Emerald Fennell’s much anticipated “Wuthering Heights” has hit theaters just in time for Valentine’s Day. The film is based on the beloved novel by Emily Brontë, which tells the tale of Catherine Earnshaw, Heathcliff, and their families. Though this film is marketed as a romance, the original text is anything but that. It is a tragedy that unfolds due to classism, racism, and cyclical abuse. Though many filmmakers have attempted to translate these events from words into film, Brontë’s raw and incisive novel has been said to be “unfilmable.” Unfortunately, Fennell’s film proves to be no different in this regard. Starring Margot Robbie as Catherine and Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff, the film does have its strengths, such as the stunning cinematography of the English countryside and the surrealist and dreamlike sets. However, the film not only fails to do Brontë’s novel justice, but also completely disregards the story’s central conflicts and themes.

One of the most controversial aspects of the film is Jacob Elordi’s casting, which caused outrage on social media as audiences were rightfully upset about the whitewashing of Heathcliff’s character. Though Brontë never specifies his race in the book, she does describe Heathcliff as being “dark-skinned,” which causes him to be discriminated against and abused by Catherine’s brother, Hindley — a character noticeably absent from the film. The racism that Heathcliff faces leads to the start of the cycle of abuse within his and Catherine’s families, which is eventually dismantled by Catherine’s children and her nephew. Elordi being cast as Heathcliff not only takes a role away from actors of colour, but also erases one of the central and extremely pertinent conflicts in the story. Heathcliff has been known to be played by white actors — the only exception being Andrea Arnold’s adaptation in 2011 — yet it is still upsetting to see that nearly no progress has been made in the past century ever since filmmakers have been adapting Wuthering Heights for the screen.

In turn, the depth of Heathcliff’s character was diluted in Fennell’s film. Rather than being a victim of racially motivated discrimination who eventually torments those around him, he is boiled down to an archetypical sexy bad boy. Though he acts cruel at certain moments in the film, the sheer villainy of his character has been completely removed, rendering him incredibly underdeveloped. Instead of presenting a flawed and sometimes evil man who, despite his faults, is seen as an object of desire to Catherine, Fennell removes all of the complexity from his character in favour of making him a palatable love interest.

Wuthering Heights revolves around Catherine and Heathcliff’s torrid relationship, as it curses everyone around them, including their own children. Rather than presenting a doomed but passionate bond that lasts even beyond the grave, their relationship in the film is presented as nothing more than a typical enemies-to-lovers situation. Catherine and Heathcliff are friends as children, but are not very fond of each other as adults and are always arguing. However, after Catherine has a sexual awakening of sorts, the two suddenly cannot keep their hands off one another. Their supposed love for one another appears out of nowhere and is given no room for growth, making it seem like an afterthought instead of one of the story’s main threads.

Another disappointing aspect of the film was Fennell’s treatment of Isabella Linton, played by Alison Oliver. In the novel, Isabella marries Heathcliff, who takes her to live with him at Wuthering Heights. Isabella becomes a prisoner in Heathcliff’s house and is abused by him: he verbally threatens her, throws a knife at her, and kills her dog. Eventually, Isabella manages to escape the house, settling down far away from the dreary moors to raise her son alone.

In contrast, Fennell’s version of Isabella can be characterized as a weird girl, whose youthful naïveté leads her to marry Heathcliff even after he insists that he does not love her, will never love her, and will treat her horribly. Hence, it is not only uncomfortable to watch Isabella’s complacency in tolerating Heathcliff’s degradations but also trivializes the abuse she faced from him in the novel. The film presents her as willingly participating in this degradation, whereas the original text makes clear that Heathcliff’s treatment of her was abuse, not something she consented to. The romanticization — or rather the sexualization — of abuse in the film is vile to say the least, as it absolves Heathcliff of any wrongdoing and instead suggests that Isabella enjoys being dehumanized. Rather than accurately portraying the realities of abusive relationships, Fennell turns Isabella into Heathcliff’s lap dog, so that their relationship fits nicely into her oversexualized rendition of a brutally torturous tale.

The most important thing to know about Brontë’s work is that it is not an easily digestible story; it is gruesome, calamitous, and sickening. Her novel has long been considered a masterpiece due to its portrayal of racial Othering and exclusion in colonial England, the lasting effects of intergenerational abuse, and the link between obsession and violence. Conversely, Fennell’s adaptation is messy and watered down, all tied up in a pretty little bow that fails to mask its disingenuity.

Some may argue that the quotation marks around the film’s title suggest that it is merely an interpretation. However, Fennell’s film borrows too much from the source material to be thought of as anything other than an adaptation. As much as I tried to see this film as its own entity separate from the novel, at the end of the day it cannot be totally removed from the context of the original work. As hard as Fennell tried to depict Wuthering Heights in her own way, she missed the mark entirely, making a mockery of Brontë’s magnum opus.

The post “Wuthering Heights” and the Rejection of Complexity appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The most recent addition to Rian Johnson’s Knives Out franchise, Wake Up Dead Man, shows Daniel Craig reprising his role as detective Benoit Blanc, who visits a neo-Gothic church where this film’s victim, Monsignor Wicks (Josh Brolin), was murdered. Like the two previous films, we are presented with an ensemble of characters who were close to the victim and were present at the time of his death. The ensemble consists of Father Jud (Josh O’Connor) as well as a small group of Wicks’ devoted supporters who remain by his side despite his extremist behaviour and off-putting nature.

Let’s begin with the positives. Films — especially murder mysteries — are only as strong as their characters. I believe that this film created two characters who were well-rounded; namely, Father Jud and Benoit Blanc.

Father Jud especially is a convincing suspect the entire duration of the film: a boxer turned priest who turned to religion after accidentally killing a man. He comes to the church to revitalize it, yet he immediately distrusts Wicks. The two men don’t get along, as Wicks leads aggressive church services that effectively scare away new parishioners. Father Jud recognizes Wicks’ flaws, as well as the church’s flaws, and is dedicated to changing how things are run, even if it means making an enemy of Wicks. When Jud is accused of murdering Wicks, he still does everything he can to help those around him. In one scene, he puts the investigation on hold to talk to a distressed woman, Louise (Bridget Everett), whose mother is dying. Rather than focus on clearing his name, Jud instead spends hours talking to Louise and praying for her mother. Despite his own troubles, Jud remains a caring man dedicated to being there for the people around him. He represents the ideal hospitality of the church, accepting everyone who walks through its doors and doing his best to remain patient despite the obstacles being thrown at him.

Similarly, Benoit Blanc was also given room to thrive, as shown through his relationship with religion that develops over the course of the film. At first, he cannot understand the benefits of a religion that has a history of exclusionary practices. As the film moves forward and Benoit works alongside Jud, he begins to understand why people turn to faith in difficult times. He is present for Jud’s conversation with Louise and becomes aware of how benevolent the members of the church can be to those in need. By the end of the film he is a believer: not in God, but in Father Jud and his caring nature.

Despite the film’s success in its development of characters such as Father Jud and Benoit, it is not as successful in its characterization of the rest of the ensemble. Potential suspects are not fully fleshed out , namely Vera (Kerry Washington) and Lee (Andrew Scott). The film spends so much time and energy on the protagonists that it cast aside many of its side characters, despite the fact that they too were suspects in the crime at hand and played by various famous actors.

Namely, Vera’s storyline is never properly handled or developed, even though she was one of the few who ended up speaking out against Wicks, condemning his harmful treatment of others. Despite the gravity of this, her rebellion does not go any further, and she is never convincingly portrayed as a possible suspect. Instead, after her brief moment of defiance, she retreats into herself and is shown alone in a dark room, smoking a cigarette. Vera sitting practically motionless in this scene seems indicative of how the writers seemed to give up on her character. Rather than playing an active role in the remainder of the story, she is left in the dark, with no other purpose but to stare off into the distance. She should have been given a more meaningful conclusion, or at least a more potent contribution to the events of the narrative. While she does receive fifteen minutes of relevance when condemning Wicks, her fall from the spotlight lasts the entire second half of the film.

Lee is another character whose story was ill-conceived from the start, with his role somehow even less significant than Vera’s. Viewers are told he is a failing author who is writing his comeback novel, which is basically the only thing we learn about him throughout the entire film. Every other time he is on screen, he either contributes very little to the plot or is doing unhinged and inexplicable things, like building a moat around his house. He is not close to Wicks, nor is he given any motive that would lead him to commit the murder. In short, he does not advance the narrative in any way and is not necessary to the story.

It seems like this film created more characters than needed and did not spend enough time developing equally significant character arcs for all of them. They simply threw together an ensemble for the sake of the plot without fleshing out many of the characters into the story. The murder mystery aspect of the film was not very compelling, since half of the suspects seemed to have no clear motive and their potential guilt was seemingly disregarded by the screenwriters themselves. As much as I adored this film, it could have either spent more time developing the characters or gotten rid of some of them altogether, therefore providing the audience with more convincing suspects and a balanced story.

The post Wake Up Dead Man’s Failure at Bringing Its Characters to Life appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein (2025) is the newest of many screen adaptations of Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel of the same name. Its star-studded cast, consisting of well-known actors like Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, and Mia Goth, has lavished the film with much attention over the past few months, becoming a large hit in both theatres and on Netflix. Frankenstein is my favourite book, so suffice to say I had been looking forward to this movie since I had first heard about it. Before its release, I had been skeptical of the film particularly because of the casting, but decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. 

I was pleasantly surprised by Jacob Elordi’s performance, which was by far the best part of this film. He conveyed the innocence and vulnerability of the Creature even when barely uttering a single word. When he first comes to life, all the Creature can name is his creator,  Victor Frankenstein: the film’s titular character, played by Oscar Isaac, who complains about the Creature’s limited vocabulary. Elizabeth — Victor’s brother’s fiancée, played by Mia Goth — suggests that “for the time being that word means everything to [the Creature].” Elordi’s performance displays  just this, as his acting conveys the creature’s initial attachment to Victor through his facial expressions, bodily gestures, and his emotional utterances of that singular word. Later on, once Victor starts abusing the Creature, Elordi perfectly embodies how love and awe morphs into fear and distrust as he realizes that Victor doesn’t care for him. Throughout the film, Elordi successfully depicts the anger and sadness that the Creature feels towards his doomed existence and the man who gave him life. 

It is obviously unrealistic for adaptations to be entirely faithful to the source material and changes to the original story are inevitable. While I understand that, I wasn’t a huge fan of some of the changes made in this film. At times it felt like del Toro watered down the themes of revenge, grief, and the dangers of messing with uncontrollable forces from the original story. He also removed the complexities of Victor and the Creature. Instead of portraying them as morally grey, he turned them into one-note characters, with one representing good and the other evil. Victor is shown to be a typical ‘mad scientist’ who cares about nothing other than his experiment, rather than a young naïve man who, despite his flaws, cares deeply for his friends and family. Similarly, in the film, the Creature is not a murderous fiend who kills Victor’s loved ones, but an innocent, benevolent being. Meanwhile, in the novel, while the creature is innocent at the start of the novel, the trauma his mistreatment had inflicted upon him eventually drives him to vengeful murder, leading him to become as evil as Victor. His violence and anger is a product of the abuse he endures and the knowledge that he is destined to be feared and abandoned by everyone around him, including his own creator. As much as I adored seeing the Creature depicted as an intelligent being rather than a brainless monster, del Toro leaned too much into solely showing the Creature’s positive traits, consequently ridding him of the complexity which makes him such an interesting character. By depicting  him as innocent throughout the film, del Toro stripped away the most important part of the Creature’s development. 

One of the main things I have learned in every english and creative writing course that I have taken is that one should strive to show, not tell, so that the audience can interpret stories for themselves. Rather than trusting the viewers of this film to independently analyze its themes, del Toro hit them over the head with the original story’s themes. For instance, Victor accidentally shoots his brother, William, who tells Victor in his final moments that “[he is] the monster.” Though I agree that Victor is a monster of sorts, this scene broke the illusion that I was watching a film. I could no longer examine Victor’s character for myself because rather than allowing the viewer to analyze the scene in their own way as Shelley did in the novel, del Toro was directly telling the audience how we were supposed to feel about Victor. Though the film attempts to emulate Shelley’s work, it falls flat at times like these, when viewers are deprived of the chance to apply their own meaning to the scene, as del Toro’s intended meaning is thrust upon them. 

Another scene that reflects this sentiment is, when Victor, on his deathbed, reunites with the Creature  and they forgive each other. In the scene, Victor extends an olive branch by looking directly at the Creature and calling him “[his] son.” Though this was meant to be a vulnerable moment of reconciliation, it made me cringe in the theatre. Once again del Toro was explicitly shoving the story’s themes down his audiences’ throat without providing them the space to come to conclusions about it themselves. Victor and the Creature taking on a (very toxic and abusive) father/son relationship is apparent in the film, so having the characters explicitly make reference to it felt unrealistic and ultimately cheapened the moment. 

This abovementioned ending as a whole rubbed me the wrong way, because it deviated too much from the source material. While the purpose of an adaptation is to show a different side to a particular story, the ending of this film deviated too much from the story’s original message. For one, Shelley’s novel is a cautionary tale against playing God and attempting to manipulate forces beyond one’s control. Her story ends with Victor dying and the Creature running off after insinuating an imminent suicide attempt due to his self-hatred. As grim as the ending is, it is ultimately a realistic conclusion to a story filled with tragedy, murder, and grief and exemplifies why not all stories need a happy ending. Forced resolutions not only feel out of place, but, in cases such as this story, they risk undermining the rest of the plot’s build-up, events and desired atmosphere. 

Despite the many issues I had with this film, I do believe that it is still one of the most accurate screen adaptations of Shelley’s story due to the inclusion of characters such as Captain Robert Walton, who introduces us to Victor and is integral to the telling of his story. The film is also a good gateway to learning about the original story, as although it alters many details from the novel, it does retain the key concepts and supports Shelley’s vision, thereby allowing audiences to easily transition from the film to the novel without having to worry about being lost or confused. I encourage people to see this film if they’re interested in the world of Frankenstein and I hope that through this experience, they will be encouraged to read the novel and discover the origin of this famous and pertinent tale. 

The post Frankenstein: A Cautionary Tale Against Netflix Adaptations appeared first on The McGill Daily.

No? Me neither.  However,  it didn’t stop me from visiting the Titanic Immersive Voyage at Place Bonaventure. This experience puts you in the shoes of a passenger of the Titanic and portrays what it would have been like to travel on the famous ship. When I first heard about this, I was intrigued, mainly by the immersive aspect. Were they going to drop us in the middle of the Atlantic? Submerge us in a tub of freezing water? While neither of those things happened, the actual experience blew me away. The simulated voyage includes recreations of parts of the ship, including the bow where Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio stood in the famous shot from the 1997 film inspired by the ship. Visitors are free to pose and take pictures on the front of the boat, as well as in other recreations of the massive ship, such as a large staircase also shown in the film. 

I think all of us remember how we learned about the Titanic for the first time, whether it was from a history book, the film, or — in my case — the Dear Canada book That Fatal Night: The Titanic Diary of Dorothy Wilson. The story of the tragic incident is embedded in our culture and is one that will never be forgotten. This Immersive Voyage not only allows people to gain insight into this tragically short journey, but also preserves the memory of those who were lost to the ultimate sinking of the ship.

Before my visit, my knowledge of the Titanic was limited and mostly came from the movie — which isn’t the best source for historical information. However, I learned a lot during the immersive experience, and would therefore  recommend it to anyone regardless of their confidence in their vast knowledge of  the Titanic. Plaques on the walls described the process of building the Titanic, alongside official blueprints and floor plans. If the structure of the ship isn’t your main interest, you would also get the chance to learn about daily life aboard the ship, detailing how the passengers spent their time. I got the chance to learn about the dinners held each night in the lavish dining rooms, which could fit hundreds of people at once. The voyage is a museum of sorts, with artifacts from the Titanic found in every room. One that stood out to me was a window retrieved from the ship, with some of its panes either broken or missing. It was fascinating to see something that not only came from the ship, but also survived the wreck and recovered.

The entire experience culminates in a room meant to resemble the ocean on that tragic night when the Titanic sank. Projections on the floor simulated the movement of waves, while the main screen depicted the Titanic slowly sinking. The center of the room bore a life-sized replica of a lifeboat with benches where attendees could sit, creating the impression that they were passengers watching the ship go down. In my opinion, this room was the highlight of the experience. The screen displayed distress messages sent from the Titanic to nearby ships, with the only sound heard in the room being a bell ringing non-stop, creating a tense atmosphere fraught with fear and imminent danger. 

What makes this experience even more interesting is the knowledge of how it all ends. As I moved through the connected rooms and read about the famous ship, all I could think about was when and how everything went wrong. The fatal collision was in the back of my mind the entire time, making the experience more solemn.The immersive aspect of the voyage was, in my view, very well done. The recreations of rooms, as well as real artifacts from the real Titanic made me feel like I was actually walking through the ship, while the information on the walls helped me imagine what it would be like to spend a day there. The interactive activities drew me into the experience and made me forget that I wasn’t actually travelling on the Titanic. 

If this informative and somewhat haunting experience isn’t enough for you, there is also a gift shop at the end. From replicas of the heart of the ocean to ice cube trays shaped like the ship, any Titanic merchandise you could ever want can be found here. Personally, I bought a rubber duck in a captain’s uniform, and still believe that the purchase was more than worth it. No matter how somber the experience is at times, it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience that anyone, from children to adults, can enjoy.

The post A Terrific Experience at the Titanic Immersive Voyage appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This isn’t a typical Superman movie, as it doesn’t show his origin story, which I think all of us have heard one too many times. Instead, the film occurs three years after Clark Kent begins his double life. He is already Metropolis’ hero and is adored by the entire city, excluding Lex Luthor, who spends the entire movie orchestrating Superman’s downfall. Though we are immediately thrown into the midst of a fight, no context is needed to enjoy the scene, which, in my opinion, is a breath of fresh air.

Superhero movies have become increasingly difficult to understand on their own, with audiences required to have watched at least ten movies and two television series in order to understand new releases. As much as I adore the MCU and its many storylines, it has become chaotic in recent years, which is why this movie was so refreshing. It was a perfect standalone that introduced iconic characters without placing unrealistic expectations on theatre-goers. 

David Corenswet’s Superman steals the show throughout the entire film. Though Superman is not a character I’m very familiar with, by the time the credits rolled, I loved him. Corenswet’s brilliant performance introduced me to a character who is nothing but good. In a world where morally ambiguous superheroes are around every corner, it was surprising to see one who wanted to do what was best for everyone, and who didn’t pay mind to his self-interests. 

The rise of social media has led to a lack of empathy across the globe, with many people failing to feel any compassion for others. Hiding behind phone screens and berating others on the internet has become the norm for many people, and society has become so unaccustomed to basic human decency that we put others on a pedestal and praise them for even the smallest acts of kindness. Due to all of this, seeing someone prioritize others over themselves is not something I’m used to, which is why this film was so shocking.

Superman is devoted to the citizens of Metropolis and wants to do as much good as possible, no matter the cost. However, his greatest enemy, Lex Luthor—potrayed by Nicholas Hoult—is determined to bring him down for no good reason. Despite the many obstacles  Luthor throws at him, Superman is rarely discouraged and continues to fight for the greater good. 

This film is made even more unconventional by how they pay little attention to the title character’s superpowers, and instead focus on his human side. During one of the final scenes, Superman is face to face with Lex Luthor, who despises him simply because he’s from a different planet. In response to Luthor calling him an “alien,” Superman tells him that he is “as human as anyone.” Then he makes the most powerful declaration of the movie, which is that his humanity is his greatest strength. 

Unlike past portrayals of Superman, specifically Henry Cavill’s, this version of the iconic hero is given a prominent human side. Cavill’s Superman was depicted as a dark, brooding godlike figure who was destined to be humanity’s saviour. Corenswet’s Superman, on the other hand, is gentler and willing to help everyone, even those who harm him. He is not made out to be a god, but is instead portrayed as a human doing the best he can.

The message behind the movie is that superpowers are not required to make a difference, as our humanity is enough to transform us into the heroes we see on the big screen. As cliché or repetitive as that message may seem, it’s something we haven’t seen recently and it’s uplifting to audiences of any age. At a time when political tensions make headlines everyday and conflicts arise around the globe, hope is what people rely on to keep themselves going, which is why this film is so important. Not only does it show us a hero who firmly believes in doing as much good as possible, it also provides a sense of hope that we can save ourselves. No one on this planet is a superhero, but as this film has shown, our humanity is stronger than any superpower could ever be.

I walked out of the theatre feeling more hopeful than I have in years, and after further research on the matter, I know I’m not the only one who feels this way. While scrolling through reviews of the film on Letterboxd, I discovered that many other people felt the same as I did: inspired to be the best version of themselves after watching the movie. In a time when ‘nonchalance’ has become the norm and people believe that they don’t owe anyone anything, this film heads in the opposite direction by claiming that kindness is the only hope we have to make the world a better place.

The post Superman: A Celebration of Humanity over Heroism appeared first on The McGill Daily.