An author needs to exaggerate and exemplify life in order to retain an audience.
If a story is exactly what the reader does every day it becomes boring, yet at the same time if there is no element of the plot that the reader finds feasible than they will become discusted and lose interest. Both plot and characters must be identifiable to the reader but also encompass a sense of the impossible. Literature works in much the same way in that it must attract the attention of the reader. Both artwork and music need to encompass a changing fluidity in order to captivate their audiences and give them a twist on reality. Without the contrasts of fortes and pianos, the fluidity of crescendo and decrescendo and the ever changing tempo, a piece of music would again lose the attention of the audience. With music, the musician uses his or her instrument to recreate emotion and images from their world in their music, but filled with splendour and grace. If a work of art is too ordinary people pass over it and move onto the next exhibit which does display a twist on their everyday life. A painter or sculptor must take a form and make it absolutely perfect, whether in beauty or grotesqueness in order to make the audience take notice of it. No matter what the medium - canvas, paper, clay, or an instrument - the artist working with it must old the everyday and refine it to appease the audience. Though what the reviewer says, that the dullness of ordinary, life is too monotonous for a work of fiction, Wuthering Heights surpasses the ordinary and embodies developed characters, a simply based story line and a narration that includes many different voices, retold through one. There never was a man whose daily life (that is to say, all his deeds and sayings, entire and without exception) constituted fit materials for a book of fiction. It is the province of an artist to modify and in some cases refine what he beholds in the ordinary world.
One anonymous author reviewed the book saying: While there has been much attention given to the now considered classic, when it was published it was negatively reviewed and considered to be a below average work of literature. Since it was first published in the 1840's, Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights has received much consideration in the media and from the academic world. The "film" aspect of the film however, is outstanding: lighting, sets, costumes, and direction are all top notch (and I really hate to mislead, the performances are great for their day), but it's the original material that makes this film so worthwhile, rather than any contributions the filmmakers make.Wuthering Heights: a novel beyond ordinary life
I was surprised to learn the role of Heathcliff was performed by the venerable Sir Laurence Olivier, it was a performance that seemingly could've been done by any reasonably handsome actor of his day. I get the feeling the film doesn't do justice to the novel (even having never read the novel), with it's somewhat shallow performances and a lack of exposition or character development. It's a story that starts off with the promise of romance but ends on a bitterly cynical note. His beloved Cathy isn't interested in becoming a stable boy's wife, even if she does love Heathcliff. Olivier's Heathcliff is filled with nothing but impotent rage as he lashes out at the upper class which he oh-so-briefly had a taste of. He's then told the tale of the ghost, and how it came to be. He's put up by the hostile Heathcliff, and during the night sees a ghost. A lost stranger comes to the broken down estate of Wuthering Heights, lost in the moors. Wuthering Heights is the 1939 adaptation of the Emily Bronte novel by the same name.