Ok DCUM, what do you think of the Wuthering Heights movie?

[Anonymous]

How about the soundtrack? I was a book fan so not interested in a different movie, but I like Charli XCX.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, Heathcliff is described as a gypsy and a dark stranger in the novel. Could it just be that he’s dark in mysterious or does it imply that he’s from a completely different race? I never understood it this way. The actor who plays Heathcliff is tall, dark and handsome.

I'm French and have lived in the UK. "Gypsy" means traveling Roma people that mostly came from Eastern Europe but that have very distant Indian heritage (they migrated in the Middle Ages or something). They are not of African or Arab descent. In Bronte's time, gypsies would have looked like the gypsies of today, and since the settled populations looked down on them, they probably wouldn't distinguish between impoverished English folk without a home and actual Roma, if both looked relatively similar. If you walk in the streets of Paris right now, you can see gypsy women holding babies in their laps begging for money, usually near metro stations. They are purposefully scruffy to attract sympathy, but they do actually have relatively pale skin and dark hair (also today they're slaves to a begging racket, so don't give them money - they'll have to hand it over to the menfolk in charge).

So casting a Caucasian with dark hair in the role of Heathcliff is entirely appropriate.

NOPE.

For the love, people. Can you do some reading. The evidence is in the book. You can google it.

DP. So how did you feel about the actually inaccurate casting in Hamilton? That wasn’t about fictional people, open to interpretation.

That's the whole point in Hamilton and people are free to dislike it.

Versus this movie feeling like it misses or chooses to gloss over something significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, Heathcliff is described as a gypsy and a dark stranger in the novel. Could it just be that he’s dark in mysterious or does it imply that he’s from a completely different race? I never understood it this way. The actor who plays Heathcliff is tall, dark and handsome.

I'm French and have lived in the UK. "Gypsy" means traveling Roma people that mostly came from Eastern Europe but that have very distant Indian heritage (they migrated in the Middle Ages or something). They are not of African or Arab descent. In Bronte's time, gypsies would have looked like the gypsies of today, and since the settled populations looked down on them, they probably wouldn't distinguish between impoverished English folk without a home and actual Roma, if both looked relatively similar. If you walk in the streets of Paris right now, you can see gypsy women holding babies in their laps begging for money, usually near metro stations. They are purposefully scruffy to attract sympathy, but they do actually have relatively pale skin and dark hair (also today they're slaves to a begging racket, so don't give them money - they'll have to hand it over to the menfolk in charge).

So casting a Caucasian with dark hair in the role of Heathcliff is entirely appropriate.

NOPE.

For the love, people. Can you do some reading. The evidence is in the book. You can google it.

DP. So how did you feel about the actually inaccurate casting in Hamilton? That wasn’t about fictional people, open to interpretation.

That's the whole point in Hamilton and people are free to dislike it.

Versus this movie feeling like it misses or chooses to gloss over something significant.

But you did not even see the movie so it’s such odd criticism. It also had S&M! This whole discussion is based on people somehow thinking it aimed to be accurate and carry the same messages as the book.

[Anonymous]

I don’t disagree with the issues with the casting, the white washing, etc. And Margo being too young. The problem is they wanted a huge box office hit and that is getting harder to make these days.

I challenge anyone to name a better pair that would’ve made the kind of box office they’re getting, which is 82 million opening weekend, and definitely on track to hit the 200 million target they were going for. Jacob is hugely talented and is a young Oscar nominee and Margot is stunning and well known.

They maybe, maybe (?) could’ve gone with having one of the leads being lesser known, but I don’t think so. They could’ve definitely gone a different direction and gotten a lower budget more indie film that might have gotten critical acclaim, but they wanted a big box office hit and that’s what they are on their way to getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t disagree with the issues with the casting, the white washing, etc. And Margo being too young. The problem is they wanted a huge box office hit and that is getting harder to make these days.

I challenge anyone to name a better pair that would’ve made the kind of box office they’re getting, which is 82 million opening weekend, and definitely on track to hit the 200 million target they were going for. Jacob is hugely talented and is a young Oscar nominee and Margot is stunning and well known.

They maybe, maybe (?) could’ve gone with having one of the leads being lesser known, but I don’t think so. They could’ve definitely gone a different direction and gotten a lower budget more indie film that might have gotten critical acclaim, but they wanted a big box office hit and that’s what they are on their way to getting.

Sorry referring to another poster who said Margot might be too old for the role - agreeing with that - did not mean too young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s gross that in this day and age she made Heathcliff white. WTF. Other races exist, and even Emily Brontë was aware of them and gave the character a fully realized personality, not just one of slave or peasant.

+ a gajillion. There are no words to describe the travesty of making Heathcliff white.

Don’t people realize that if you want to change the race of a historical character (fictional or non-fictional), it can only be done as a non-white actor playing the part of a historically white character?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, Heathcliff is described as a gypsy and a dark stranger in the novel. Could it just be that he’s dark in mysterious or does it imply that he’s from a completely different race? I never understood it this way. The actor who plays Heathcliff is tall, dark and handsome.

I'm French and have lived in the UK. "Gypsy" means traveling Roma people that mostly came from Eastern Europe but that have very distant Indian heritage (they migrated in the Middle Ages or something). They are not of African or Arab descent. In Bronte's time, gypsies would have looked like the gypsies of today, and since the settled populations looked down on them, they probably wouldn't distinguish between impoverished English folk without a home and actual Roma, if both looked relatively similar. If you walk in the streets of Paris right now, you can see gypsy women holding babies in their laps begging for money, usually near metro stations. They are purposefully scruffy to attract sympathy, but they do actually have relatively pale skin and dark hair (also today they're slaves to a begging racket, so don't give them money - they'll have to hand it over to the menfolk in charge).

So casting a Caucasian with dark hair in the role of Heathcliff is entirely appropriate.

NOPE.

For the love, people. Can you do some reading. The evidence is in the book. You can google it.

DP. So how did you feel about the actually inaccurate casting in Hamilton? That wasn’t about fictional people, open to interpretation.

That's the whole point in Hamilton and people are free to dislike it.

Versus this movie feeling like it misses or chooses to gloss over something significant.

You can’t be serious. Casting POC to play people we all know were white, vs casting a white man to play a *fictional* character who is interpreted differently by everyone? Not enough eye rolls for this twisted “logic.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s gross that in this day and age she made Heathcliff white. WTF. Other races exist, and even Emily Brontë was aware of them and gave the character a fully realized personality, not just one of slave or peasant.

+ a gajillion. There are no words to describe the travesty of making Heathcliff white.

Don’t people realize that if you want to change the race of a historical character (fictional or non-fictional), it can only be done as a non-white actor playing the part of a historically white character?

Really hope this is satire.

[Anonymous]

The book made his race the reason they couldn't be a match. The movie reduces it to class.

I think it was a miss. When a book from the 1800s can be more insightful about race than a movie in 2026, that's kind of wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The book made his race the reason they couldn't be a match. The movie reduces it to class.

I think it was a miss. When a book from the 1800s can be more insightful about race than a movie in 2026, that's kind of wild.

A “gipsy” man or any person who was darker than the usual Engish person would have been considered below them. He wasn’t necessarily black.

Regardless, it’s interesting that those of you upset by Elordi’s casting have nothing to say on the topic of Hamilton, a musical about REAL people who happened to be white but were played by POC. At least Heathcliff is fictional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about the soundtrack? I was a book fan so not interested in a different movie, but I like Charli XCX.

Can’t stand Charli XCX so will probably have to miss this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The book made his race the reason they couldn't be a match. The movie reduces it to class.

I think it was a miss. When a book from the 1800s can be more insightful about race than a movie in 2026, that's kind of wild.

A “gipsy” man or any person who was darker than the usual Engish person would have been considered below them. He wasn’t necessarily black.

Regardless, it’s interesting that those of you upset by Elordi’s casting have nothing to say on the topic of Hamilton, a musical about REAL people who happened to be white but were played by POC. At least Heathcliff is fictional.

Someone addressed Hamilton above, you just disagree with the viewpoint of PPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The book made his race the reason they couldn't be a match. The movie reduces it to class.

I think it was a miss. When a book from the 1800s can be more insightful about race than a movie in 2026, that's kind of wild.

A “gipsy” man or any person who was darker than the usual Engish person would have been considered below them. He wasn’t necessarily black.

Regardless, it’s interesting that those of you upset by Elordi’s casting have nothing to say on the topic of Hamilton, a musical about REAL people who happened to be white but were played by POC. At least Heathcliff is fictional.

Someone addressed Hamilton above, you just disagree with the viewpoint of PPs.

You mean the person who said Hamilton (a show based on real people) was “open to interpretation”?

Guess what: a fictional character is most definitely “open to interpretation.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The book made his race the reason they couldn't be a match. The movie reduces it to class.

I think it was a miss. When a book from the 1800s can be more insightful about race than a movie in 2026, that's kind of wild.

A “gipsy” man or any person who was darker than the usual Engish person would have been considered below them. He wasn’t necessarily black.

Regardless, it’s interesting that those of you upset by Elordi’s casting have nothing to say on the topic of Hamilton, a musical about REAL people who happened to be white but were played by POC. At least Heathcliff is fictional.

Someone addressed Hamilton above, you just disagree with the viewpoint of PPs.

You mean the person who said Hamilton (a show based on real people) was “open to interpretation”?

Guess what: a fictional character is most definitely “open to interpretation.”

Only people who don't know what lascar means would think it's open to interpretation. It was a common word when the book was written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok curious who ya'll think should have been cast in place of JE?

Dev Patel?