UncleJack

Like other reviewers I have read Emily Bronte's novel, but I am not sure we were reading the same book. My strongest impression from first reading was wonder that the book could be so engaging without a single character with whom to identify.

The characters in Wuthering Heights are unlikeable; Heathcliff and Hindley are downright nasty. Hatred, contempt and jealousy are the overriding emotions of the story. Certainly there is love – strong passionate love too – but it lives in dark corners and is ultimately destructive.

This film captures much of the emotion of the book. The first half, with Heathcliff, Catherine and Hindley as children is played very well indeed.

Heathcliff's character is determined in these early years at Wuthering Heights, and so it is in the film. When Heathcliff returns as an adult, inexplicably played by another actor, his heart has hardened and revenge, hatred and violence dominate his character. But James Howson who plays the adult Heathcliff is not up to the task, and nor it appears is the direction. Heathcliff is certainly violent, but this is mostly directed against animals seemingly as means of relieving his frustrations, rather than the depiction of a genuinely violent man. His appalling treatment of Isabelle is largely glossed over and the film ends before he starts abusing Hareton. Hatred, contempt and jealousy are expressed mainly by close-ups of facial expressions, and here Howson in the finery of his wealth only seems able to portray smugness.

The film lacks a point of view. The camera-work suggests the film is intended to show things from Heathcliff's perspective, but much seems to be deliberately obfuscated where Heathcliff would have known exactly what was going on. The audience is continually kept in the dark, emphasised by the rain, mist and long nights on the moors and, just in case we haven't got the idea, by repeated scenes shot out of focus. This is all very well, adding to atmosphere, but the book manages to bring the reader into the story; this film seeks to distance the audience, as voyeurs only. The people we see are the same people we read about and with much the same character. The children, it is true, were interesting to watch; but when Heathcliff went away, returning without comment played by a different actor (and Catherine too for that matter, but Kaya Scodelario played her role better; she had less to do), I found I no longer cared about any of them.

Heathcliff played as a black man works well. He is clearly of foreign extraction in the book – Who knows but your father was Emperor of China, and your mother an Indian queen – although equally clearly not 'a regular black' (also a quote). A black Heathcliff is far more convincing than an obviously white English one.

The language is also rather more 'colourful' than in the book. But this too seems to be justified. It sounds true enough to me and I did not detect any neologisms. It must be pretty impenetrable to non-native English speakers, but there is precious little of it. I know Heathcliff is taciturn, but the silences are unbearable. Even the book has Nelly Dean to carry the dialogue.

Finally there is the ending. The book more or less describes the story backwards, starting long after the film has ended and showing Heathcliff in his ultimate form. The film, quite rightly in my opinion, is in chronological order (barring some unnecessary and distracting flashbacks) and covers only Heathcliff's relationships with Catherine and Hindley. The ending is well chosen in terms of plot, but totally undermines whatever integrity the film had, for the entire film is shot without a background soundtrack. What we hear are the sounds of nature, songs being sung, out of tune and out of time but utterly in character. A poor band playing a mournful Christmas hymn (the Coventry Carol, is it?), branches tapping on a window, even though this last does not sound quite right, all add to the film's bleakness. But then, with only about a minute to go till the end, there intrudes a modern song played on modern instruments in a studio. I quite like Mumford and Sons, but what on earth is that song doing there? At least it could have started after the credits began to roll; the mood destroyed, this is one film I did not stay to read them.

This film is certainly not for everyone and I give fair warning to potential viewers. The folk music and the complete absence of blood in what is usually described as an horror will put off a lot of people and the slowness of pace will deter others. But this is an outstanding film.

Ostensibly about a missing person investigation, the main theme of the film is in the clash between Christianity and Paganism and their underlying ideas and beliefs. Not the dogma, rites and tradition of Catholicism more often featured in films but hard-headed evangelical Scottish Presbyterian Christianity - no work (and precious little pleasure) on Sunday, no taking the Lord's name in vain, no sex outside marriage and the Bible as the Word of God. The Paganism is well developed too, not just dancing naked round bonfires on Hallowe'en, but fertility rituals, festivals, ceremonies and sacrifice to numerous gods. Lord Summerisle who owns the island is candid that it was his grandfather who introduced Paganism for pragmatic reasons, but this is no made-up religion; instead a return to the old gods of the sun, the sea, fertility and the harvest.

To my sometime Christian eyes, the Christianity of the police sergeant is captured perfectly and Pagan islanders seem sinister. Speaking with pagan friends, they welcome the portrayal of the islanders and regard the sergeant with suspicion or as a bigot. So then, is this film some sort of religious drama? No, it is an horror film. Horror can be more than shock or blood.

One important point: If you have not seen this film and you get the choice of which version to see, choose the original (short) release. Much has been written about the various versions - the 'Director's Cut' is widely praised and it is interesting to see some deleted scenes - but one thing which seems to have been overlooked by almost all reviewers is that the original cinema release is a masterful piece of editing with a more logical flow, greater subtlety and an outstanding opening sequence. It also has far better picture quality. You can always watch the 'Director's Cut' if you want to see the film again.

I didn't know a great deal about Tristram Shandy before watching A Cock And Bull Story. Perhaps this is a good thing; lovers of the book may well not enjoy this film as it covers only a very few episodes from what is a very long book, distorts some of them, adds others such as extensive sequences of Tristram in the womb which do not feature in the book, and then devotes over half its length to being a documentary on the making of the film 'Tristram Shandy,' which itself then branches off into apparently unrelated behind the scenes goings on.

However, consider the book 'The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman.' It starts reasonably enough with Tristram Shandy's conception - but doesn't reach his birth until almost five hundred pages later as the author (supposedly Tristram himself) finds he needs to go further back in time as each event he describes has a preceding cause which he feels also needs explanation. He gets distracted and branches off into apparently unrelated stories. He sends a woman reader back to re-read a preceding chapter for having missed a detail which only an expert theologian would have noticed. He justifies one long digression by saying that the hour and a half spent reading it will have accounted for the time taken by Obadiah going to fetch Doctor Slop from his distant house and bring him back.... and then informs us that the Doctor happened to be just outside and the two returned almost immediately - and takes another dozen or so pages telling us so.

How should or could you possibly film such a book? It contains very little of what might be called a story; only isolated episodes decidedly not in chronological order. Many of these are in the film where they are just as disjointed as the book. It contains digression upon digression - well, the film certainly has these. Much of the book (despite the title) is taken over by Walter Shandy's rather forceful opinions, much of the film by Steve Coogan's. The book deliberately does not conform to any literary conventions. The film is probably not as unconventional as the book, but film is over 100 years old today and has often been experimented with; Tristram Shandy being the number eight novel in chronological order is not too far from the mark.

'A Cock And Bull Story' is not really a film of 'The Life And Opinions Of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman,' but then it doesn't claim to be and wisely doesn't share the same title. The title of the film comes from the final lines of the novel which I think capture it perfectly:

"L--d! said my mother, what is all this story about? ----

"'A C O C K and a B U L L,' said Yorick ---- And one of the best of its kind, I ever heard."