Chelsea Xie

The transition from book to film poses challenges due to the intrinsic differences between the two forms of storytelling. “If it’s a novel that you truly love, the movie version is almost certainly going to disappoint you,” english teacher Charles Shuttleworth said. “To expose a modern audience to a great work is a worthy undertaking. It just has to be done the right way.”

When producers announce a film rendition of a classic novel, many readers and moviegoers alike remain skeptical as to whether or not the adaptation will remain faithful to the original work. From the recent movie version of Emily Brontë’s “Wuthering Heights” to the many unique adaptations of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” readers often diverge in their perceptions of the film.

The transition from book to film poses challenges due to the intrinsic differences between the two forms of storytelling. Classic novels often thrive in introspective spaces, through the inner monologues and detailed descriptions that allow readers to immerse themselves in the plot. While directors attempt to externalize characters’ thoughts and inner dwellings, English teacher Charles Shuttleworth still believes a novel’s philosophical depth gets sacrificed most when adapted.

“If a novel has interior richness, that’s not going to translate,” Shuttleworth said. “One of my favorite novels is ‘White Noise’ by Don DeLillo, and I would not show that film. It just sickens me that they’re taking a novel that’s so thoughtful, philosophical and meaningful about contemporary life and reducing it. They try to make it relevant and lose its real value.”

Classic films can both heighten the storyline of a book or deviate heavily from the original plot, in turn losing the source material’s depth. The 2026 movie adaptation of Emily Brontë’s “Wuthering Heights,” directed by Emerald Fennell, drew negative attention for turning the novel centered on themes of interfamilial tensions, obsession and revenge into an intense romantic film — one repeatedly advertised as the “greatest love story of all time” — released on Valentine’s Day.

Junior Lana Tariq watched the movie adaptation and believes that Fennell stripped the novel of its depth for marketing purposes to appeal to the modern generation.

In particular, discrepancies between characters as written by authors and how they are portrayed on screen contribute to debate. Fennell cast white actor Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff, a character Brontë depicts as being “dark-skinned,” suggesting mixed-race or Romani origin. History teacher Bronwen Callahan argues that when directors decide to change the appearance of a character, it must be intentional, especially when identity is central to their actions in the novel.

“As someone who very much likes history, one of the theories about ‘Wuthering Heights’ is that the entire point of the book is actually a statement on colonialism,” Callahan said. “When you take the main character and turn him into a white man, you’re changing the entire story. It’s confusing as to why that choice was made — other than the director finds this person more attractive than another. Personally, that’s frustrating.”

The film’s emphasis on love and sex over the novel’s more nuanced themes reflects how classic stories are repackaged for modern audiences. In recent years, romance has even become the fastest-growing segment within fiction. Fennell herself acknowledged that the film was based on her own teenage reading of the book, aiming to capture the romantic feeling of the story rather than creating a faithful adaptation.

“In the publishing industry, there’s a trend towards toxic, intense romances that obviously sells very well,” Lana said. “Fennell’s goal was to make something that would sell the booming audience of ‘BookTok.’ It’s a modern interpretation that’s pretty gutless. Even though it seems risque, it’s just catering to market demand instead of looking at the source material and trying to make something meaningful from it.”

Nonetheless, updating a story’s characters or setting can work in certain situations. Callahan pointed to Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 adaptation of “Romeo & Juliet,” set in a post-modern city named Verona Beach, as a film that changed the original play’s context but was able to preserve Shakespeare’s core message.

Shuttleworth and Callahan acknowledged that not every adaptation falls short. Callahan praised adaptations of “The Princess Bride” and “The Exorcist” as films that successfully captured the original author’s intent. Shuttleworth enjoyed the adaptations of Ken Kesey’s “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse-Five,” and he screens the latter for his postmodern literature class to help students visualize the novel across different mediums.

Adaptations can serve as different artforms individually, and enjoying both the novel and the film is still possible. In fact, creating renditions of classic novels can often encourage viewers to read the book in their own time or introduce them to works of art they do not typically encounter.

“It’s good to expose a new generation to something great,” Shuttleworth said. “From my generation, it was the movie ‘American Graffiti,’ which was shot in the early 70s, but it was about the 50s, so it was music that I didn’t know. The soundtrack became really popular, and all of a sudden I’m exposed to a whole new generation of songs, which was great.”

Ultimately, the value of adaptation is rarely all-or-nothing. For Shuttleworth, the quality of the film depends entirely on the effort behind it and the nature of the novel itself.

“If it’s a novel that you truly love, the movie version is almost certainly going to disappoint you,” Shuttleworth said. “To expose a modern audience to a great work is a worthy undertaking. It just has to be done the right way.”