You Can't Just Pretend Race Doesn't Exist Spoilers

Making an adaptation doesn't excuse you from including topics like race. Yet, so many filmmakers seem to think it does.

The most recent, of course, being "Wuthering Heights."

On the surface, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Emerald Fennell saying that Heathcliff is white because that's how she imagined him might seem like a good enough explanation for some people, but it's actually quite dangerous. And, pervasive. And, upsetting.

She's not the only one. Only a few months ago, people began discussing James Cameron's casting choice for Avatar. Some people argued that it was also important to recognize Cameron's achievements, like his initiatives to give back to indigenous communities. Although the argument wasn't wrong by any means or merit, it did make me concerned about how easy it was to minimize the importance of the conversation being had about race. The problem isn't what Cameron's doing already, it's what he isn't. The same goes for Emerald Fennell.

The problem is that both fictional, imagined worlds neglect a whole community of people. It might sound neutral to just say "oh, I just didn't imagine the story that way," but this problem is that, especially with narratives where race is a prominent part of the plot, excluding race in the cast demonstrates how internalized racism plagues media in this day and age. Sure, the Na'vi people are not a real species; however, they are situated next to a very real race, humankind, which intentionally or not, consists of almost an entirely white cast. Sure, you didn't imagine Heathcliff as a brown or black person, but his racial identity defines the entirety of the story itself.

Deviating from a story is one thing, but adapting a story and taking the fundamental part of what that story is just so you can re-enact your own fantasies is a problem. Creating an imaginary universe but cutting people of colour out of this narrative is a problem. Both scenarios are forms of violence against marginalized communities because it cuts away opportunities to be represented.

The White-Washed Wuthering Heights Phenomenon

I, like the majority of the audience, went in believing that not having read Wuthering Heights would make the watch experience, at the very least, bearable. From the brief mention and trailers, it seemed like this hyper-sexualized mediocre fanfic that'd rot my brain.

Maybe it was a "smart" marketing tactic (although, I don't know if I would give her that much credit) to use controversy as a way to dropkick her movie into the limelight. One thing's for sure, I heard all the outrage about Fennell's casting choices and "white-washing" Heathcliff far before the movie even came out.

"The thing for me is that you can't adapt a book as dense and complicated and difficult as this book. I can't say I'm making Wuthering Heights. It's not possible. What I can say is I'm making a version of it. There's a version that I remembered reading that isn't quite real. And there's a version where I wanted stuff to happen that never happened. And so it is 'Wuthering Heights', and it isn't."

Okay, so yeah, that quote just describes fanfic. She's just making 50 Shades of Grey, but like Victorian. I can get on board with that. From a woman who's established a career making mediocre movies, I wasn't the least bit surprised by this tactic. A part of me was like, you know what, you do you, go subvert the narrative; let mediocre movies by women be celebrated!

Then I watched the stupid movie and, god, I have never felt so indifferent, so utterly disengaged and simultaneously so outraged, at a movie my entire life. Which, I guess is a feat.

I wasn't expecting indignance on Bronte's behalf. I wasn't expecting myself to march into an academic re-education of Brontë's famous novella.

But I did. I sat there on a gloomy Saturday and I read the entirety of the book, front to back.

The movie was such a half-assed Gothic attempt at smut. It wasn't even smut, mind you. It was a lot of breathing, dough-slapping, and random neck-leashing scenes deprived of chemistry, or emotion. The corset-grip scene was lowkey hot, but like, it added nothing to the movie and it went nowhere. We didn't even get enough toxicity from any of the characters for the story to make sense. I mean, other than the title and names, what did this movie follow? And the funniest part of all this is that, had Fennell simply chosen any romance novel, one with two toxic characters, or toxic love, there wouldn't be an issue at all. Would it make the movie better? No, this movie sucked. But, it'd at the very least given Fennell some grace and playroom to indulge in her not-so-secret Elordi fantasies.

Why is her adaptation actually problematic?

Let's unpack what Fennell says about the novel that is so precious and dear to her. What is the "dense" and "complicated" stuff in the book that is so impossible to include in an adaptation?

I think what Fennell means to say is that she "read" Wuthering Heights and did not get it. She probably liked the names and was like, yeah, this seems Gothic and sexy. And then proceeded to create the least sexy story of our century.

The brunt of the actual novel is, first and foremost, about race and class. Heathcliff grows into his beastliness or bruteness by way of his environment. The abuse that he faced from his adoptive family, the racism and classism that worked systemically to marginalize him, the way that he was treated like a dog or a pet from the get-go, even by Catherine, all play a huge part in the resentment that grows inside of him. He isn't evil by default, and this is important because it complicates the way that we are supposed to read him. He is the consequence of a world that deliberately works to erase his existence.

Only Catherine gets him because she is also both victim and perpetrator of the same system. As a woman, Catherine is bound to specific roles and expectations– her future relies on who she marries, her status depends on the men around her. However, with Heathcliff, she is able to liberate herself from these expectations. When she is with him, she can act "brutishly," breaking away from gender roles and expectations, whereas anywhere else– especially with Linton, she is required to embody those traits in order to be accepted. Yet, Catherine isn't a good person and she isn't meant to be. This is especially evident in the way that she treats Heathcliff. Their relationship begins with a power imbalance; Catherine views Heathcliff as her "pet" rather than as an equal or even as a pseudo-brother. Her internalized prejudices manifest in conversations where she parrots problematic rhetoric on Heathcliff's race and class that she hears from her parents and from society. Like Heathcliff, she, too, is a product of her environment; however, her privilege allows her to navigate both realms (with and without Heathcliff) and maintain integrity, or semblance of respect, that Heathcliff never gets the chance to.

Ultimately, when he comes back for revenge, it is important that Heathcliff fails. Despite his wealth and ability to buy Wuthering Heights, he never gets Catherine and he basically dies alone. Upon his return, he is still described as "brutish" and painted as this animalistic, sadistic creature obsessed with the pristine Catherine, who is remembered and cherished even after death. Even the child he has with Isabelle dies. Everyone around him, including the very house itself, reacts to him in some form of violence or repulsion. It all comes down to his race and class; he returns having internalized the same rhetoric towards himself. He hates himself, and as such, his revenge becomes a sadistic form of self-violence. He cannot bear to care for the child because it is his blood and, therefore, is defected. The only surviving bloodline is Catherine's because that is all that matters; as the counterpart to Heathcliff, she is the only one that truly exists.

Removing race becomes an issue because it takes away the whole point of Wuthering Heights. The "romance" between Catherine and Heathcliff relies on his identities and marginalization; the way that he is perceived due to his race and class leads to tragedy. Without it, there is no story.

Fennell could have literally chosen any other romance novel– I'm willing to sacrifice my beloved Pride and Prejudice for the cause– and have been able to create her Elordi fan-fiction without having to deal with the race conversation. The fact that she not only chose to adapt this specific novel and then claims that this novel means a lot to her is painful because it demonstrates the level of conscious ignorance that still exists and is being funded. Someone greenlit this, and so many people gave her the spotlight to say the same implied sentiment over and over again: I just didn't see colour. I couldn't imagine Heathcliff as a dark-skinned person.

The fact that she can stand there and say with her chest that this is how she interpreted the novel is simply outrageous. How many times can we let someone use their status of power and privilege to excuse away a "complicated" thematic point? It's not complicated; people of colour exist. We deserve space.

It's not even controversy anymore, it's just laziness.

Now, had this actually been a spicy adaptation of Wuthering Heights, we'd have a BIPOC Heathcliff and his relationship with Catherine would have been problematic and wicked. I mean, she could have kept the whole BDSM, sadistic, animalistic sex-crazed characters that I think she wanted to include (but for some reason didn't). Through their sexual relationship, she could have built, at the very least, a more nuanced or developed understanding of Catherine and Heathcliff; a battle of control and power, a reclamation of the term "brute." A commentary on how the system fails them both, leading to a tragic love affair. But no, all we get is a blonde who 'doesn't see race.'

So, no, I'm not upset that the movie was mediocre and lacked any substance. I am upset that, to this day, people can still rationalize away an entire body of people without considering the effects of it.