Wuthering Heights Part II

Watching an adaptation of a book one knows well is strangely compelling: although obviously I knew what was going to happen (in the novel, at least) I was really looking forward to seeing how certain parts of the novel were treated by the screenplay. Generally, it didn’t disappoint. I think Tom Hardy has proved to be an excellent Heathcliff: sometimes surprising but always convincing, and with just the right amount of calculated madness. I was disappointed by Heathcliff’s suicide, though – it feels such a let-down after his demonstrations of strength of purpose, and is much less effective than his slow death in the novel (though, I suppose, it does end the programme more quickly!)

In this episode, the revenge which Heathcliff visits upon the next generation is in some ways rather abbreviated, but is played out well. The burgeoning romance between Hareton and Catherine is nicely done, however, and demonstrates that there can be freedom from the past, even though the last shot is of the ghosts of Cathy and Heathcliff looking out of the windows at Wuthering Heights. Only these two survivors seem to have any real possibility of freedom and happiness. Overall, I enjoyed this, and think it a worthy addition to the wide range of WH adaptations out there, but it is very difficult indeed, if not impossible, to suggest the full psychological range of the novel in any adaptation, I think.

Wuthering Heights Part I

Peter Bowker seems to be the person to be on TV at the moment, as the screenwriter of Occupation, Desperate Romantics and now Wuthering Heights.  Surprisingly (for me), I think of these three I probably think that Occupation was the best-written, but Wuthering Heights has a lot going for it. Emily Bronte’s novel is famously difficult to adapt for stage or TV, due in part to its scope of time and its complex narrative strands. Bowker has simplified, to some extent at least, by doing away with the narrator, Lockwood, and attempts to iron out aspects of narrative confusion which cause havoc for A-level students, but he’s also done some odd things, such as making the characters older, and setting the action about 50 years later than the novel does. Not sure why. However, I’m less concerned about playing fast-and-loose with the plot of a novel than I am about real events (yes, I mean Desperate Romantics and the three-person Brotherhood…)

The acting is good, and not too overdone; Tom Hardy is a believable Heathcliff, tortured and conflicted, while Charlotte Riley is a convincing Cathy, seeing attraction in both Heathcliff and the solid but surprisingly appealing Edgar, played by Andrew Lincoln. But the relationship between young Catherine and Linton is emphasised here by its prominence at the beginning of the first episode, which I see as a good sign, since the novel is ultimately about finding freedom from the past; the relationship between Heathcliff and Cathy is doomed, difficult, and in the novel not really even about sex. Despite the increased emphasis on sexuality in this adaptation, I think the Heathcliff/Cathy relationship is done quite well.

What this adaptation does really well, in my opinion, is to bring out the Gothic tone of the novel. Though some of the more disturbing aspects of the novel (such as Lockwood rubbing the ghost-Cathy’s wrist over a shard of glass) are missing, and replaced instead with the oddly necrophiliac scene of Heathcliff in Cathy’s grave, other aspects are teased out in a way which can actually be helpful to a consideration of the novel. It’s a truism of Gothic, for example, that it makes much of boundaries and thresholds, of “inside” and “outside”, and this version, contrasting the open (but potentially threatening) freedom of the moors with the claustrophobic interiors of the rather Gothic-looking houses, really makes the most of that. Looking in through, or out of, a window happens again and again; and follows a pattern: Cathy is on the inside; she joins Heathcliff, the Byronic outsider (and rather like Melmoth, I think) to peer in through windows, happy to be excluded. Eventually she gives in to convention and joins Edgar on the respectable inside, while Heathcliff watches angrily from outside. Eventually, she dies, and reaches in through a window from outside. Uncanny. Of course, these boundaries also relate to the boundaries of the self, which reach a problematic peak when Cathy explains, “I am Heathcliff”, no longer knowing where her own boundaries begin and end, and this is the central problem of the novel.

In The Times  on Saturday, Kate Muir described this as “Wuthering Heights for the Twilight generation”, and she’s right. Linked by a Gothic tradition, it’s possible to read WH filtered through modern conceptions of Gothic literature, and end up with this adaptation as the result. Though it has its problems, I think this production should help to explain to the “Twilight generation” why WH is so popular, and why it deserves close attention.

Wuthering Heights

Last night I saw Wuthering Heights at Birmingham Rep . Adapted by April de Angelis, it demonstrated the hallmarks of her innovation and style. I must confess I had been rather dubious beforehand; the translation of an epic book like Wuthering Heights into a stage play is no small task, and one that’s difficult to do well, especially given the audience expectations that are likely to go with it! To reduce Wuthering Heights, a substantial novel, to a 2 hour 20 minutes play is no mean feat, and with such a complicated plot as well it does mean that it’s rather the bare bones of the plot, but given the difficulties it was well done, and the set was well-adapted for the scene changes. The moors are ever present, projected in the background, which worked very well, bringing the wildness of the scenery into the houses.

Susannah York as Nelly Dean absolutely stole the show, as far as I’m concerned – as both narrator of the tale, and participant in events, she really comes to the fore in this production. Amanda Ryan was a good Cathy, though – she certainly looked the part, and had the right mixture of passion, joie de vivre and despair, playing her deathbed scenes in a manner reminiscent of Ophelia (an appropriate comparison on several levels, I think). I was a little dubious about Anthony Byrne as Heathcliff, though – of course, so much is invested in the part by those who know the book, but somehow he seemed more a bit cross than deep and angry, and his maltreatment of Isabella Linton just seemed a little unconvincing – as though he has a good heart, really.

Given that Birmingham has been taken over by the Conservative party conference, I was disappointed not to see David Cameron there, checking out the true nature of our present Prime Minister…How could Gordon Brown have compared himself to Heathcliff? I assume he hasn’t read the book, and thinks it means he is a deep man of few words…not an uneducated, wife-beating, sadistic, misanthropic man.