Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights (1992)
Picture:
B- Sound: B- Extras: D Film: B-
Every
time a film adaptation of Emily Bronte’s classic Wuthering Heights is made into a feature film, the result is always
fascinating. It does not even need to be
successful, though, because it seems like every time people assemble to shoot
this classic, their love for it trips them up in odd ways.
William
Wyler’s classic version in 1939 still tends to be definitive of at least the
first part of the book. Then you have
the great Luis Bunuel doing his take in 1953, who is an even more personal
director, known for his controversy in sex and politics. The under-appreciated British director Robert
Fuest came up with his own distinct version in 1970, known for his work in
Horror-genre films and TV series like The
Avengers. That leaves us with this
1992 version, directed by Peter Kosminsky, which is competent, but has some
strange twists of its own.
Though
its director is the least known of them all, his approach is to do the most
naturalistic version yet. No Classical
Hollywood style, no personal vision (surrendered with the pretense of including
the author’s actual name in the title,) no quirky approach, and nothing much
else to rise above the material as written in the screenplay adaptation by Anne
Devlin.
The
legendary story about a doomed love is here, written by a woman, but directed
by a man. That causes problems,
especially with at least the male looking for dark undertones in the
story. Obviously, the book was also
written by a woman, but one of another time.
These three forces, though not totally clashing, do cause a flattening
of the work which does not help the film.
Juliette Binoche plays two roles, but this was the wrong film to do that
in, with these problems and other issues of distinction. Ralph Fiennes is Heathcliff to her Cathy, but
the dual role on her part ruins the chemistry they have, more eerie by playing
Cathy’s daughter!
I like
the darkness Fiennes brings to the film, but Binoche is sold short, as is too
much of this version. It is also less
British than the Fuest version, feeling “ethnically cleansed” by
comparison. Fortunately, it is not as
bad as a secondary-cast British TV production, but it dips into that zone often
enough. Being shot on film really helps
it from more visits to that level by being forced to shoot for a big screen on
film.
The
anamorphically enhanced 1.85 X 1 image shows more grain than expected for its
age, and is likely a late analog transfer.
The color is subtle throughout and cinematographer Mike Southon, B.S.C.,
creates a nice feel for the film, which is matched by its locations and
production design. This is not the most
spectacular this film could have looked, but it is not bad either. The Dolby Digital 5.1 AC-3 remix is of the
theatrical Dolby SR (Spectral Recording) that this mix shows sounded pretty
good for its time. SR always was the
best optical analog sound reproduction in the business, and is available in a
somewhat compressed Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo with Pro Logic surrounds. In both cases, the music sounds a bit too
stressed, as does the rest of the sound.
As a result, the nice score by Ryuichi Sakamoto does not get the chance
it deserves to be heard well. Also,
there are no extras whatsoever, even a trailer.
In
another strange twist, Bronte herself narrates and shows up in the film, played
by Sinead O’Connor, of all people.
O’Connor did not yet find herself embroiled in self-destructive
controversy (read more about this in the review of her DTS concert DVD Thank You… under her name, elsewhere on
this site,) but after watching the Telefilm The Brontes of Haworth (also reviewed on this site,) it is yet
another odd choice. All added up, this
could have become a camp classic if a few more things had gone wrong. However, it is an interesting failure that
only adds to the controversy of what is right and wrong in making a book into a
feature film.
- Nicholas Sheffo
