in my opinion, a very fine Heathcliff. Indeed, in the book his nature is more animalistic and devilish, but Olivier superbly exhibits what Heathcliff is all about -- dark, brooding, and terribly bitter. Even at our first introduction to him, we know by the tone of his voice that something is very, very wrong with this man and that something is very, very off in that household. Olivier expresses Heathcliff's wildness and devilishness through his voice, stance and through his facial gestures, rather than so much in other physical ways. Merle Oberon is remarkable as Cathy -- a much more dark and exoctic beauty than Isabella whose good looks are very wholesome and pure (perhaps to match the darkness of the gypsy stable-boy Heathcliff), and capturing the duality of personality that is Catherine Earnshaw -- part of her wanting to love a wild, evil, wicked stable boy... the other part longing to be part of a higher society. Particularly coming to mind is her scene in the kitchen with Ellen and that marvelously disturbing death scene -- her eyes wild. (I do wish they would have left in the part of the book where she refuses to eat and begins hallucinating -- Oberon could have performed it so well.) Also to be noted are the stunning performances of David Niven and Gerladine Fitzgerald as the long-suffering Edgar and Isabella Linton (respectively), their lives made miserable by Cathy's selfishness, vanity and greed to be part of a higher way of living, and by Heathcliff's undying love for Catherine and his course of revenge and destruction. Flora Robson is also wonderful as Ellen Dean, narrator of the whole sordid story.

Someone mentioned that this film (by focusing on the love story and by the ending, I suppose) tried to say that Heathcliff and Catherine were perfect for each other and could have, eventually, found true love. I disagree, wholeheartedly. I believe what director William Wyler was trying to say here was that Heathcliff and Catherine were not good people. Cathy was right when she said that she and Heathcliff's souls were made of the same basic fiber -- they were both greedy and selfish (he wanted her passion for him to be as deep as his passion for her and she wanted and if he couldn't have it, no one else deserved to have it, and God forbid those around him feel any kind of love, compassion or humanity; and she didn't even really know what she wanted, except to be part of the upper crust and to rise above what she had lived through when Hindley became master of their house) and because of that, their love could have never meant anything BUT tragedy. They could never have found happiness together because they were not happy people. But they could find love in death -- because in death, they could be what they really were all along -- children; mere children forced to grow up all too quickly with the death of the man who cared deeply for them, thus forcing Hindley to become head of the household. There would be no Hindley in death. And as children they were good together -- as children, Cathy, wicked as she was at times as a youngster, could restore hopes of prosperity to Heathcliff's dark, bitter soul. They were, as children, more or less all one another had. And so they could go on, as children, without a care, happily picking heather and being King and Queen on the moors.

You've GOT to see this movie.

Soul mates

[jotix100 · 10/10 · 22 February 2005]

"Wuthering Heights", based on the novel by Emily Bronte, gets a first rate treatment from its director, the genial William Wyler. The adaptation was done by Charles McArthur and Ben Hecht, two of the best writers working in the Hollywood of that era. The great cinematography by Gregg Toland makes it visually stunning. Alfred Newman's music score plays in the background, making this film a classic that will be cherished by movie lovers.

Some comments to this forum express their displeasure in the adaptation one sees on the screen. Most people forget what a task it must have been to get the essence of the Bronte novel in a cinematic form, something the adapters did with elegance and charm.

The cast that was assembled for "Wuthering Heights" is a dream come true. Presenting the young Merle Oberon in all her beauty makes one almost fall instantly in love with her. Ms. Oberon had a fantastic presence, which translated in probably her best work in films.

The dashingly handsome Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff, creates the right chemistry against Ms. Oberon's Cathy. Mr. Olivier was at the pinnacle of his career. He responds well to Mr. Wyler's direction. His Heathcliff shows a mean streak, but over all, Olivier gives an impressive performance.

David Niven is excellent as Edgar Linton, the man who wins Cathy's heart with his kindness. Flora Robson does also an outstanding job as Ellen, the housekeeper, who serves as the narrator. The young and beautiful Geraldine Fitzgerald makes a brilliant Isabella.

The rest of the players are equally wonderful, Donald Crisp, Hugh Willimas, Leo G. Carroll, Cecil Kellaway, made contributions to the movie.

Ultimately, this film is a love story doomed from the beginning. This tale of the passion between the lovers in the moors is a perfect way to lose oneself in the magic of the movies.

Story is sick

[Bored_Dragon · 6/10 · 25 June 2017]

"Wuthering Heights" is considered to be one of the best movies of all times. Technically speaking this movie is great and it definitely deserves Best Black-and-White Cinematography Oscar and all nominations for actors. Merle Oberon is fascinating. Still, I barely forced myself to the end. Not because it's boring, but because the story is atrocious. I suppose this should be a romantic drama about tragic love, but for me, tragic love is when two people who are meant for each other can not be together because of unhappy circumstances or other people's bad intentions, not because they are complete idiots. This is a morbid and sleazy story about a group of sick and sadomasochistic people, with the accent on two repulsive, selfish persons who, by their selfishness, stupidity and immaturity, destroy lives not only for themselves, but to everyone else around them, and pretty much intentionally. And after all the crap they put us through, I should feel sad for them?! The last scene should be romantic happy-sad- end?! Ew! If this movie really is faithful to the book, I can not describe how happy I am that I never read it. Two hours spent on this movie do not hurt too much, but I could not forgive myself the time spent on the book.

6/10 (4/10 for story and 8/10 for everything else)

Picture perfect adaption of one of the great love stories of all time.

[mark.waltz · 10/10 · 10 April 2014]

While a lot has been removed from the original Emily Bronte book, what has been transfered into the lavishly beautiful original film version has made it a classic that holds up like very few other films do. Released in the most classic film year ever, this shines above every other film in my book, even more outstanding than the two most remembered films of 1939: "Gone With the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz".

Merle Oberon is the "wild, sweet Cathy", a pampered rich girl from the Moors who is loved by many but loves only one. Laurence Olivier is her childhood companion, Heathcliff, a gypsy boy taken in by her late father then tossed to the stables by her cruel older brother. As the years go by, Cathy and Heathcliff's affection turns into love, one that no boundaries can cross. Even when he goes away to America to make his fortune, he's not far from her thoughts. She marries a locally prominent man (Edgar Linton, played with gentility by David Niven) and out of spite, the returning Heathcliff marries Edgar's love-starved sister, Isabelle (Geraldine Fitzgerald in a truly tender performance that is downright tragic). Sick with jealousy and hatred towards what he has done simply to hurt her, Cathy regresses from life, hanging on by a balance.

Everything about this film is truly outstanding, from the breathtaking photography and glorious musical score to the art direction, editing and yes, even the screenplay which took simply the choice bits of elements from the original book. William Wyler directs with panache, and every performance is filled with subtleties that can't be denied after repeat viewings. Merle Oberon, sadly overlooked for an Oscar Nomination, gives the greatest performance of her career, showing that beyond being an exotic beauty, she was also highly underrated. Every essence of Cathy is explored, and even in her most spoiled and selfish moments, you can't help but love her. Olivier is perfectly brooding, the aches within him so deep over a love he knows he can't have on earth taking over his own tortured soul.

The supporting players are all outstanding, and special honors must go to the wise and winning performance of Flora Robson as Wuthering Heights' long-time housekeeper who seems to die herself as the climax approaches and tragedy has erupted. Hence her return to her original home which has decayed while the Lintons remained bright and elegant. Donald Crisp is wise and compassionate, yet stern, as the local doctor; Hugh Williams straight out of a Dickens novel as the cruel brother who decays along with Wuthering Heights; Leo G. Carroll as the loyal butler; and Cecil Humphreys as the kind man who took the waif Heathcliff in originally.

So purists can get off their high horse and simply accept what the writers chose to include for a lengthy film which never seems to be as long as it is. If the classic novels of all time were filmed exactly as written, they would have to be at least 3 hours long, which is why BBC and PBS (and the occasional American networks) eventually did many of them as Mini-Series.

This is the best adaptation about Emily Bronte novel with exceptional duo protagonist : Olivier and Oberon

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 26 November 2007]

The film starts captioning on Emily Bronte novel : ¨On the barren Yorkshire moors in England , a hundred years ago, stood a house as bleak and desolate as the wastes around it. Only a stranger lost in a storm would have dared to knock at the door of Wuthering Heights¨. Heathcliff(Laurence Olivier)is a foundling gypsy boy adopted by a God-fearing landowner(Cecil Kallaway). In the murky and isolated Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff grows up along with his foster brothers, Cathy(Merle Oberon), his soul-mate, and Hindley(Hugh Williams), furthermore are the servants(Flora Robson, Leo G. Carroll). When father dies, Hinley sends Heathcliff to the stables . When Heatcliff and Cathy spy their upper class neighbors, Edgar(David Niven) and Isabella(Geraldine Fitzgerald), they are pursued by the dogs and Cathy is wounded. Them begins an affair between Cathy and Edgar. Bitter Heathcliff escapes but long time after returns, now rich, to disrupt the life of Cathy now married to another. Desperate Heathcliff wreak vengeance on those he hold responsible of the separation . Meanwhile, Hindley is utterly embittered, turning a drunk unable to care of Wuthering Heights.

This moody drama about a dammed love contains awesome performances by main casting and supporting roles. This haunting story displays impressive production designs as enjoyable interior as sweeping exterior. Strikingly moors with rain and eerie gloom on North of England designed mostly in studios . Splendid and dark cinematography cinematography by classic cameraman,Gregg Tolland(Citizen Kane), won an Academy Award. Interesting screenplay by Ben Hetch and Charles McArthur( usual writers for Billy Wilder) and mesmerizing score by the master Alfred Newman. The film gets numerous and inferior remakes : 1956, by Luis Buñuel with Jorge Mistral; 1970, by Robert Fuest with Timothy Dalton ; 1992, by Peter Kosminsky with Ralph Fiennes ; TV, 2003 with Erika Christiensen and Mike Vogel. Rating : Sensational, well worth watching for cinema classic lovers and ultimately successful version on Emily Bronte novel.

No one has ever said "Cathy!" like Olivier!

[ctelrap · 10/10 · 18 April 2005]

With Olivier, Oberon and Niven for stars, a Hecht/MacArthur screenplay and William Wyler direction; it would be hard to miss. Some scenes, however, are devastatingly powerful in there simplicity.When Heathcliff returns after a long absence he looks at Cathy and Linton and says " It occurs to me that I have not congratulated you upon your marriage (pause)I've often thought of it." Cathy's eyes drop. We all know what he was thinking of and so does Cathy. It needn't be said. The most understated(and perhaps finest) performance is given by Hugh Williams as Hinley. His portrayal of a man broken by inner weakness and failure, to me, has always been a film highlight. Add to this a score by Alfred Newman as haunting as the moors themselves and Wuthering Heights is forever in your heart.

Iconic adaptation

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 31 March 2020]

WUTHERING HEIGHTS is the definitive screen adaptation of the famous Emily Bronte novel, with Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier essaying the iconic roles of Cathy and Heathcliff respectively. Oberon bags the deepest and most emotionally complex role of the movie and does very well indeed, while Olivier delivers a pure bravura performance, plucked from the stage playing Hamlet to international superstardom on the strength of this one performance. Despite being made by Hollywood and in Hollywood, this has an air of real authenticity to it, with an air of gothic gloom and dread overriding the proceedings. A film for those who love the classic actors of yesteryear.

Olivier is Heathcliff

[krorie · 10/10 · 8 April 2006]

Two of the most complex characters in all English literature are Hamlet and Heathcliff. Is it any wonder that one of the most capable English actors of them all should play both on celluloid? There is no better movie Hamlet than Olivier's. He also gives the definitive Heathcliff movie portrayal. Neither Hamlet nor Heathcliff are saints or sinners. Both are somewhere between heaven and hell. Both have dark, indistinct hues as part of their aura. Heathcliff's Ophelia is Cathy played to perfection by the wonderful Merle Oberon. Added to the immense acting talents of the two leads is the matching shadowy cinematography of Gregg Toland. Mix well and serve with just the right touches by master director William Wyler and you have a film that for once is almost as good as the literary masterpiece on which it is based. The only element missing is part of the story left out for several reasons, one being brevity. Few can argue that the best part of "Gone With The Wind" is the first half. Following the burning of Atlanta the film becomes much more melodramatic and sentimental. This does not happen to "Wuthering Heights."

The almost perfect country household in 19th century England is disrupted by the entrance of an interloper, a street urchin picked up by Cathy's do-gooder father. He is called Heathcliff, no last name. From the very beginning he is a disturbed and fanciful child, attempting to ride away and disappear on the wild moor. Also from the start, there is a bond between Cathy and Heathcliff, just as there is resentment and loathing from Cathy's profligate brother, Hindley. When the father dies, Heathcliff is turned into a lowly stable boy by Hindley. Cathy and Heathcliff find a secret "castle" where they create their own isolated paradise. This cliff hideaway continues to be their haven for the rest of their lives. Heathcliff ultimately runs away to America and only returns when Cathy marries someone else to spite him. Eventually, he spites her by gaining ownership of Wuthering Heights and then marrying Cathy's sister-in-law. What sounds rather simple in outline is one of the most complex relationships in literature created by one of the greatest literary minds of the ages, Emily Bronte. "Wuthering Heights," the movie, is one of the pivotal films of the 1930's, and one of Hollywood's finest pictures ever.

I'm sorry but I must dissent

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 2 March 2006]

While I did not hate this movie, my feelings aren't nearly as positive as the average reviewer. That's because although it is a lovely film to watch and has such beautiful music, I just can't get past the performance of Laurence Olivier. While he has a fantastic reputation as an actor, I felt his performance was just "too earnest"--in other words, there were too many pained looks and stares. His Heathcliff just seemed awfully wussy and perhaps constipated. Perhaps part of this is the result of the direction he received or it was just the style of the day, but I really don't feel that his performance translates well to the present day. Otherwise, the only minor quibble was the stupid tacked on ending (making it HAPPY)--I know this was NOT approved by William Wyler (the director) and it was later added by a studio hack to satisfy the execs' demand for an upbeat ending. How you could do this AFTER Heathcliff came to hate her so intensely is beyond me!

Gold Digger Heaven

[uncatema · 3/10 · 7 May 2021]

Cathy is a narcissistic opportunist and Heathcliff is a dope.

A Few Remarks on the Subtext

[dougdoepke · 10 February 2014]

Talk about a brooding outdoors, those moody moors may represent a sense of liberation for the lovers, but they're not exactly inviting. Besides, it rains all the time, so best to be in the house even if mansions represent the confining space of class and class privilege. That's the trouble. Cathy is 'to the manor born', as they say. Thus she's really torn between the wild outdoors and the comforts of ballrooms and servants.

Then there's the enigmatic Heathcliffe, a dark wild-souled type guy, perfectly at home in those bleak rolling hills. He was a street ragamuffin before Cathy's elderly father adopted him into the manor as a stable boy. But he and a young Cathy manage to bond despite the class difference, a bond that eventually blossoms into true love. But that true love only breaks to the surface in the wild outdoors where a common humanity replaces artificial social distinctions. If only Cathy could find the will to break free of the leisure class.

What a great visual experience, the b&w expertly coordinated with the settings. When the two lovers approach the rocky crag, there's almost a feeling of an outdoor altar calling to them amidst the brooding hills. It's such a perfect visual contrast to the high-key ballrooms and parlors of the Lintons. The Lintons, however, are not to be despised despite their airs and privileges. In fact, they are very real victims of Cathy's suppressed feelings and Heathcliffe's cold calculations. As it turns out, there is no spectral salvation for them. As a result, the love being portrayed here is a kind of mad love, one that brings tragedy to all concerned. Thus, there's a reason those moors brood in dark fashion, while the movie itself remains the best of the many makes and remakes.

Emily Bronte's Masterwork

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 14 May 2006]

A number of years ago a mystery novel was published that has, as it's secret, the discovery of the complete manuscript of a second novel by Emily Bronte. Unfortunately nothing like that has ever surfaced, so we are stuck with only one book penned by her. If that one book was THE PROFESSOR or SHIRLEY (Charlotte's two least good novels), Emily would long ago have been forgotten, and we would see more interest in her younger sister Anne. But Emily left us WUTHERING HEIGHTS. It is rare for a writer to turn out such a stunning masterpiece only once and never write anything again.

JANE EYRE is a well structured organized novel, and it has passions revealed. As I have mentioned elsewhere it is a novel where the heroine was in a lowly position and dared to love her employer (something shocking in 1847). But WUTHERING HEIGHTS has a similar story but with more symbolic raw power. Here it is not a female servant loving her master but a male (of gypsy heritage) who loves and is loved by the daughter of his patron. But the patron dies, and his jealous son treats the gypsy as the lowliest of servants. How the gypsy boy finds his love seemingly rejected, and how he eventually lives only for revenge against those he feels wronged him becomes the meat of the plot here. And all the sturm und drang is played out against the wild moors with their hints of sexual freedom.

It was powerful stuff in 1847 Victorian England, and it remains really powerful today. If Bronte could not write anything else due to her early death, this novel still enshrined her among the great novelists.

The only element of the plot that is lost is Hindley's family. He has a wife briefly in the novel (that is how he has a son named Hareton that Heathcliff torments in his revenge). The wife, named Frances, dies soon after giving birth. No mention of her, nor of Hareton and young Cathy and Heathcliff's son by Isabelle called Linton. Possibly, like the streamlining of the 1944 JANE EYRE by dropping the Rivers from the story, this was just as well.

Olivier had the Byronic good looks (of a dark, saturnine type) that fit the part of the tormented, devilish Heathcliff. And Merle Oberon (who had already appeared opposite Olivier in THE DIVORCE OF LADY X) was given her best part as the confused, doomed Cathy: she loves Heathcliff (as she tells Nellie - Flora Robson) but she has a willingness to take up with Edgar (David Niven) because he is civilized, and caring when she is injured, and she thinks Heathcliff deserted her. Niven really had his first meaty dramatic role as Edgar, and Geraldine Fitzgerald was quite good as the sadly disillusioned Isabel (who loved not wisely but too well).

The stark cinematography by Gregg Toland, and direction by William Wyler makes this the best film made of any of the Bronte novels to date.

Shoot that poison arrow in my heart

[Spondonman · 8/10 · 17 May 2014]

I saw this film many years before I read the book, I know which I prefer - OK, maybe with rose-tinted spectacles on. The book by Emily Bronte is an undeniable classic as is this film version but imho this is a much better use of one hundred and five minutes of life. And though they keep trying, this will remain the best condensation of the story, Wuthering Lites c/o the original Fantasy Factory.

Waif brought into well off Yorkshire home, grows up to fall in violent love with the masters daughter and violent hate with the son, and eventually owns the estate but not the woman. Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon are perfect as the manic birds of a feather Heathcliff and Cathy with David Niven as the elegant sidelined husband. Everyone is portrayed as faulty or unlikeable in some way, romance is seen as hopeless childishness leading at best to passionate petulance, at worst to death; love is as strange as people. It's relentlessly beautiful stuff, gloriously photographed by Gregg Toland with a glowing atmosphere and a most assured production than has not been possible to achieve again. The spirit of nonsensical romance has been lost in this more cynical age. Favourite bits: Miles Mander's melodramatics at the beginning resulting in Flora Robson's picture-long flashback; the windswept pair on the rocks; the pair gatecrashing the dance; Oberon's unravelling to Niven and the tear-jerking finale. Director William Wyler had a long and illustrious career, but to my mind he never bettered this effort.

Watch it and weep; not only at the film's content but for a cinematic era long dead and never coming back.

Haunting half tale of soul mates with a miscast Heathcliff

[roghache · 6/10 · 27 March 2006]

This is the quintessential screen adaptation of the famous classic. I hesitate to take on Emily Bronte's great and famous moor swept novel of anguished soul mates or that brilliant actor, Lawrence Olivier, but fear I must do both.

The tale recounted to Lockwood is of a Yorkshire gentleman named Mr. Earnshaw, who returns from a business trip with an orphan waif named Heathcliff. This ragged boy becomes an inseparable companion to Mr. Earnshaw's daughter, Catherine, but incurs enmity and ill use by her brother, Hindley. When they grow up, Cathy, though soul mate to Heathcliff, deigns him unworthy of her and chooses instead to marry her prosperous, socially respectable neighbour, Edgar Linton. Heathcliff's lifelong brooding, vengeful, and haunted response to her betrayal dominate the remainder of the story.

First, Emily Bronte has created a legendary figure in Heathcliff, but as my son has said, it's a brilliant story, poorly told. I agree with him that the novel extends far...far too many chapters after the climactic death of Catherine. However, who am I to argue with Emily Bronte? and since Hollywood chose to adapt her novel to the screen, it shouldn't simply have eliminated basically ALL these chapters, which do have a significant point to them. Personally, they somewhat bored me, but I feel, nevertheless, that the film didn't really do justice to the book. The movie only tells half the story, not delving into the younger generation of Lintons and Earnshaws at all, and not truly revealing the character of Heathcliff. I don't think poor Emily Bronte would be one bit pleased with Hollywood's half tale!

Also, although I am an enormous fan of Lawrence Olivier, surely one of the greatest actors of all time, he is woefully miscast here in the role of Heathcliff. Olivier's acting is stellar as always, but he comes across too much the handsome, educated English gentleman that he is, not the rugged, brooding Heathcliff. (Olivier is perfect as the wealthy and sophisticated country squire, Maxim DeWinter in Daphne DuMaurier's Rebecca, but not Heathcliff, please!) Furthermore, the film eliminates the crucial (if overlong!) latter Bronte chapters, in which Heathcliff proves rather a vindictive monster. This immortal villainous hero (or heroic villain) is just too sympathetic a victim here, especially when combined with Olivier's dashing gentlemanly demeanor.

The beauty of Wuthering Heights lies in its complexity, seeing the rather despicable creature Heathcliff becomes, yet having compassion for him because of his torment, as caused by his soul mate's betrayal and death. So, a simplified and flawed version of a great story, in my opinion, but an old classic worth watching from a sense of nostalgia.

The definitive version of this story

[jjnxn-1 · 10/10 · 10 May 2013]

Dark, beautiful version of Emily Bronte's master work. Unquestionably Merle Oberon's selfish, conflicted Cathy is her best work and she's matched every step of the way by Olivier, perhaps at the peak of his attractiveness, who also gives one of his best performances as the tormented Heathcliff. All the actors acquit themselves with distinction but what makes this stand out is both the assured touch of Wyler and the stellar photography which is so effective it almost becomes a character in the piece. A story of doomed love and revenge it can hardly be described a happy film but it is an emotionally involving one. Every few years there is a new version trying to improve on this, they can't. Catch it if you can.

Literature on Film

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 10 September 2015]

A servant in the house of Wuthering Heights tells a traveler the unfortunate tale of lovers Cathy (Merle Oberon) and Heathcliff (Laurence Olivier).

The 1940 Academy Award for Best Cinematography, black-and-white category, was awarded to Gregg Toland for his work. Nominated for original score (but losing to "The Wizard of Oz") was the prolific film composer, Alfred Newman, whose poignant "Cathy's Theme" does so much "to maintain its life as a masterpiece of romantic filmmaking." I love Gregg Toland, and William Wyler is quite underrated. He was prolific and had a string of hits, but is rarely recalled today (2015). He was a contemporary and friend of Howard Hawks, but somehow Hawks is now the legend and Wyler is second fiddle. How can this be?

This adaptation has something the rest don't...

[rondine · 10/10 · 4 July 2011]

I still think this is the best adaptation of Bronte's novel out of the gozillion remakes out there. This one has so much intensity and heart. The performances are just incredible. The music is incredible. The cinematography is absolutely magical! And of course, the direction is first rate.

I won't recap the story- since many here have already done that- but I will tell you that this version is heads & shoulders above the rest. Movies do imitate life, and in parallel to that imitation, this movie is filled with moments that are absolutely unforgettable. This is due to the actors- everyone in this movie is first rate. All the supporting roles (Geraldine Fitzgerald, Donald Crisp, Leo Carroll, Flora Robson, David Niven) are all seamlessly committed to their roles in a way that makes watching them vicariously enjoyable. Even the children that play the leads in their youth are incredibly good!

The leads, played by Oberon & Olivier are so well matched, you'd believe they were really in love. They have a chemistry and an intensity that makes you believe in them. After all, this story is one which does require some suspension of disbelief, but the artistry of Oberon & Olivier make it easy and quite frankly, unnoticeable.

One of my favorite things that no remake can compete with is the score by Alfred Newman. His light and joyful children's theme and the brooding themes are so organic and seem come from the action in the film. But probably the most memorable is "Cathy's theme." It defines the love of Cathy in the movie in musical terms. It is, as they say, the language of the soul in this movie.

The beautiful cinematography by Gregg Toland is absolutely RADIANT. Despite a dark story full of longing, angst and pain, his radiant cinematography illuminates the faces of the actors in a way that is almost supernatural. In fact, the scene where Cathy turns to Ellen and says, "Ellen, I AM Heathcliff!" with the lightening in the background actually does seem almost supernatural! In the scene with the ball, the skin of the actors seems to reflect light in a way that is bewitching and fascinating. The jewels the ladies where look more like they're under a jeweler's light than just things hanging off the necks of actresses. Somehow his cinematography has a clean crispness that I've seen in very few black & white movies. I have to say, his work in this movie is another reason I prefer this to any version in color.

William Wyler's direction is spot-on as well. He tells the story as much with the choices of camera angles as the screenwriter. Each frame is composed in such an artistic way- yet not in a way that you notice. I have noticed due to repeated viewings, but the fact is, this movie comes off as almost voyeuristic. We watch almost as if we were eavesdropping on the lives of these people. Like any great movie, it pulls you in & holds you.

While I realize (having read the book myself) that this isn't the most complete adaptation, it is the one that moves me the most. That's part of why we go to the movies- to feel - and as someone once said in a movie, "to know we're not alone." 5 out of 4 stars!!!!!!! :)

Better Than Average Soap; Class Matters - Wuthering Heights

[arthur_tafero · 7/10 · 1 April 2022]

Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon give classic performances in one of the great soaps of all time; Wuthering Heights. I enjoyed the excellent film score; and it helps bring out the emotional aspect of the Bronte novel. The film clearly points out how hopeless it is to be in one class and intermingle socially with a member of another class. You might be able to sustain a friendship of some type, but nothing too serious. Unfortunately, the Olivier character does not learn this lesson very well. I know from experience that these things never work. A very good study in classism.

A beautifully made movie about ugly people

[richard-1787 · 10/10 · 11 January 2015]

This is a beautifully filmed movie acted beautifully by two very beautiful leads, Merle Oberon and Lawrence Olivier, and some very fine supporting actors, in particular Flora Robson as Ellen. (Robson would go on the next year to give my favorite interpretation of Elizabeth I in *The Sea Hawk". She was one great actress.)

But none of this beauty disguises the fact that it is the story of two very selfish and at times even hateful young people, Cathy and Heathcliff. No matter how beautiful the cinematography - and it is often very beautiful - how romantic the music (by Alfred Newman), and how moving the often poetic dialogue, especially over Cathy's deathbed, it was impossible, at least for me, to forget that important fact.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It's really well made. But I could only wish the worst for Cathy and her Heathcliff. May they fall over that rock at the end and suffer all the torments they had inflicted on those around them.

Studio-era star vehicle for Merle Oberon

[Igenlode Wordsmith · 6/10 · 5 August 2007]

I was never a particular fan of "Wuthering Heights" the novel, so I thought I might enjoy this film simply as a Hollywood melodrama in its own right.

And indeed at the beginning it looks quite promising; I hadn't realised that it actually contained mordant wit, capable of raising a laugh from the audience. There's a frequent sense of compression, as if sizeable periods of time are being skated over behind the scenes, but with any literary property this is probably inevitable. Accents are a bit wobbly (I could swear the Yorkshire characters had switched into Scots at one point by the end of the film, while the child actors are pure American) and the outdoor close-ups are marred by the obvious painted backdrops -- all too distracting, when you've once noticed that the heather is billowing in the foreground yet the sky is frozen in place! I find the whole 'castle' conceit hard to swallow and the opening special-effects snowstorm more than a little overdone, but otherwise the film works for me fairly well in its first half.

For all the talk about Laurence Olivier, this picture strikes me as basically a star vehicle for Merle Oberon with the male actors in support. My main trouble with this is that I don't find Cathy a particularly appealing character; while she is presumably intended to be arbitrary and wilful, I only find Miss Oberon's rendition of the girl rings true when she is flying out in spitfire rage at one or another of her unfortunate fellow-characters. Her loving turns are harder to swallow -- I find it hard to believe that this Cathy ever really cared for anyone other than herself. Olivier's acting is by and large fine, but the narrative impetus needed to sustain this level of plot melodrama tends to sag, leaving him with impossibly fraught lines to deliver.

In the second half things seemed to go steadily downhill, culminating in a deeply unconvincing 'happy ending'. For some reason, Heathcliff's final appearance didn't sustain the power and menace of the same character in the opening scenario, while the deathbed sequence left me stone cold, not aided by yet another case of conveniently-timed and radiantly symptomless Hollywood illness. To be fair, I'm afraid I couldn't get David Niven's irreverent anecdote about nasal discharge during this scene ('"How horrid!" shrieked the corpse, and shot out of bed') out of my head...

He had every reason to look back on the film without affection: the role of Edgar is certainly a thankless one, since the character seems to be used as an arbitrary plot lever. One moment he is playing the Hollywood notion of the Wicked Squire, the next moment he is bestowing bloodless caresses on Cathy without conviction (and without receiving any apparent encouragement). Then he is suddenly the Dictatorial Brother when it suits the plot... and yet mysteriously fails to react at all to Heathcliff's presence in his wife's bedroom.

The role written for Isabella Linton is a better one, and the conflict between her and Cathy was the only part of the second half that carried any emotional charge for me. Again, the storyline is so compressed that we never see any lover-like scenes take place between her and Heathcliff and have to take her word for it -- adding an additional unintended frisson, since we can't tell from this if she is deluding herself or indeed just taunting her sister-in-law! The supposed erotic charge between Heathcliff and Cathy, on the other hand, more or less has to be taken as written. I have trouble with this throughout the film (as I said above, the two are most credible as passionate lovers only when quarrelling violently) and I found their scenes together in the second half even less inspiring. This Cathy doesn't come across as having any particular attachment to the moors, being more interested in parties and fashion than 'sleeping under haystacks' with her lover; it is perhaps symptomatic that for an inherent love of the high places is substituted a fantasy of herself as Queen of a pretend castle there.

In the last analysis, despite having no attachment to the original source, after viewing this film I was left with the feeling that it isn't really satisfactory as a 'Hollywood' production either. Both as an adaptation and as a drama I would recommend the BBC TV broadcast version of the 1960s; to the best of my recall it doesn't cover the 'second generation' either, the budget is clearly far lower and it is basically a recreation of a studio-bound live broadcast, but it has a power and a coherency (and, I would guess, an understanding of its setting and period) that I find lacking here.

Great acting by Olivier, but...

[thewag777 · 4/10 · 11 February 2005]

I have read the novel. I could write a long review about how brilliant the novel was and how it did not go with the tradition love story one would expect. Furthermore, the novel did not have the traditional heroes and villains. That is why the novel is so great.

Hollywood, however, just couldn't stand it could they? They had to turn it into a traditional soppy love story about soul mates (Heatchcliff and Catherine.) The truth is, Catherine, in the novel, loved Edgar, maybe more than Heathcliff. Furthermore, Heathcliff, in the novel, though starting off as a victim, turned into a horrible villain. The movie makes him out to be a hero for the most part, though he is cold to his wife Isabel. In the novel, he is downright abusive to her.

This film version took away everything that was original and great about the novel. Many who have read the novel didn't like it because their simple minds can't handle going form sympathising with Heathcliff to hating him. Hollywood certainly pandered to that crowd.

The only thing in this film worth seeing for actual entertainment is Olivier. The acting is brilliant, as one would expect from the greatest actor of all time. I don't like traditional love stories, but Olivier did it as well as it could be done. The early scene with him looking out the window calling for Catherine to come to him is moving. I also have to give credit to the music. It complemented Olivier's acting perfectly.

Olivier gets a 10, the rest of the movie a 1. I decided to give it overall a 4 out of 10. Even with Olivier, this garbage must have a below average rating.