Smooth fantasy on the subject After finally re-reading the novel and refreshing the half-forgotten castlings of Ernshaw-Linton-Hitcliffe, I moved to get acquainted with some film adaptations. I actually started with this movie. Not to say that I expected a lot from him, but still a little disappointed and therefore I want to criticize. This is a very loose interpretation of the book - rather the outline of history than the story itself. Hindley's son Gurdon is surprisingly removed from it, making it understandably impossible to tell the story of a second generation. Meanwhile, only he restores the warped, stuffy, mystically unpredictable world of two neighboring estates, whose inhabitants live or are forced to live as if on the verge of reason and madness.
So that leaves only the first part. At first, events in it develop in accordance with the book, but at some point the director releases the reins, and the cart rolls down the mountain, falling apart on the move. There is no proper level of psychologism that could reveal and emphasize the interaction of the natures of Catherine and Heathcliffe, their commonality, their self-destructive spontaneity. The inevitability and irresistibility of their mutual affection are poorly outlined, so that the increasing drama of their line seems even somewhat exaggerated. Because of this superficial interpretation, some scenes looked vaudeville. Heathcliffe runs around the room, shuffles over the railing, scares the ladies. Catherine is quite deliberately rushing through bed in fever. There's a lot of grotesque in the book, of course. The film did not borrow this trait in the best sense.
By the way, the line of Heathcliffe and Isabella is completely undisclosed. That is, the strokes show her starting and final state, but the final is not clear, because the life of Isabella at Heathcliffe, the breakdown of her personality is not reflected in any way. It's the same with Hindley. The oppressive atmosphere of his house, tense relations with Heathcliff are expressed somehow casually, and suddenly resolved with unreasonably powerful and not in the way that it actually was. I also thought the film was too small. On the one hand, this is good, because it removes everything superfluous and focuses on the important. On the other hand, there were long episodes that did not carry, in my opinion, a special emotional message.
One cannot but mention the cast. Timothy Dalton is outwardly one hundred percent Heathcliffe, the devil in the flesh, though heavily romanticized. It is a pity that the plan of the director limited his possibilities. And yet, sometimes it felt like he and Anna Calder-Marshall (Katherine) were in two different movies at the same time, because his Heathcliffe had a direct connection to the book and her Katherine was very, very indirect. The actress is not combined with him texture. There is a slight strangeness in it, but there is no fire. She seems weak, lethargic and strange. But I liked Judy Cornwell, the discreet and unflappable Nelly, a constant support for the suffering and the unhappy. Her importance to the Linton and Earnshaw families is somewhat understated in the film, but she made a good impression on her own.
Really, it's not all that bad. The image of nature is quite consistent with the general mood of the drama. Some of the moments were quite interesting. What is called, subtly noted - for example, the episode where Heathcliffe does not give hands to Isabella, leaving the carriage. I also remember an episode of Catherine's ghost where there was something really creepy. Maybe the actress was taken after the test of this scene? One way or another - as it seemed to me, the finale brought a share of mysticism, at least hinting at the fatal fate and curse that gravitates over the heroes. The book is dark, but the film did not fully reflect it. Is that good or bad? Maybe good.