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

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.

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.

Why don't you go read a book. May I suggest Wuthering Heights? Get out of your own little bubble where you center yourself constantly.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not watching this. Emerald Fennell isn't going to fool me again. Her movies are all style and no substance.

In this case the style is 100% worth it. Costumes and sets alone would blow you away.

Anonymous wrote:The movie was horrible.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Heathcliff was not white in the novel? I didn’t realize that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heathcliff was not white in the novel? I didn’t realize that.

Him not being white is the main plot. I'm guessing you were really clueless or your English teacher was terrible.

DP here. I have a Masters degree in English Literature and my MA thesis involved Wuthering Heights.

Heathcliff's race is NOT "the main plot." You clearly didn't read the novel, nor do you even know what "plot" means.

Also, your first sentence is not a sentence at all.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not watching this. Emerald Fennell isn't going to fool me again. Her movies are all style and no substance.