Wuthering Heights

As many of you might know, Kate Bush wrote her song, Wuthering Heights, shortly after she and her family watched this version at home way back when.

And, intrigued, I hunted down the DVD-among all of the available versions-to see why she enjoyed it so much.

On a rainy, dreary Saturday, my wife and I hunkered down and watched all four parts (182 minutes worth). Here are my admittedly unprofessional criticisms:

The setting in the moors, while hauntingly beautiful, wasn't captured well. Everything was blurry and trembly. Yes, I understand these were 1960's production values, but this just seemed cheap and rushed. As did the residence settings and costumes.

The acting was slipshod. While the two main characters were fairly well-acted, most of the other acting was hit or miss...mostly a miss.

I won't comment on Emily Bronte's characters, though none were really likable. Another time, another place. I get that.

We sat through the entire thing but both commented later that it was pretty horrible, overall.

I'd recommend skipping this mess and just watching Kate's video.

Pretty faithful to the book except the actors as children were much too old as well as when they're adolescents. McShane is too short at 5 9' and the actor playing Edgar is taller and has a bigger frame. It's hard to picture Heathcliff being stronger and more threatening in the key thrown in the fire scene- which they changed. Cathy doesn't throw the key in the hottest part of the fire she just tosses it across the room. Also cut is the scene where Cathy chases after Heathcliffthe the night he runs off and she ends up very sick. Her first near death experience isn't depicted. Also Heathcliff runs off before Hareton is even born therefore he never catches him when he falls from Hindley's grasp at the top of the stairs. Scoular is one of the best Cathys I've seen. She's pretty enough and delivers her dialogue in a natural way which is hard to do with the way they talk in the book. She delivered her lines fast., how ppl naturally talk, not slow and melodramatic. I liked Anna Calder Marshall as Cathy but they didn't make her powerful or bratty enough. Timothy Dalton was the best Heathcliff in my opinion. I would say this version is worth watching. Too bad it's not in color.

In recent months some generous fellow has uploaded this to Dailymotion. I was getting round to purchasing the DVD at some point which is the only way I believed this was available. However it is now online so that is a boon. However, was the wait worth it? Probably not. I have seen most other adaptations of WUthering Heights. None of them really seem to hit the spot, but my favourite is the 1978 TV version because it is a complete rendering of the novel and also it highlights the gothic aesthetic and vibe of the novel which I enjoy. This 1967 version is very similar in that regard. It is a complete rendering of the novel, it doesn't just focus on Kathy and Heathcliff's relationship, it includes all the revenge and Heathcliff's decline after Kathy leaves the story. It also also play sup the gothic aspect of the story. There is a fantastic continuous gale that blows in the background of the entire thing, giving it a gusty and cosy and dark atmosphere. It is a shame that the version on the DVD and online is only a black and white print, it would have been better to see it in its original colour, alas this version no longer exists.

The main criticism which lets the whole thing down is that the character portrayals are not nuanced enough. Heathcliff comes across as almost entirely an unliveable character, we don't see any of the other side of him. The story becomes very dark with absolute no sense of redemption. And the do change some plot elements to make it even more depressing than it is unecessarily. If I could pick and choose the best elements form all the WH adaptations we may have the perfect version, but alas, on its own this is not it.

As one so enamored with Period Piece films, I deeply regret to say that this rendering of the classic Wuthering Heights was almost unwatchable. This is as uninspired a screenplay that was ever ill-conceived in what must have been a lapse of the Screenwriter's sanity There is not a single character that you can truly have empathy for. You want to at least like the patriarch, Mr. Earnshaw, but he too is so gruff, and uncivilized that his genuine affection for the rejected Heathcliff seems almost out of place....Gratuitously violent, pitifully acted, and unskillfully cast and directed, I don't dislike anyone enough to ask them to watch this production!

There have been many takes on Wuthering Heights, but the 1967 adaptation brings a distinct flavor-less polished, more intimate, and brimming with restrained intensity. Rather than rely on sweeping theatrics, this version leans into a quieter melancholy, letting the emotional erosion of its characters echo through the moors like distant thunder.

Shot with a stark, almost stage-like simplicity, the film feels stripped down but not underwhelming. That rawness becomes its strength. With limited embellishment, the haunting core of Emily Brontë's story comes into sharper focus-one of obsession, longing, and the slow decay of hearts that cannot move on.

The performances are tightly wound, simmering instead of shouting. It's less about the violence of love and more about its stillness-the ache of it, the silence that follows where words should be. The actors deliver not with melodrama, but with presence, allowing subtle gestures and weighted glances to speak volumes.

The film's atmosphere, while modest in scope, manages to capture the emotional landscape of the novel. You can almost feel the damp chill in the air, the emptiness of windswept hills, and the hollowness left behind when love turns inward and begins to rot.

Wuthering Heights (1967) may not be the loudest or most lavish adaptation, but it lingers. It whispers, not roars-and in doing so, becomes a ghost of itself. A haunting, tragic echo.