MovieChat Forums > Wuthering Heights (1939) Discussion > This movie and story is laughable

This movie and story is laughable


Finally, after years hearing about the classic Wuthering Heights I got to see this movie. It is ridiculous. What a contrived story. Cathy and Heathcliff were both horrible people who made everyone miserable really. I think people who love this movie must be disillusional and disenchanted. If you were told this story in the real world, in the here and now, you would probably say it's a very dull story
and forgetful. Which it is for me, I can't wait to forget it.

reply

You're not going to forget it if you keep talking about it.


"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

reply

Quit being a bitch.

reply

I stopped paying attention to this 9 years ago, in case you didn't notice the date, and name-calling would have been as irrelevant then as it is today.


The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it.-Oscar Wilde

reply

I think the script indeed had some problems and Merle Oberon's performance also disspointed me. But the story and the dialogue are still good. I read the novel long time ago and felt story quite intriguing, sometimes a little scary though.

reply

So, Pete, in your analysis, the thousands of people (including film historians and other experts) who've loved this story over many decades are wrong, and you (who have only now, for the first time, seen one of the most beloved, acclaimed films ever made) are right.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

You really should consider letting your posts rest for awhile before you post them. In retrospect, you look really stupid when you don't.

reply

Your statement about so many people liking this therefore I must be the one who is not right, conjures up the point of the children's story, The Emperors new Clothes.
You have been taught and influenced to believe this to be a good movie-I have had the advantage of not being tainted by anyone-in fact, I was all set to add this to my list of classics if it so warrant it. It did not.
By the way, I let this post rest for a 5 days before I responded to your post,is that long enough?

Thanks for your comments,
Pete the Stupid

reply

So anyone who likes this movie is influenced and forced to think so??? How utterly arrogant and ridiculous. If you don't like it fine...but don't presume to know other people's minds just because they disagree with you.

reply

So only films with friendly, nice characters are good? Really, just because Cathy and Heathcliff were flawed doesn't mean it's a bad film or story...

We are all fools in love - Charlotte Lucas, Pride and Prejudice

reply

You might want to read the book, if you haven't, before you call it a laughable story. In my opinion, it is by far the greatest book ever written. This film only covers the first half of the story. Personally, I like the second half of the novel better than the first. If you read the book you may end up liking it and you should give the film another chance. But if you have read the book and you just don't like it, then I respect your opinion more than if you had just watched this one version and called it laughable, especially since the Bronte sisters are considered to be among the most important authors in English literature. Everyone has their opinions and I will not critize yours but I think you should read the book and get the full story.

reply

You are absolutely right.
it is one of greatest books ever written, of that there is no question.
The film is a masterpiece, though it didn't explore all aspects of the book it did, in my opinion capture the essence of the story.
The performances were superb. I've seen all versions and truthfully even though there is much to be said about many of the later ones, I find this the most powerful and haunting.
Olivier WAS Heathcliff and Oberon was Cathy.
Thanks for what you said. I've just seen it (again) just a few minutes ago and am so moved.


reply

Some people just don't get literature of that era (written at that time)... Pride & Prejudice, Tom Jones, etc. Personally, I can't handle Stephen King.... too scary.

reply

That's true. So many don't which is their loss.
Thanks for that.



reply

I know this is an old post, but I just read your point about "You have been taught and influenced to believe this to be a good movie," and that being the reason everyone who loves this movie so much must love it (for, as you have stated, in your estimation it is "laughable").

I'd just like to throw in that I had never heard of this film before I decided to watch it, and I absolutely adore the film. No outside influences whatsoever, and I still think it's a fantastic film both from a critical and layman's perspective, so your theory really doesn't hold much water there.

reply

Then why did you watch/comment on it? THOUSANDS of people, many film historians, disagree with you. It is a VERY fine movie, and well-done. Run along now, and watch men in black.

reply

[deleted]

funny u should say that, i have every intention of seeing men in black 3 when it comes out next month.
However, just to give you insight into my taste in entertainment,
I LOVE the original Moby Dick with Gregory peck.
Huge fan of Downton Abbey, Justified, Breaking Bad, and Hell on Wheels.
So just giving you a slight peek to the fact that I enjoy many different styles of stories, from the classics, to period pieces, to thrillers.
But to each their own, if you liked the horrible characters in Wuthering Heights, than bully for you mate.
I'd rather cheer on a High School teacher who gets cancer and turns to meth making to help out his family. Of course, only in entertainment, in the real world I'd rather he not make such a poor choice.
cheers.

reply

[deleted]

Hi, you really have a Point. I have the same Problem with Casablanca. I think it's a rather uninteresting Story with lots of clichés, yet practically everybody else Claims to love it. It's nice to read that someone has the same Point of view.

reply

Band wagon fallacy. Your logic implies that because the majority believe it, it's true. The majority once thought the earth was flat.

I don't agree with Pete's analysis, but a fallacy is a fallacy and should be omitted from discussion.

reply

I loved this movie, I wouldn't compare it or put in in Gone With the Wind level but it's far better than all the stupid love stories we got nowadays in modern movies. I didn't really care for Cathy, in fact I thought she was quite a b*tch but Lawrence Olivier's performance was great, I wished Vivien Leigh would have played the part of Cathy, I think she would have pulled out a better perfomance and the chemistry with Larry would have helped a lot to make this movie even better.

... Viva Clark Gable, el eterno y Ăşnico Rey de Hollywood

reply

yes vivien would have been great as cathy!

~Rachel~

reply

I agree with you, Petelato. It is a sappy story, overacted even by the great Olivier. The characters are pathetic and unsympathetic. They ruined their own lives and we are to feel bad for them?

Wyler's direction was way over the top,quite melodramatic.

The film's saving grace, if there was one, was Geraldine Fitzgerald, whose portrayal was stunning. But her character was quite pathetic, as well, marrying someone she knew was in love wi9th someone else.

Why everyonje raves about this film is beyond me.

reply

Alleluia!!
At least there are other people out there with the ability to think for themselves, instead of following the herd.

I just recently watched another Olivier movie that has been hailed as a classic, "Rebecca", and it was the same thing!!

Unrealistic and over-dramatic.

But I do enjoy watching these films,just to get a vibe on what the general public was into back then, I wonder if people will watch films that we have made #1 in the present day and wonder what were we thinking.

reply

I find Olivier's later career to be his better work, but have never really been a big fan. He is a master of overacting.

reply

I think the film is a good example, if not one of the best, of the Gothic romance. I've always found it hard to find Cathy's character sympathetic...she was a vain, shallow fool who threw away true love for a bunch of peacocks strutting around in the yard!

reply

I believe you all are forgetting the social conventions of the time. Although, from time to time, women followed their hearts and married as they chose, the economic realities of those times were very harsh. Women were essentially treated as chattel--transferred from father to husband as part of a business deal. If the woman was lucky, she and her husband did come to love one another, if not, well that's why books like Wuthering Heights and Anna Karenina were written. The story is intended to show how many lives were destroyed by these conventions. (BTW, that which you call overacting, I think of as passion.) In the book, it even shows how the destruction carries on to the next generation. I've always considered it an indictment of the social conventions of the 1700s and 1800s.

But, to each his (or her) own.

reply

Six years since your post, but I'd still like to reply...

...just to say thank you, thank you, thank you! I find it so frustrating how latter-day readers and movie lovers forget that the original stories were written in another era altogether, and social conventions were markedly different from today. Judging characters' actions using modern values is just off, and will lead to a very murky understanding of the novel (or movie).

It is indeed true that in the early 19th century, a wife's fate was largely dependent on the wealth (not necessarily status) of her husband. Status didn't necessarily mean wealth. Anyway, if one has learnt a bit about the historical conventions of the era, then Cathy is indeed not (necessarily) a shallow person, but is only doing what almost every other young woman in her situation would have done. Women did not receive the same level of education, and had very few (if any) prospects of generating their own income and taking care of their own lives. Spinsters had it tough. It was therefore impossible for young women like Cathy to ignore those realities of her life. All of this do not excuse her actions, but rather explains it.

But as you said, from our perspective today, the circumstances portrayed in the Brontë sisters' books, Jane Austen, Henry James, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, etcetera, indict the conventions of their eras.

Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

reply

I wish to be edified. Please tell me what you consider to be your 2 or 3 favorite films so that I may place your comments in the proper perspective.

reply

Very well.
I will edify you.
I believe at this moment they are:
City Of God.
Matchstick Men
Fargo

reply

[deleted]

I agree that you are totally arrogant- to think that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong, is terribly self-centered.

Is it possible that you are right and so are we? that is allowing for different tastes and different opinions? After all, if every movie was as you say, with only likeable, perfect characters, what a dull world it would be. Part of this movie's appeal is that *some* people understand what it is to have unfulfilled love and to suffer because of it. Not all stories in real life are happy endings either.

Besides, there's great acting, the cinematography is to die for and the music is wonderful! -- imho.

reply

You are correct.
Your opinion means nothing, and mine means everything.

I kid.
Good for you if you thought this film was good.
To each their own. I still think this movie was laughable.

reply

you kidding is hilarious... "I kid."

but yes, to each his own and thanks to whatever gods may be that we DO have different movies. I actually work in a place where the only good movie is sex, shooting and violence. I am usually sitting over there watching "Judgement at Nuremberg," or "Auntie Mame" or something like that. You know, STORIES, dialog, stuff that's stimulating for the mind.

Laughable is harsh- maybe you were trying to push some buttons?? ;)

reply

After all the hype about American Hustle, I went to see it.... the only character I had any empathy for was the Mayor. The three main characters were just users.

reply

''But I do enjoy watching these films,just to get a vibe on what the general public was into back then, I wonder if people will watch films that we have made #1 in the present day and wonder what were we thinking.''

I would respect your opinion if you didn't always bring up modern films. Most modern films are tripe because the film industry has become mediocre and completely artless. The fact that 'Twilight: Whatever It Is Called' is at No. 1 shows how bad the modern film industry is.

Attacking films like 'Rebecca' (which is a great film by a good but overrated director to be fair) whilst talking as if our default setting is to love modern films makes you just seem ignorant. I'd take teh flawed 30s version of 'Wuthering Heights' over trash like 'Transformers' or any action-packed, explosive blockbusters any day of the week.

Upon reading the thread, I see that you like at least one great film 'Fargo'. However, the early 90s is now a long time ago when it comes to filmmaking, and I'd say that film quality, style and themes of that era were still closer to the 1970s (the golden age of film) than they are to the films of today. The 90s was the last really good era for films, though you do have some good films made today, in small numbers.

---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.

reply

[deleted]

It's a movie. Who said it had to be realistic?

Movies, to me, are supposed to pull you away from real-life; make you forget about your own problems, maybe restore some faith, or just for plain entertainment.

reply

I am a fairly significant movie-buff who, for some reason, had just never gotten around to seeing this film. Finally saw it last night. I can understand why some people say they love it (although I'm sure there is some PC effect there for some of you) and can also understand why the original poster of this thread found it ridiculous and laughable.

I think the greatest problem with the movie was its relative brevity. The main characters were highly flawed individuals (frankly, all of them were), a fact that does not mean that the movie is necessarily good or bad--many great films have been made with no likable characters. But we are clearly also supposed to believe that they are complex, and that their actions and emotions are worthy of understanding/empathy or that we will at least care about them. I don't think the movie earns this. Heathcliff goes from shunned foundling to Cathy's inseparable chum in about 1 minute of screen time. If Wyler had expanded upon this to show why and how that change came about, it would have deepened our interest in their relationship and our stake in their happiness. Then, two minutes later in the film, Hindley has taken over Wuthering Heights and has completely subjugated Heathcliff and Cathy. We are shown only quick glimpses of this, when more detail would have again provided more depth to both the narrative and the characters. Cathy shifts her (stated) approach to Heathcliff with such frequency that it defies understanding. If all this is supposed to represent is her being a free spirit and somewhat unfocused, that would be fine, but you sense that the film wants to have it both ways: to allow this conduct for its effect, but to have the audience admire and care about Cathy much more than this sort of character would warrant.

The bottom line is that, to me, this is three-star movie instead of a true classic. It is saved by the atmosphere, cinematography, some good dialogue and some of the acting (I frankly think Oberon was below average and Olivier slightly disappointing as well). Put this up against Rebecca or Casablanca and it's not even a fair comparison. There are also at least a half-dozen, maybe a full dozen, Wyler films that are better (everything from The Letter to Ben Hur, maybe even The Collector).

reply

I am original poster, and thank you for expounding on my comments, you helped to properly spell out what I was trying to say. I agree 100% with you.
I actually like the Kate Bush song Wuthering Heights more than this movie, you should check it out if you never heard it.

Peace and Love to all.

reply

petelato said:

"I actually like the Kate Bush song Wuthering Heights more than this movie, you should check it out if you never heard it."

I prefer Pat Benatar's hauntingly beautiful 1980 cover of "Wuthering Heights". As one online comment noted, Benatar's version "captures the spirit of [Bronte's] story". Bush recorded the song twice: in 1978 and in 1986. I think the 1986 version is a vast improvement that seems to indicate that Bush heard and liked Benatar's rendition. I love Kate Bush, but her original version of "Wuthering Heights" sounds as if it were recorded by Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Beauty may be only skin deep, but arrogance and stupidity go down to the bone.

reply

Hey jblunt, thanks for the heads up on Benatar. I checked it out and actually do like her voice better than Kate's, however I felt the piano was a hauntingly beautiful addition in Bush's version.
If only there could be a version with both Pat's vocals and Kate's piano.
Not sure what version of Bush's I have but I am fond of it, but Pat's is right up there with it.
Thanks again for the recommendation.
Pete

reply

Heathcliff goes from shunned foundling to Cathy's inseparable chum in about 1 minute of screen time. If Wyler had expanded upon this to show why and how that change came about, it would have deepened our interest in their relationship and our stake in their happiness. Then, two minutes later in the film, Hindley has taken over Wuthering Heights and has completely subjugated Heathcliff and Cathy.


Maybe the problem then was that two hours was not enough time to tell this story. They were probably trying to accomplish the impossible in 2 hours. This story was better of as a tv miniseries than a full fledged film because there are way too many subtleties to the characters that the need for action in hollywood film would allow. The book is very slow and deliberate, so the requirements of classical hollywood would probably not allow for a slower paced, longer development of story and plot.

reply

fr petelato:

>Finally, after years hearing about the classic Wuthering Heights I got to see this movie. It is ridiculous. What a contrived story....<

So why did you watch it? Why not change the channel to WWF Smackdown?

reply

You are one angry dude!
I see by your history you enjoy jumping around defending what you deem as a good movie and insulting the poster. Can't someone have a different opinion than you, or are we in Nazi germany?
And you love to tell people to go watch something called WWF, I guess it a wrestling thing. Just by the mere fact you are aware of it tells me you probably watch it yourself.
As you say, if you don't like my comments, then why read them?
I didn't know I wouldn't like this silly, stupid movie till I saw it Einstein, how else do you find out what you like/dislike.
Let people be themselves.

reply

If this is an attempt at being intellectual it didn't work. Did you enjoy TRANSFORMERS? Grow up little boy!

reply

I'll take your insult as a compliment. I'm 42.
Just so you have an idea of my taste in movies,
here are my top 5.
Momento
Fargo
Matchstick men
City of God
Iron Giant (me and my son love it)

Actually did not like Transformers all that much.
I still think this movie is stupid, but I can respect what one person said, that they left ALOT out from the book, and that is why it's not the complete story it should have been.

reply