Which adaptation is the best?

I've liked every version I've seen (1939, 1970, 1992, 1998, and 2009) and each one brings something unique to the story and characters. But it is also important to note that it's impossible for any adaptation to be entirely faithful, and each of the ones listed above takes liberties or leaves out some passages of the novel that should have been included.

So I will list the pros and cons (in my view anyway) of the five presentations of "Wuthering Heights".

SPOILERS HEREIN!

1939

Positive - This one is considered a vintage Hollywood classic, and rightly so. The actors are all impressive and the music is romantic. And it's worth it to see Laurence Olivier before he became more prominent in film, because it shows what a skilled actor he was and how his stage-training paid off.

Negative - Like many Hollywood productions of the studio era, it is quite obvious, even with the impressive black and white cinematography, that it was made in a studio rather than on location. Olivier was unpleasant to Merle Oberon during filming due to the fact that he wanted his lady love Vivien Leigh to play Cathy and it shows in some scenes, although perhaps it helped in the passionate and angry moments between Heathcliff and Cathy. Cathy's pregnancy was omitted (most likely due to the production code) and the second generation was cut out, although Olivier did portray Heathcliff middle-aged. Also, maybe for me Olivier was a bit too elegant to play a gypsy, and Oberon was a bit too cold as Cathy and not as passionate but she did give the character the degree of selfishness required.


1970

Positive - Be forwarned that as a Timothy Dalton fan I may be showing some personal bias, and this is my favorite version. First off, Dalton looked more like a gypsy to me and his brooding seemed perfect. Dalton also portrayed the characters torment and brutality well. He and Anna Calder-Marshall possibly had the best chemistry as Heathcliff and Cathy. The locations gave a more authentic feel than the 1939 film. The soundtrack was hauntingly beautiful ("I Was Born In Love With You"), and it was photographed very lushly. Julian Glover played a detestable Hindley and I think Ian Oglivy was one of the best Edgar Linton's I've seen. Judy Cornwall's Nelly I also found to be the best. The passion between the leads really shows in this movie. It lingers in your mind long after the film is over.

Negative - Even though it is my personal favorite, it is not without its flaws. The liberties that were taken (implying that Heathcliff may have been Mr. Earnshaw's bastard son, having Hindley's son die in infancy, Heathcliff and Cathy consummating their relationship (not that I minded that so much, but it is not in the book), the implication that the child Cathy was carrying could have been Heathcliff's, but no mention of the baby after Cathy's death), and how the film ended (Heathcliff being shot by Hindley, and the ending that was obviously tacked on with extras as the ghosts of Cathy and Heathcliff). Again, the second generation is excluded (while it was nice to see younger actors portray the leads, perhaps that worked against showing Heathcliff in middle-age). Oh, and it is unmistakably 70s = and I'll leave it at that.


1992

Positive - Great locations, costuming, and music - interesting to have Sinead O'Connor as Emily Bronte at the beginning and at the conclusion, and finally, seeing the second generation. The actor who played Hareton is a stand-out in this version, although it's not my favorite portrayal of the character.

Negative - I have a feeling I'll be ducking the tomatoes thrown at me for this, but this is, in my opinion, is the least effective adaptation as well as my least favorite. Why? Well, let's start with the lead actors, Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, two talented performers who co-starred in "The English Patient" which was a successful production, yet they failed to do the same with this adaptation of Emily Bronte's novel. Fiennes, while he showed Heathcliff's brutality, seemed almost one-note to me, not to mention the fact that the actor himself has gone on record stating he dislikes this film and he almost quit the film business because of it. He also seemed too refined and did not have the brooding gyspy look that is so associated with Heathcliff. Some have stated that they would have loved to see Jeremy Northam (Hindley, too briefly seen) as Heathcliff and I agree. Binoche tried hard, but she couldn't suppress her French accent enough to be convincing as a Yorkshire lass. She does do an adequate job otherwise as Cathy, although she doesn't show the selfish passion required. When she played her daughter Catherine with a blonde wig that was where the film really fell apart. Whose idea was that?
It is ineffective, not to mention self-defeating, since as Cathy she struggled and she does the same as the younger Catherine Linton. Also, Catherine is supposed to resemble her father, Edgar, which is another reason why Heathcliff dislikes her. While hearts were in the right place with this production, IMO it fails on many levels.


1998

Positive - I daresay that if it is possible to have an adaptation that is most faithful to the original novel, this is it. I have no complaints regarding the acting, locations, score, costuming or set design - it all came off very well and I was pleasantly surprised to find that the indoor sequences did not come off as stagey, as many BBC productions from the 70s and 80s had the tendency to be. And a young Matthew Macfadyen portrays Hareton - what more could you ask for? Sarah Smart as Catherine Linton is a standout also - a petite, blonde, doll-like beauty who shows strength of character and spirit, and touchingly realizes her love for Hareton. One of the best depictions of the second generation I've seen.

Negative - I guess my two main problems with this production were that Robert Cavanagh and Orla Brady were too old for the roles of Heathcliff and Cathy, although the former's age worked to his advantage for the later years. Acting wise, they did a great job. But that's where my personal opinion comes in - their portrayals did not have the emotional impact on me that Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall's had. Again, that could be my personal bias, that aside from a faithful adaptation and the love story between Hareton and Catherine, this presentation did not move me as the 1970 version did. But that's my personal opinion and I do think that this production is worth seeing.


2009

Positive - If any version comes close to being a second favorite with me, it's this one. When I watched it, my expectations were low, especially considering I had just struggled through the 1992 film. I found myself glued to the television for the two-part miniseries, despite its flaws (which are numerous, and I'll get into that later). There is just something so compelling about the aura of it - a haunting, dark quality. Tom Hardy, after Timothy Dalton, is my favorite Heathcliff. He brought the darkness, cruelty and vulerability, and Charlotte Riley captured Cathy's spirited, selfish and wild nature. She is also the only actress to have played the role who actually does come from northern England. I think that gave the character an air of authenticity, and she established great chemistry with Hardy's Heathcliff. Andrew Lincoln made a very likable Edgar, as weak as the character is. And I loved the portrayal of Catherine, Linton and Hareton - another excellent depiction of the second generation. Rebecca Night (Catherine) and Andrew Hawley (Hareton) in particular were great and worked well together. The locations and music were breathtaking and suited the mood and atmosphere.

Negative - It has been commented that this version is very skewed. And it is. In many ways, the liberties that it takes makes you wonder if it would have been more effective if it had stuck to the book. I still love this production, but there were things that I would have like to have been included and excluded. Like the 1970 movie, it has Heathcliff and Cathy consummating their relationship. The way Heathcliff disappears and reappears in Cathy's life happens in such short succession that we really don't get to see the emotional affect that his disappearance has on Cathy, and there was a too much emphasis on the wedding night sex scenes of Edgar and Cathy as well as Heathcliff and Isabella. Cathy wanders on the moors on a cold rainy night while pregnant, only to meet up with and be returned to Edgar by Heathcliff. Perhaps this was inserted so the deathbed reunion sequence could but cut shorter, since much of the dialogue from the book was left out in that scene. But it does leave an unfufilled feeling after Cathy dies. I would like to have seen more of Catherine and Hareton's relationship, and this would have happened if it had opened with the introduction of Lockwood, who does not make an appearance in this version. The antagonism that Catherine shows Hareton is only briefly shown and all of a sudden they are in love - I would have liked to have had that expanded upon. This version also has Heathcliff commit suicide in order to rejoin Cathy, which I did not like. And Hareton and Catherine leave the Heights at the film's conclusion, while in the novel they remained there, married and raised their own family. I think the miniseries should have had more than two parts, like the earlier BBC production of "Tess Of The D'Urbervilles" so that we could have gotten more insight into the main characters.


There are at least two other versions I have not seen (the 60s television, an earlier BBC production in 1978, as well as new one due to be released next year), but this is my take on these five.

Thoughts, opinions?