2.5 Stars out of 4
It's not a sustainable thing.
But once or twice in a lifetime, we might catch lightening in a bottle. We might find sexual attraction, deep emotional connection, AND commitment in the same person.
If you find this, my advice is to hang on to it for dear life. It comes around about as frequently as Hailey’s comet.
Just to shine a little light on the subject from a psychological lens, here is Sternberg’s theory on all this. Passion without intimacy or commitment is infatuation. Commitment and intimacy without passion is companionate love (not such a bad thing to shoot for.)
But back to the movie! Heathcliff and Cathy form a bond from childhood when her family takes him in. They forge a lovely friendship that blossoms into loving care, and eventually, hard to contain desire, (it doesn’t hurt that two beautiful people are cast here in Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi.) The problem is, she’s a woman from a certain class and he is not. In the world they inhabit, “what would people think?” is not just an empty phrase, but the hierarchy their entire society is built on.
This was an incredibly popular trope in the 1800’s when Wuthering Heights was written, and there is a reason this story has endured for so long. Audiences like to root for and absorb stories about love that cannot be. Ever wonder why TV shows and movies, STILL love to use this trope? Unrequited love is a story as old as time. Maybe the modern-day version of this is the “will they/won’t they” storyline that exists in almost every romantic comedy.
But this story takes us even further here. Heathcliff becomes wealthy, thereby removing their biggest obstacle. The problem? Cathy is now married with a child on the way. They are as star-crossed as Romeo and Juliet.
The movie takes some liberties from the source material, but the theme remains the same. ONE of the things this story is about is all-consuming desire. What the French called, “Amour Fou.” All-consuming, crazy, mad love. Perhaps it’s BECAUSE this love is never fully satiated that they are able to maintain this level of desire for each other. And the movie (and particularly the book before this), even suggests their ghosts may still be lingering around in a state of limbo, unable to even find peace after death. When Heathcliff begs Catherine’s ghost to haunt him, one is reminded of the following quote.
“And I’d choose you; in a hundred lifetimes, in a hundred worlds, in any version of reality, I’d find you and I’d choose you.”
But choosing someone and being with them are two different things entirely, as this movie makes painfully clear.
Another thing the movie is most certainly about is the cruelty of how class, wealth, and family legacy all influence, and even prohibit people of different stations from being together. This theme is also pretty timeless. Interracial marriage has only been legal for the shortest amount of time in historical years. Gay marriages even less than that. Perhaps this is part of what is encompassed when people say, “love is love.” How many people throughout history have been denied their right to be together by these forces?
It's a very large number I’m sure.
It is interesting that movies like this still get made. It doesn’t have a happy ending and the boy doesn’t get the girl and you leave the theater just kind of feeling sad and angry about the whole thing.
I think part of it is because we all can relate to some of the themes being explored here.
Or, as the great modern day poet Willie Nelson put it, “Ninety-nine percent of the world's lovers are not with their first choice. That's what makes the jukebox play.”
There is nothing quite as desirable as something you can’t have. Desire can be all-consuming in this regard. But it also often fades when the conquest is achieved and the mystery begins to dissolve.
It's not a sustainable thing.
But once or twice in a lifetime, we might catch lightening in a bottle. We might find sexual attraction, deep emotional connection, AND commitment in the same person.
If you find this, my advice is to hang on to it for dear life. It comes around about as frequently as Hailey’s comet.
Just to shine a little light on the subject from a psychological lens, here is Sternberg’s theory on all this. Passion without intimacy or commitment is infatuation. Commitment and intimacy without passion is companionate love (not such a bad thing to shoot for.)
But back to the movie! Heathcliff and Cathy form a bond from childhood when her family takes him in. They forge a lovely friendship that blossoms into loving care, and eventually, hard to contain desire, (it doesn’t hurt that two beautiful people are cast here in Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi.) The problem is, she’s a woman from a certain class and he is not. In the world they inhabit, “what would people think?” is not just an empty phrase, but the hierarchy their entire society is built on.
This was an incredibly popular trope in the 1800’s when Wuthering Heights was written, and there is a reason this story has endured for so long. Audiences like to root for and absorb stories about love that cannot be. Ever wonder why TV shows and movies, STILL love to use this trope? Unrequited love is a story as old as time. Maybe the modern-day version of this is the “will they/won’t they” storyline that exists in almost every romantic comedy.
But this story takes us even further here. Heathcliff becomes wealthy, thereby removing their biggest obstacle. The problem? Cathy is now married with a child on the way. They are as star-crossed as Romeo and Juliet.
The movie takes some liberties from the source material, but the theme remains the same. ONE of the things this story is about is all-consuming desire. What the French called, “Amour Fou.” All-consuming, crazy, mad love. Perhaps it’s BECAUSE this love is never fully satiated that they are able to maintain this level of desire for each other. And the movie (and particularly the book before this), even suggests their ghosts may still be lingering around in a state of limbo, unable to even find peace after death. When Heathcliff begs Catherine’s ghost to haunt him, one is reminded of the following quote.
“And I’d choose you; in a hundred lifetimes, in a hundred worlds, in any version of reality, I’d find you and I’d choose you.”
But choosing someone and being with them are two different things entirely, as this movie makes painfully clear.
Another thing the movie is most certainly about is the cruelty of how class, wealth, and family legacy all influence, and even prohibit people of different stations from being together. This theme is also pretty timeless. Interracial marriage has only been legal for the shortest amount of time in historical years. Gay marriages even less than that. Perhaps this is part of what is encompassed when people say, “love is love.” How many people throughout history have been denied their right to be together by these forces?
It's a very large number I’m sure.
It is interesting that movies like this still get made. It doesn’t have a happy ending and the boy doesn’t get the girl and you leave the theater just kind of feeling sad and angry about the whole thing.
I think part of it is because we all can relate to some of the themes being explored here.
Or, as the great modern day poet Willie Nelson put it, “Ninety-nine percent of the world's lovers are not with their first choice. That's what makes the jukebox play.”
Comments
Post a Comment