They are all terrible except for the 2009 version. The book is very difficult to dramatize because Heathcliff ages from early childhood to midlife, which would require three different actors portraying the same character on film. The worst one I've seen is the 90s movie with Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, two excellent actors who are much too old for their roles. Ironically, the young Timothy Dalton was perfectly cast as Heathcliff in the early '70s version, but the film is just painfully bad otherwise. 1930s version is better than both of these, but it's not Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights.
Yes, Heathcliff starts the story at seven and ends at thirty-seven, there need to be three different actors to play him believably which can be a challenge (given he won't be an easy character to play).
The 2009 one is the only one I've watched, and like I said, I didn't hate it.
The acting was very good, especially Tom Hardy's. But apart from not wanting to see a white actor playing Heathcliff, that adaptation switched to the older versions of Cathy and Heathcliff while Mr. Earnshaw is still alive. A big part of Cathy and Heathcliff's story is their abuse and neglect after Mr. Earnshaw's death, when they're still children. They were twelve and thirteen when Mr. Earnshaw dies and.
If Mr. Earnshaw is still alive when they're grown up, that takes away from that childhood abuse which is very fundamental for both their characters.
Totally! I'm starting to accept that screen adaptations of these books aren't necessarily targeted towards the readers. Maybe some are, but most aren't.
They are all terrible except for the 2009 version. The book is very difficult to dramatize because Heathcliff ages from early childhood to midlife, which would require three different actors portraying the same character on film. The worst one I've seen is the 90s movie with Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, two excellent actors who are much too old for their roles. Ironically, the young Timothy Dalton was perfectly cast as Heathcliff in the early '70s version, but the film is just painfully bad otherwise. 1930s version is better than both of these, but it's not Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights.
Yes, Heathcliff starts the story at seven and ends at thirty-seven, there need to be three different actors to play him believably which can be a challenge (given he won't be an easy character to play).
The 2009 one is the only one I've watched, and like I said, I didn't hate it.
The acting was very good, especially Tom Hardy's. But apart from not wanting to see a white actor playing Heathcliff, that adaptation switched to the older versions of Cathy and Heathcliff while Mr. Earnshaw is still alive. A big part of Cathy and Heathcliff's story is their abuse and neglect after Mr. Earnshaw's death, when they're still children. They were twelve and thirteen when Mr. Earnshaw dies and.
If Mr. Earnshaw is still alive when they're grown up, that takes away from that childhood abuse which is very fundamental for both their characters.
Totally! I'm starting to accept that screen adaptations of these books aren't necessarily targeted towards the readers. Maybe some are, but most aren't.