Image: Wuthering Heights via Zoe (Unsplash)
People have been adapting classics since the beginning of time. Some of Shakepeare’s plays were adapted from various earlier plays and stories of the time, with “Romeo and Juliet” being traced back to “The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet,” a narrative poem written by Arthur Brooke in 1562, which was in turn traced back to a short story written by Italian novella author Matteo Bandello. More modern examples of this include “The Little Mermaid,” based on the Hans Christian Anderson fairytale, the endless Cinderella inspired movies we see on TV, and “She’s the Man,” a chick-flick based on another Shakespeare play, “Twelfth Night.” Adaptations range from merely being inspired by the plot to promising a faithful premise very closely aligned with the work in question and expanding on it in ways the work allegedly could not. But what happens when these adaptations completely miss the point?
“The Picture of Dorian Gray” is a beloved classic written in 1890 by openly gay Victorian era critic Oscar Wilde. The book is about a man named Dorian Gray who, in fear of growing up and losing his beauty, sells his soul to a painting of him made by his friend, Basil Hallward, in hopes that the painting would age instead of him. Recently, Netflix announced that they are making a modern adaptation of this cult classic called “The Grays,” which would be a critique of the modern day beauty industry and would controversially make Hallward and Gray brothers. As fans pointed out, there are multiple problems with this.
Many analyses have come to the conclusion that Basil is madly in love with Dorian Gray, and not in a brotherly way. In the book, Hallward is extremely infatuated with Gray and his beauty and goes so far as to express his extreme liking of him on multiple occasions, and many of these quotes have actually been omitted from the original text by the publisher because of the standards at the time, not revealed to audiences until relatively recently. Further evidence beyond this interpretation comes with the fact that Wilde was most likely gay. He was married to a woman to hide his homosexuality while having affairs with men, later being put on trial and jailed for his sexual identity. Even though one can argue about the death of the author, if one is trying to emulate the message from the original story, to make a story heavily influenced by the author’s personal life into a platonic sibling story is very much going against the source material and making a brand new story — capitalizing off the brand name for more publicity. It makes one wonder why they cannot critique the beauty community without putting the “Dorian Gray” name on it.
Another example of incredibly inaccurate adaptations is the upcoming “Wuthering Heights” adaptation produced by Emerald Fennell. Written in 1847, “Wuthering Heights” is a famous example of gothic literature that challenges the Victorian moral standards of the time, as well as having been written by a woman under a male pen name. One of the most progressive attributes of the book is of the character Heathcliff, who is explicitly written to be a racial and ethnic minority in Victorian Britain. While it is not confirmed, it is stated that he “looks like a Gypsy” and in the book, the possibility of him being a “Spanish or American castaway” was brought up, which is strong evidence for him being either Black or Romani. He is also from Liverpool, which was one of the largest enslaved trading ports in the British empire, so the possibility of a Black man living in Britain at the time is not impossible, especially in that town. While his ethnicity remains unconfirmed, people have been analyzing this book for centuries and Healthcliff is a character much discussed in a historical and racial perspective. So many fans of the novel were surprised and angered by his being casted by Jacob Elordi, a conventionally attractive white man.
It is clear that Fennell either has not done the necessary research to give this book due justice or simply does not care. And in both instances of these adaptations, it is clear that the writers do not care about the source material in the slightest. This doesn’t mean they are bad writers — there is a chance they read the books more aesthetically than efferently, and maybe their preconceived notions whilst reading caused them to give little importance to the decisions of the author. But what this does mean is that people who are looking for an accurate adaptation that respects the source material are going to be extremely disappointed, and since they are going to be the main people watching these adaptations, what could easily happen is that they will be flooded with bad reviews, and the writers might lose a lot of respect in the industry. That is not a good look at all, and the worst part is that the failure will not stop more adaptations like these from coming because the good ones make them so popular. It’s a gamble every time. The better adaptations may regain the audience’s trust, but the audience will never forget the disrespect.
This is not to say that adaptations should follow the source material to a ‘T.’ In fact, most books leave room for substantial changes, improvements or expansions that would make the original story even better in hindsight. Some of the books in the “Remixed Classics” series do this very well, putting spins on the stories “Little Women” and “Treasure Island” to make them fit different cultures and perspectives. But in the end, the hearts of the stories remain unchanged. “Little Women” is still about sisterhood and “Treasure Island” is still about adventure. The problem is when they change the fundamental themes of the story while claiming it still has the same energy as the original.
People are more creative than they think. If you have a good enough story, you should write it on its own instead of making an adaptation. And if you’re really dead set on adapting a classic work? Then do your research before you piss off every English major on the planet!
Emily Rutz is a first-year English major.