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.

It was indirectly suggested that Heathcliff is of mixed heritage because he was adopted (or benefactee) by a white man who very likely fathered him out of wedlock. I thought gypsy or Spanish.
Back in the day the "Black Irish" were the descendents of the Spanish invaders from the Armada - they tended to have darker skin, eyes and hair.
We have to remember that the people of the British Isles are typically very fair. The Roman colonization introduced pigmentation normally associated with the mediterranean.

My family is "Black Irish" and this Armada thing is just total myth. Dark haired Irish actually dated to antiquity. The red-head gene was brought in by Viking invaders (probably most of the blondes too). The Vikings ran all up and down the east coast of Ireland for centuries and left a lot of DNA while they were there.

I also think the term "Black" that a poster used would have been historically unlikely for 1840s England. A mixed race child with some African or Asian or Roma heritage would have been described as dark, but a Welshman or Irishman might also be described that way. (Look at Catherine Zeta-Jones, who is Welsh.) I'd actually love to hear more from the English M.A. who wrote her thesis on WH....but my memory/understanding is that it's pretty important to Heathcliff's character and the love story that he was "othered" due to his financial circumstances/uncertain parentage, but also due to his coloring. You could maybe overcome 1 or 2 of those in 1840s England, but not all three. There were definitely people of all different races in Victoria society....Darwin's taxidermy teacher was Black. There was a famous British Colonel who was the son of an Indian woman and British father. The sun never set on the British empire....guys had children all around the world and not all of them just left those kids there. Race/ethnicity issues were actually a big thing in early 19th century England, so it wouldn't surprise me if Bronte actually wanted to play on those contemporary social debates by creating a sort of ethnic ambiguity around Healthcliff. It makes him more dangerous, more liminal, more exotic -- it all adds to the thrill and mystery of the character.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This book was written as contemporary fiction in the 1840s. When you know about that period, Heathcliff definitely isn’t white. Liverpool and the word “Lascar” would have be universally understood by readers in the time period. Few Americas know what those words mean, of course.

The terms describing Heathcliff are from characters, not the narrator. We have to decide who we believe - Lockwood? Mrs. Earnshaw?

That being said. The movie chooses not to discuss this, but it also removes major characters and the whole second part of the story. It isn’t really an adaption, IMO. It’s inspired by and mostly vibes.

Yes, and I'm not sure why people are so offended by it? Some newer works with a big fan based like Hunger Games and Harry Potter demand faithfulness to the material, but WH has been adapted SO many times. Same as Romeo and Juliet with West Side Story for instance. Why would anyone have an issue with a newer take changing some/most details and putting their own creative spin on it? It's odd to see so many pages about the movie with it being clear people either did not see it or were offended by the creative license, but without much discussion of the content of the movie at all.

I think it's because of recent faithful adaptions that fans were so disappointed. There's such a huge fanbase for the Bronte sisters that unfaithful adaptions will absolutely get ripped to shreds. I imagine that if there were more social media channels with Pride & Prejudice 2005 came out, we'd see the same thing happening (there's an Austen reddit sub that routinely has threads bashing 2005 even today).

I agree that it's because there are many people who hold WH near and dear to their hearts, so aren't excited to see lots of liberties taken with it. Little Women and Anne of Green Gables are also books like that, where people want something pretty faithful to how they carry the book in their heart. I think the movie folks probably could have been just fine if they called it something else and said it was inspired by WH -- like Clueless inspired by Emma, or The Lion King inspired by Hamlet. No one's complaining the Simba is not giving a tortured monologue debating suicide, because no one called the movie Hamlet. Instead, people think the subtle homage to the play is clever.

Anonymous wrote:I bet those complaining about the casting of Elordi were thrilled with the recent Snow White live action movie that had a Latina woman in the title role? I didn't care either way - as it was yet another *interpretation* - but I think it's obvious that those of you outraged about a white man playing Heathcliff are absolutely delighted whenever a POC plays what is known to be a white character. See: Hamilton.

How many times is this PP going to bring up Hamilton which came out 10 years ago! It's not the "gotcha" you think it is.

You can accuse ppl of being oversensitive but I'm happy to own that just fine. This moment is making me more sensitive to a lot of things. The movie is just another data point.

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.

It was indirectly suggested that Heathcliff is of mixed heritage because he was adopted (or benefactee) by a white man who very likely fathered him out of wedlock. I thought gypsy or Spanish.
Back in the day the "Black Irish" were the descendents of the Spanish invaders from the Armada - they tended to have darker skin, eyes and hair.
We have to remember that the people of the British Isles are typically very fair. The Roman colonization introduced pigmentation normally associated with the mediterranean.

I bet those complaining about the casting of Elordi were thrilled with the recent Snow White live action movie that had a Latina woman in the title role? I didn't care either way - as it was yet another *interpretation* - but I think it's obvious that those of you outraged about a white man playing Heathcliff are absolutely delighted whenever a POC plays what is known to be a white character. See: Hamilton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This book was written as contemporary fiction in the 1840s. When you know about that period, Heathcliff definitely isn’t white. Liverpool and the word “Lascar” would have be universally understood by readers in the time period. Few Americas know what those words mean, of course.

The terms describing Heathcliff are from characters, not the narrator. We have to decide who we believe - Lockwood? Mrs. Earnshaw?

That being said. The movie chooses not to discuss this, but it also removes major characters and the whole second part of the story. It isn’t really an adaption, IMO. It’s inspired by and mostly vibes.

Yes, and I'm not sure why people are so offended by it? Some newer works with a big fan based like Hunger Games and Harry Potter demand faithfulness to the material, but WH has been adapted SO many times. Same as Romeo and Juliet with West Side Story for instance. Why would anyone have an issue with a newer take changing some/most details and putting their own creative spin on it? It's odd to see so many pages about the movie with it being clear people either did not see it or were offended by the creative license, but without much discussion of the content of the movie at all.

I think it's because of recent faithful adaptions that fans were so disappointed. There's such a huge fanbase for the Bronte sisters that unfaithful adaptions will absolutely get ripped to shreds. I imagine that if there were more social media channels with Pride & Prejudice 2005 came out, we'd see the same thing happening (there's an Austen reddit sub that routinely has threads bashing 2005 even today).

Anonymous wrote:What are your thoughts on the "Wuthering Heights" movie? Critics' reviews range from "absolute trash" to "fabulous" and everything in between. I'm not sure I've ever seen such bipolar opinions of a film.

I'm traveling and haven't seen it yet but came here since DCUM is insightful about movies and TV and I know many on here will have also read the book.

The movie is much better than the book.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things I’ve read about the movie turned me off from seeing it.

1. The recent interview where the director explained why she made Heathcliff white. She removed race as a theme entirely because that’s how she saw him when she read it as a teenager? Rolled my eyes so hard.

2. Walls made of skin? Eww. Not my thing.

Of course she pictured him as white, because she is white. White people always center themselves. Kind of like how in most churches Jesus is blond and blue eyed.

Bless your heart. Not enough eye rolls for you.
DP

It's just true. DCUM is really showing its racist ass today, between this thread and the one where everyone is vehemently refuting the idea of microaggressions.

WH is a macroagression.

Anonymous wrote:This book was written as contemporary fiction in the 1840s. When you know about that period, Heathcliff definitely isn’t white. Liverpool and the word “Lascar” would have be universally understood by readers in the time period. Few Americas know what those words mean, of course.

The terms describing Heathcliff are from characters, not the narrator. We have to decide who we believe - Lockwood? Mrs. Earnshaw?

That being said. The movie chooses not to discuss this, but it also removes major characters and the whole second part of the story. It isn’t really an adaption, IMO. It’s inspired by and mostly vibes.

Yes, and I'm not sure why people are so offended by it? Some newer works with a big fan based like Hunger Games and Harry Potter demand faithfulness to the material, but WH has been adapted SO many times. Same as Romeo and Juliet with West Side Story for instance. Why would anyone have an issue with a newer take changing some/most details and putting their own creative spin on it? It's odd to see so many pages about the movie with it being clear people either did not see it or were offended by the creative license, but without much discussion of the content of the movie at all.

Anonymous wrote:This movie should probably have just been something else. Like just a generic, spicy period piece. She basically ripped the heart and soul out of the novel. Even putting aside eliminating the racial aspect of Heathcliff why eliminate Hindley???? Why also get rid of the warm relationship between heath cliff and the dad? She basically removes all nuance and complexity so that aged Karens can fantasize about Jacob Elordi (probably why Margot Robie who is too old for this role was selected).

Did you even see the movie? It was hardly a hot fantasy...

This book was written as contemporary fiction in the 1840s. When you know about that period, Heathcliff definitely isn’t white. Liverpool and the word “Lascar” would have be universally understood by readers in the time period. Few Americas know what those words mean, of course.

The terms describing Heathcliff are from characters, not the narrator. We have to decide who we believe - Lockwood? Mrs. Earnshaw?

That being said. The movie chooses not to discuss this, but it also removes major characters and the whole second part of the story. It isn’t really an adaption, IMO. It’s inspired by and mostly vibes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things I’ve read about the movie turned me off from seeing it.

1. The recent interview where the director explained why she made Heathcliff white. She removed race as a theme entirely because that’s how she saw him when she read it as a teenager? Rolled my eyes so hard.

2. Walls made of skin? Eww. Not my thing.

Of course she pictured him as white, because she is white. White people always center themselves. Kind of like how in most churches Jesus is blond and blue eyed.

Bless your heart. Not enough eye rolls for you.
DP

It's just true. DCUM is really showing its racist ass today, between this thread and the one where everyone is vehemently refuting the idea of microaggressions.

Please just stop trying to turn everything into a racist “microaggression.” Re: this movie, there is no evidence that Heathcliff was actually another race, just that he was dark and “gypsy-like.” That is widely open to interpretation, as several posters have already explained in detail. And again, this a FICTIONAL character, unlike those in Hamilton who were indisputably white people but were cast as POC. Funny how that doesn’t outrage you.

Perhaps someone should make a film or show about Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, et al but cast them with white people. I’d just love to see your indignation over that.

You need some media literacy. The whole point of Hamilton was having BIPOCs play founding fathers. There was nothing going on with casting white Heathcliff except institutionalized racism, so status quo.

There was an afro heathcliff 15 years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/nov/13/how-heathcliff-got-a-racelift

Well, I guess you can just give it a miss then if you judge the actors by their skin color and not their talent.

+100
This entire discussion is absurd. The book's description of Heathcliff is open to interpretation, the end.

That PP should just stick to Bridgerton.

This movie should probably have just been something else. Like just a generic, spicy period piece. She basically ripped the heart and soul out of the novel. Even putting aside eliminating the racial aspect of Heathcliff why eliminate Hindley???? Why also get rid of the warm relationship between heath cliff and the dad? She basically removes all nuance and complexity so that aged Karens can fantasize about Jacob Elordi (probably why Margot Robie who is too old for this role was selected).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things I’ve read about the movie turned me off from seeing it.

1. The recent interview where the director explained why she made Heathcliff white. She removed race as a theme entirely because that’s how she saw him when she read it as a teenager? Rolled my eyes so hard.

2. Walls made of skin? Eww. Not my thing.

Of course she pictured him as white, because she is white. White people always center themselves. Kind of like how in most churches Jesus is blond and blue eyed.

Bless your heart. Not enough eye rolls for you.
DP

It's just true. DCUM is really showing its racist ass today, between this thread and the one where everyone is vehemently refuting the idea of microaggressions.

Please just stop trying to turn everything into a racist “microaggression.” Re: this movie, there is no evidence that Heathcliff was actually another race, just that he was dark and “gypsy-like.” That is widely open to interpretation, as several posters have already explained in detail. And again, this a FICTIONAL character, unlike those in Hamilton who were indisputably white people but were cast as POC. Funny how that doesn’t outrage you.

Perhaps someone should make a film or show about Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, et al but cast them with white people. I’d just love to see your indignation over that.

You need some media literacy. The whole point of Hamilton was having BIPOCs play founding fathers. There was nothing going on with casting white Heathcliff except institutionalized racism, so status quo.

There was an afro heathcliff 15 years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/nov/13/how-heathcliff-got-a-racelift

Well, I guess you can just give it a miss then if you judge the actors by their skin color and not their talent.

+100
This entire discussion is absurd. The book's description of Heathcliff is open to interpretation, the end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things I’ve read about the movie turned me off from seeing it.

1. The recent interview where the director explained why she made Heathcliff white. She removed race as a theme entirely because that’s how she saw him when she read it as a teenager? Rolled my eyes so hard.

2. Walls made of skin? Eww. Not my thing.

Of course she pictured him as white, because she is white. White people always center themselves. Kind of like how in most churches Jesus is blond and blue eyed.

Bless your heart. Not enough eye rolls for you.
DP

It's just true. DCUM is really showing its racist ass today, between this thread and the one where everyone is vehemently refuting the idea of microaggressions.

Please just stop trying to turn everything into a racist “microaggression.” Re: this movie, there is no evidence that Heathcliff was actually another race, just that he was dark and “gypsy-like.” That is widely open to interpretation, as several posters have already explained in detail. And again, this a FICTIONAL character, unlike those in Hamilton who were indisputably white people but were cast as POC. Funny how that doesn’t outrage you.

Perhaps someone should make a film or show about Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, et al but cast them with white people. I’d just love to see your indignation over that.

You need some media literacy. The whole point of Hamilton was having BIPOCs play founding fathers. There was nothing going on with casting white Heathcliff except institutionalized racism, so status quo.

There was an afro heathcliff 15 years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/nov/13/how-heathcliff-got-a-racelift

"Media literacy"? You need some *actual* literacy - as in, read the book. And from your own link:

"In her novel, Brontë leaves Heathcliff's precise ethnicity open to debate, variously describing him as "a Lascar" and a "dark-skinned gipsy in aspect", which only adds to the confusion. Should he be black? White? Roma? Indian? Couldn't they have just cast Colin Firth?"

And from the comments section:

"In the book, Heathcliffe was described as a ragged street Arab found running wild on the streets of Liverpool. 'Street Arab' is simply a figure of speech, and means any kid pursuing a nomadic existence. It doesn't literally mean Arab, or Gypsy. Heathcliff could have been any ethnicity - but he was never described as black...!!!"

And as for the "afro Heathcliff" (your words), that's just another interpretation. That director chose to make his Heathcliff black. Emerald Fennell chose to make hers white. You'll just have to get over it.