Yes, you read the title correctly. I’m covering the recently released 90-second trailer of Emerald Fennel’s 2026 adaptation of Emily Brontë’s classic gothic novel “Wuthering Heights.” You might remember the first wave of backlash from the announcement of Heathcliff’s and Catherine’s actors: Jacob Elordi and Margot Robbie. Some argued that the two celebrities’ industry popularity and authority seem to carry more weight than their ability to portray deeply eccentric and emotionally complex characters. Elordi’s casting was met with pushback, since the text describes Heathcliff as “darkskinned gypsy.” Needless to say, the term “dark-skinned” perhaps hints that Heathcliff is a person of color, which Elordi is not. Although the epithet “gypsy” technically refers to the Roma people, it is also used as a racial slur for any racially ambiguous or socially “unacceptable” demographic. This adaptation, however, will be among ten others with a white actor as Heathcliff. In the history of “Wuthering Heights” films, the 2011 rendition starring James Howson is the first, and only, with a Black lead actor.
If you’re only vaguely familiar with “Wuthering Heights” and its author, you’re in good company. Until this summer, I’d never read the novel. The story follows the generational relationship between the Earnshaws and the Lintons, the inhabitants of the Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange estates, respectively. The wild childhoods of the Earnshaws and the refined childhoods of the Lintons give the reader a glimpse into Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff’s passionate relationship. Mr. Earnshaw, Catherine’s kind father, rescues an orphaned Heathcliff. The tale spans several decades, including the birth of Catherine (Cathy) Linton, Catherine Earnshaw’s elegant daughter from her marriage into the Linton family.
Before I dissected the crisp pages of this newly bought book, I assumed it was a deeply romantic tale. Just like anyone, I was undoubtedly enthralled by Brontë’s famous quote: “Whatever souls are made of, his and mine are the same.” Prior to reading the novel, I knew little except for this line and rumors of a cousin-to-cousin marriage. Many readers characterize the novel as a romance. However, many amplify the love in the novel over traces of stronger themes. For example, many consider Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” as a romance — perhaps even “the” romance. But to scholars, literary critics, and fans, the genre “romance” does not accurately encompass such a highly insightful and sophisticated novel. After indulging in the dark, rustic world of “Wuthering Heights,” I soon realized it was horrifically gothic rather than romantic. For the Penguin Classics 2008 edition of the novel, novelist Jeanette Winterson summarizes this point when she warns, “‘Wuthering Heights’ is commonly thought of as ‘romantic,’ but try rereading it without being astonished by the extremes of physical and psychological violence.” I was astonished and stupefied. However, you don’t need to “re-read” the book to come to this conclusion.
This precise mislabeling enraged viewers of the 90-second trailer. The trailer begins with Charli XCX’s charming remix of “Everything is romantic” that has the world in a frenzied chokehold. The trailer sits in a pool of feverish erotica and repressed lust — ideals that the book, though not explicitly against, hides from the reader. Actually, the book is so devoid of innuendo and sensuality that it’s surprising anyone in the story gets pregnant. Ms. Dean, the pious housekeeper of Thrushcross Grange, relays the “history” of the Linton and Earnshaw bloodline to Mr. Lockwood, a visitor, while removing any intimate retelling. A delicate and devout woman like Ms. Dean will certainly not mention any trace of carnal desires, as they are inappropriate, especially in the context of a story told to a stranger. These are private matters that Brontë keeps away from Mr. Lockwood and, therefore, the reader. Many have publicly voiced that the lack of eroticism in the book should be enough to ensure the same in an adaptation.
Books are windows to an alternate reality. As readers and viewers, the characters we interact with are real people, not imaginary. Though we’re aware they aren’t alive, to read a book or watch a movie is to enter a separate reality, where even when the book is closed or the screen is black, we still believe characters are living without our watchful eye. When exploring Catherine and Heathcliff, with their daunting, toxic, masochistic obsession and infatuation, it would be naive to assume there wasn’t any sensuality or physical chemistry. Although Brontë didn’t tell us (because in some ways, she couldn’t), it doesn’t mean it wasn’t subtextually present. A movie is, in fact, not a book, and the job of an adaptation isn’t to repeat what’s been done but to customize through visual media. It’s not against the “spirit” of the book to make the movie an erotica because it could have been, especially considering the characters’ essences. But it’s impossible for this movie to be only an erotic movie. This film has to expose the deathly immoral, evil themes so inseparable from the plot.
Ultimately, this is not a review of the actual movie, but of a 90-second trailer! The movie hasn’t come out, and there is already so much criticism. The trailer could be an intentionally misleading marketing scheme aimed at gaining audiences. There are innumerable examples of movies that turn out differently from their trailers, and I chose to give this one the benefit of the doubt … and, I dare say, a chance.
