OPINION: We need more unfaithful movie adaptations

In February, Emerald Fennel’s Wuthering Heights was released to polarized reception. The movie was criticized heavily for deviating significantly from the source text, Emily Brontë’s 1847 novel of the same name, making it into a feverish, uncomfortable experience that centered too much on sexual desire.

I’d argue that it doesn’t make any sense to evaluate any movie adaptation entirely based on its loyalty to the book. You can find fault with it based on its quality, storytelling, or depth of character development, but expecting it to be a 1:1 replica of its source material is not only unrealistic but reductive. 

Movies and books lend themselves to different strengths and weaknesses. This makes it difficult to create a faithful reproduction, and much can be lost in translation. I think of The Da Vinci Code, which was book accurate, but so much so that it actually harmed the movie. Letterboxd user Josh Lewis describes it as “hundreds of years of art and history broadly packaged into aggressively artless and subtext-free conspiratorial tedium.” 

Plus, movies that dutifully refuse to stray from their source material tend to be stagnant and boring. The 2022 Lion King remake was so faithful to the original that it was practically identical, save for being CGI instead of 2D. Is that really what audiences want? 

I’m certainly not saying that Wuthering Heights was a good adaptation; it’s one thing to change it up by adding something new and another to completely miss the point. When the book was released in 1847, it was also seen as grotesque, given the unchecked passion and brutality seen in the various toxic relationships between characters. However, Bronte uses the central toxic relationship as a tool to demonstrate the violence of class and racial hierarchies disguised by social norms. That social critique is not evident in Fennel’s adaptation, the recent State News review of the film says, “the only theme seeming to emerge is that ‘being ravenous is good.”

Despite this, there are a lot of people who groan at Hollywood for putting out remakes and adaptations, complaining about a lack of originality. In reality, a completely original, never-told-before plotline is hard to come by. Even if you start from scratch, it will start looking like a story someone’s already come up with pretty quickly. Think of how many times the story of star-crossed lovers has been told, and Shakespeare wasn’t even the first. But therein lies the solution to the stagnating story market: unfaithful adaptations.

The beauty of the unfaithful adaptation is that it can draw audiences in with familiar characters or the basic outline of a story, but by changing something like the framing, environment, or medium, it can create something unique and fresh in so many ways. Think again of Romeo and Juliet, and how many retellings exist. My personal favorite is Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 version, because of how its vibrant and chaotic energy makes it feel genuinely youthful. It authentically brings the classic story to a younger generation. Other versions like West Side Story or Gnomeo and Juliet bring something different, to cater to a different audience and provide another alternative view. 

Other Shakespearean retellings take on a similar task, revamping age-old stories and transforming them in an impactful, innovative way. 10 Things I Hate About You takes the play The Taming of the Shrew and sets it in late nineties Seattle, creating a cult classic that many don’t even realize stole its entire plot and characters from Shakespeare. She’s the Man does this too, adapting Twelfth Night to take place in a boarding school and center around soccer.

There are many other classic novel adaptations, including Clueless, which is based on Emma by Jane Austen, Easy A, which is inspired by Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter, and She’s All That, which adapts the 1913 play Pygmalion. All of these movies are widely loved, especially by younger generations, and just happen to be creative adaptations of the greatest writings in human history. 

A good adaptation is unfaithful to some extent, but it doesn’t change or add without good reason, and it still maintains some basic essence of the original. 

Another one of my favorite adaptations is Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox, which takes the children’s book by Roald Dahl and develops it into a deeper, more complex story. It adds a midlife crisis theme and brings the family closer to our reality, forging compelling character motivations and development. This retelling does less to change and more to expand and add. It is original in a different sense, as a concoction of the tale it shares a name with, as well as a number of other well-known tropes and character archetypes. 

All this to say, filmmakers should not overly burden themselves with trying to create a completely original plotline or character arc because it might be almost impossible. They shouldn’t be afraid of revamping or taking inspiration from others, as long as they are bringing something new. On the other hand, audiences should be open-minded in their viewing of media like this, taking into account both the things that influenced or inspired a movie as well as what each filmmaker is trying to add to it.

Isabella Cucchetti is a sophomore studying Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy and is a columnist at The State News. The views in this article are her own and independent of The State News.