Saltburn, Explained: Does The Ending Ruin The Film?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- Saltburn, the new film from writer-director Emerald Fennell, was initially hailed as a shocking eat-the-rich psychological thriller, but upon its release, audiences have found that while it’s definitely a fun ride, it ends up lacking much of the promised bite. But does that keep the film from working? Let’s dive into what went right, what went wrong in the end, and unpack what Saltburn really has to say.
Join our PATREON to unlock our Members-Only Series “Total Take," vote on what we cover next, and earn more exciting perks: / thetake
Bonus Content and Articles: www.the-take.com
Follow our Socials: linktr.ee/thisisthetake
CHAPTERS
00:00 Was Saltburn good or bad?
00:32 A chaotic breakdown
03:32 Did the ending work?
06:59 Eat the rich commentary
13:58 The high points
CREDITS
Executive Producers: Debra Minoff & Susannah McCullough
Chief Creative Director: Susannah McCullough
Associate Producer: Tyler Allen
Writer: Jessica Babineaux
Narrator: Jessica Babineaux
Video Editor: Tyler Allen - Фільми й анімація
WATCH MORE - Emerald Fennell's previous work, Promising Young Woman, is dripping with social commentary. So what is it trying to say? Here's our TAKE: ua-cam.com/video/XQQd043uyV8/v-deo.html
.Ms. Obrien and Thomas and Cora would of Sniffed him out!
I never for a second got the sense that it was supposed to be a surprise that Oliver was responsible for the deaths. It was just supposed to be a reveal of exactly how he did it and got away with it.
I agree, his dance was the final F*ck you that tied it all in together!
We knew the entire time that he was psychotic, creepy, weird. Once he killed Felix it was clear where the plot was headed. So yeah 100% same as you said, the end was the reveal of the full picture and then he Danced off into the sunset (saltburn) feeling like a murderous queen! 😂
I was actually hoping that Felix's death ACTUALLY was going to be an accident. I feel like that would have subverted more expectations...and only then does Oliver really try to take advantage 100% (following a small psychebreak after the death)
@@ciaraskeleton how did he kill felix when with what good coke.
@@johndean4727what was this mindfuk of a sentence?
@@johndean4727 what?
Everyone goes on about how “disturbing” the bath, vampire, and grave scenes were… but to me, the scene that made me the most uncomfy was the scene where Felix and Oliver visit Oliver’s parents… the secondhand embarrassment had me cringing the entire time 😬😬😂
I think my favorite scene in the movie is the lunch scene immediately following Felix’s death. The room being completely drowned in blood red, while they try to pretend like nothing happened. Amazing.
Emerald is a genius.
100% agree! The lunch scene was chilling
Haha exactly! Even though Oliver basically “had the last laugh”, i’m glad that Felix caught him on his bull$h@t. That psychopath was so embarrassed 😅 lmao
I soooo fucking agree with you!!
omg yes it reminded me of the part in Great Expectations when Pip is embarrassed by his uncle...Oliver was so wrong for treating his family like that. And I totally agree abou tthe lunch scene, it was so tense and beautiful and the red curtains and the overflowing wine were just visual genius
I felt like the curtains making the room red was just too obvious. And I'm no film connoisseur but maybe there's been a lot of movies lately that create those kinds of visual.
I don’t think the ending ruined it, but I did think it bashed the audience over the head with Oliver’s true intentions, which were apparent by the midpoint. I could’ve done without the replay of all the ways he killed the family and the monologue explaining it all. I loved the subtlety that Fennell built up over the film, but thought it was a cop-out that she just explained it all at the end. It was so much more powerful in nuance - like the little smile he has on his face while bathing after hooking up with Venetia.
I personally interpreted the monologue to be a continuation of Oliver’s lies, with him lying to himself and the audience when he repeated “I hated him” over and over again, as he had fallen for Felix somewhere along the way in his plan to acquire their estate, and had to process his feelings for him in the weird, twisted way that he did. I think Fennell is smarter than that and that it’s on-the-nose nature was supposed to showcase his true malevolence whilst showing that his lies have ran so deep that he even lies to himself to cope and attempt to tell himself like he had the edge over them the entire time and was their true superior
100%
Come on, there is no way you already knew that he slashed Felix’s tire to get him to be friends with him…
@@martinep.3384I think part of the point is that we didn’t need to know that specifically. It could’ve become clear he was this kind of puppet master without it actually showing us the lengths he went to
@@martinep.3384uhh not right away, but once we met Oliver’s parents, I immediately knew him and Felix’s meeting was orchestrated. I even leaned over to my friend & said I bet he did something to his bike in the beginning 😭
Ambiguity would’ve helped the ending. If the entire family is dead, I don’t think a smart audience would need it spelled out that Oliver is the cause of their demise.
I don’t think the theme of the film was EVER an eat the rich thing. It was only marketed that way so as to not spoil the twist going in. They didn’t want to show their cards so people could be genuinely shocked when you get to the twist
It honestly feels like a movie about upper class fear of an uprising. I got that impression but it was confirmed when I heard emerald was upper class herself.
Venetia literally says “you ate him up and licked the plate.” It is about antisocial desire and greed etc etc but in the end a middle class boy destroys an entire family and takes the crown of their wealth. He turns their savior complex, treating him as a toy, into a tool to dehumanize them in turn. He kills them when he sees they no longer serve his interests. The film doesn’t explore the reasons behind this beyond an obsession to obtain what seems out of reach. So it’s there, but not explored well
Mhm true but I’m never a fan of movies that bait a genre only to switch up the last minute.
Exactly!!!..
@@theodoe946lol, what.
I think a better lens through which to view this film would be to view it through the lens of desire growing into unhealthy obsession. There’s a lot of homoerotic desire on the part of Oliver towards Felix, and his infiltration of the Saltburn estate can be seen as him trying to integrate himself as deeply into Felix’s life as possible. But once his lower-class act is revealed to be a sham, Felix resents him, and exiles him from Saltburn, all but guaranteeing that Felix will never want him back, both in the estate and in his life. So then Oliver’s desire for Felix turns into a desire to BECOME Felix. Because once he owns Saltburn, he embodies everything that Felix was: an enchanting, opulent paragon of beauty.
There’s also a way to link class conflict into this view of the film. When the Cattons learn of Oliver’s “backstory,” they latch onto him and treat him with an overbearing level of sweetness that borders on condescension. The only way they can accept him is if they treat him like a charity case; after all, Oliver’s father just “died,” so why wouldn’t they be generous with their wealth of it made them look good? But Oliver’s middle class background makes him a sinister figure. He doesn’t want to survive, like most protagonists in eat-the-rich narratives. He wants their lifestyle. He wants their beauty. He wants. And that’s what makes him so dangerous. He doesn’t want to upset the class structure, he wants to replace the elite.
I will admit that I was disappointed by the ending at first. I remember thinking “That was it??!!” As the credits rolled. But I don’t think the film should be dismissed as merely “fun.” Sure, the class commentary falls flat, but I think what it says about unhealthy desire should be taken seriously.
Toward the end of your second paragraph I immediately thought “he COVets!” Á la Hannibal Lector. This is well put.
So well said, I love your interpretations! And totally agree, but you articulated much better than I could.
This is an excellent interpretation, and it actually answers a question that I had in my own comment.
it's not just a better lens, but it's actually what the movie's themes are. from its first look, everyone involved in the movie just talks about how it's a story about obsession and desire.
This is generally what I took away from the movie and what the director talks about when discussing the film. I'm not sure this take really interpreted the points of the movie quite right
So one thing I dont really hear anyone mention about the class struggle in this is that it kind of mirrors the struggle between upper middle class and upper class pretty well. If Felix's family thinks Oliver is a lower class charity case it actually serves to highlight their wealth in a positive way. They gain this image of generosity by taking him in and caring for him, and they dont really have to risk the structures that maintain their status being disrupted because they can just abandon him to the streets whenever they want, and they know he wont be able to find his way back in. However, with him being upper middle class, educated, cunning, and driven by his insatiable desire for wealth and status, he actually does have the potential to disrupt the structures that serve to maintain their power. He is much more of a threat to their status not only because he has more resources to overthrow them, but also because he is no longer their charity case circus freak that they can parade around and show off as a symbol of their generosity.
@@Daniella9658I think the scene with Oliver’s real parents showed how frustrated and complacent he was with them. They were so happy to be middle/upper middle class and have a boy that was as accomplished as Oliver, but he wasn’t at all content with that. Even when they mentioned his sisters he was pissed because the attention wasn’t all on him.
Ya when I watched it the most basic layer was “eat the rich” vibes. But it just had so many layers if you’re willing to donate you’re time to a concept.
Generally agree with indiajohnson4149's statement, just have a bit of an issue with the class parameters she uses and that frame the following replies. My understandings come more from studying 19th century and early 20th century Brit Lit, so my understandings are somewhat dated. The primary difference between middle class and upper class is title not wealth. A person in "Great Britain" could have all the money in the world, but if they were not at least a baronet, they were middle class. Enough money would make them upper middle class. Conversely, a person could be penniless, but if they are the Duke or Duchess of Decayedgentryville, then they are upper class. With enough money one could purchase a title ("indirectly", of course) but the idea that one had to work for or earn money (outside of Parliament, the law, the church, or the military) to do such a thing diminishes the "blueness" of ones titled blood, because this undercuts feudal understandings of title and accepted concepts of the divine right of kings and the great chain of being, no matter how far these concepts had been obscured and decoupled by the Industrial Revolution and then furthermore by WWI and the advent of Modernity.
This would render Oliver's actual family middle class (not untitled titans of industry, but economically comfortable and likely petite bourgeois... small business owners or middle managers in a large corporation). They could be working/middle class as they may earn a very high wage as highly skilled labourers, but there are some stereotypical class markers that the film provides that would argue against a working class distinction and this doesn't quite suit the dynamics being examined in the film, though possible). This ruins his crafted deception to the Cattons as a protagonist in a Dickens' novel: a virtual and destitute orphan, but yet a "natural" Christian whose abilities and intrinsic goodness shine through to show that he deserves and should be able to climb out of his designated station of poverty and its accompanying dangers. This persona he adopts and is effective in endearing him to the Cattons is a very traditionally Liberal conception (think Locke, J.S. Mill and Bentham, less contemporary ideas of diverse social inclusion), as it provides/d a rhetorical vehicle for social advancement for the middle class that is at once palatable to the "charitable and generous" nature of the upper class... or palatable to some in the upper class for reasons of, perhaps, authentic goodness or some sort of self-aggrandizement (i.e. Are the Cattons good or self-preening?)......
N.B. I don't ascribe to this outdated and outmoded thinking especially as it is often an attempt to ascribe ethical evaluations to people or groups based on socio-economic circumstances, achieved through merit or otherwise. But that is not to say that these ways of thinking and understanding are absent from the schemata of human cognition regardless of their inaccuracies. I believe this is part of what this film is very actively examining and through allusions is conversing with many films and novels that explore this socio-economic dynamic alongside individual desires (which themselves are affected by socio-economic concerns that regulate everything from fashion to gender norms). This film references The Talented Mr. Ripley, Gosford Park (especially the American producer's "butler"/Hollywood actor researching a role character), Brideshead Revisited (which itself references Jude the Obscure), The Little Stranger, The Turn of the Screw, Oliver Twist, David Copperfield (especially the David and Steerforth relationship), A Modest Proposal, and A Midsommer Night's Dream. Oliver, in some ways, even resembles a far more successful version of Uriah Heep from David Copperfield.... all of these texts in print, stage and film adaptations are highly cognizant of and thoroughly examine and question class and socio-economic distinctions in concert with individual desires because these desires cross these boundaries and can disrupt these orders, which not only complicates the fulfillment of these desires, but excites the fears of those potentially affected by these disruptions, whether they are in the forms of people or gods. Their collective subject matter is truly fascinating and critical in understanding who we are as individuals and as a community of interdependent beings numbering in the billions. Discounting the collective to the individual in the interpretation of this film is a disservice to it, even if it is more effective on an individualist level (imo)
Guess I needed to get that off my chest. Thanks for listening if you made it through the whole scree.
@@crowboggsyou did a lot of talking but nothing to say
@@cowsgomooono, you just didn’t pay attention, or get its
This movie legit felt like Call Me By Your Name meets Parasite meets Hands That Rocks the Cradle
Call Me By Your Name... Sigh 😔😢 that film broke me, as did the book. 😢😢😢
This is the proper way of describing saltburn hahaha
You left Out The Talented Mr Ripley
And fall of the house of usher and Harry Potter
There were a lot of references in the movie too, which feels cheap when the movie isn't up to par. It's like, thanks for reminding of better media, I guess?
This whole film was camp as tits. If it’s social commentary it’s trash, but as a campy, sexy thriller it’s so much fun.
The best summarization I've seen so far.
i think you're setting yourself up for disappointment by expecting it to be about class when that's not the main theme. the main theme is obsession with beauty and the desire to attain that beauty. oliver begins being obsessed with felix, and wanting to be a part of his world, and knows that acting as a poor, hapless kid, he can sway his fancy and sympathy more. and the most closer he comes to him, the more his desire grows, and by the time his facade is revealed, he's not just in love with felix but also his life and his house. so his motivations change from being with felix to BEING felix. and the way he went about it was the only way he could attain it. the parts about class definitely lend to the story and are an important part of it, but ultimately that isn't the point of the movie. and people thinking that is the point, are disappointed that it didn't deliver on it. the ending is a bit clunky, sure, but theme-wise, i think the movie absolutely achieved what it set out to do.
Loved the naked dancing through the house. This movie had a couple of scenes that were so original and unique. He was celebrating his victory. Be interesting to see what he would do once he gets bored there by himself.
so relieved to read this, I felt the same way and was surprised by the take in the video
Exactly
Ikr, imagine complaining about a film being “bad” because it didn’t explore/“sufficiently” explore the particular themes YOU personally wanted it to - when even the director herself explicitly said that the focus of her film lay elsewhere.
@@alexbennet4195 there is a troubling rise in that form of criticism i've noticed. judging the movie not for what it is, but instead for what it should have been. which is just misguided imo
I really expected, at the end of Oliver's naked dance through the house that we'd come to the final room and find Farliegh there, waiting for him. That would've been quite a twist.
I thought the same!
Or the butler!
Same! Him or the butler. Kinda some loose ends, but all and all a great film.
Too much of a good thing. 😊
Ugh Farleigh had such a punchable face
I’m so happy about the comments saying people loved or enjoyed the film! I went into the movie not having seen any trailers or reading reviews. Expecting nothing, I was given a sexy, shocking wild ride! I was blow away by so many things in this movie. Glad other people liked it too!
I loved it!
That’s exactly what I did. Didn’t know anything of the plot or synopsis never watched a trailer nothing. I literally decided to watch this movie because I’m a fan of Barry keoghan and loved the still of him in a suit with the castle in the back. Walking in totally clueless, I loved the movie so much. Maybe they spoonfed the ending but it didn’t affect my mood on the movie at all
@@rickjamesdos2239I thought the ending was so fun even if spoonfed. And I loved him dancing nude thru the mansion. That guy has a fabulous body! And the song w his dance made me giddy lol
I think most movies (if not all movies) should be experienced just like that: walk into the theater, knowing little to nothing about the story, and just experience it.
Wonderful movie 🎉
I think Felix’s angel wing costume is an indication to the family’s saviour complex
I thinks it has more to do with a foreseen of him dieing. By that time he didn't want to "save" Oliver from poverty 😅 it it happened before he learned the truth I can totally see it but seen him with angel wings right before dieing it totally a foreseen
The whole villain monologue felt completely unnecessary, I think the audience is smart enough to understand what was going on, we didn't need it to be spelt out. Having said that, I thought it was a dark and intriguing story. Well done, Emerald!
I actually loved the villain monologue and loved the fact even more that he was saying this to Elspeth (Rosamund Pike)….interestingly enough Rosamund Pike played a villainous character in Gone Girl and had a villain reveal monologue too that a lot of people love 😂 I literally watched this movie for Rosamund and she was my favorite part of it. Loved that the director had fun with that monologue scene. 😂
I can see what she was doing 😂 when she got Oliver (Barry) to say this Elspeth (Rosamund) at least that’s my take on it.
I’m just so glad they didn’t have “Ollie” doing anything with elspeths body 🤮
@@anakinjmanu I know what you mean! For a sec I thought….is he gonna go the Ted Bundy way???? Lmao 🤣 frrr
@@carolinagoldgirl8706 that would have been my last straw and I would have ended it there 😓
I honestly admire Fennell's directing more than her writing. She's got a great eye for camera placement, color, mise en scène and casting the right actors. Seriously, Jacob Elordi is starting to become one of my new favorites especially after this one. Keoghan could play this role in his sleep and he may be too old but I was still impressed by how far he went this time.
I think if you go in expecting a dark comedy with themes of obsession, you'll have a great time.
This. The film is masterfully directed (at least the first hour and a half) but the writing was just okay.
I didn't see the film have as an "eat the rich" movie. I found it to be an clever take on the lengths a sociopath will take to consume what it lusts for. Gen Z's Talented Mr Ripley, great movie.
I thought Saltburn as a movie was pure psychopath.
@@Senate300Oliver was a psychopath, not a sociopath
Saltburn is the brilliant hybrid of Brideshead Revisited and the Talented Mr. Ripley.
I really wish they'd spent more time fleshing out Oliver's motives. They seemed to be very focused on his sexual obsession with Felix, but not really about what Felix might've represented to him or what he felt Felix had that he didn't - given that, at the end, they seem to imply that though it "wasn't clear" whether Oliver loved him or not (to me, it was very clear he wanted him) it was certain that Oliver had always wanted Felix's home, stature, money, family...And that he actually "hated him"? But why? What made him hate Felix? It was all very muddled.
And I feel they didn't actually set up the reveals enough for them to be shocking. Oliver just became a sexual master manipulator all of a sudden. There was no evidence that he was pretending to be poor or taking the air out of bikes. The movie just informed us later, "Oh yeah, by the way, he was lying earlier." But that's not shocking unless it was obvious at the time, but we failed to see it.
I think they could have totally omitted the narration, actually. It didn't add anything.
I think it was pretty easy to pick up on his bad motives and weirdness tbh. And saying he hates him because he can't accept that a) he did love him and b) he wanted him and wanted to be him so badly that it turned to hatred and resentment
He switched on a dime. It wasn't clear until he just suddenly became bad. @@shanxiety
@@KittiyKyat I disagree. Did you not catch that something was up with him literally right in the beginning when he said he didn't smoke (he's dishonest to Felix) and stood outside his window smoking (intrusive, no boundaries, obsessed)? I found it fairly clear with a satisfying escalation. I'm of the opinion that ending speeches are for the people who missed something or didn't pay much attention
@@shanxietysame i noticed the smoking thing and how creepy he was watching felix and sneaking around right away
You are forgetting that sex is not always about sexual desire or love. Sometimes it is simply about power and conquest and that is what Oliver’s sexual deviance was truly about. It wasn’t necessarily that he wanted to love Felix by the time he arrived at Saltburn, he wanted to exert power over him. That’s why he fucks his grave. That was the only moment he was able to truly conquer Felix: when he was dead.
I connect with some of the critique in this video, but honestly, I loved this movie!
I'm glad it exists. I haven't had this much fun watching a movie in a long time.
I really loved it. And the audience laughs and gasps during it was so much fun. Not everything has to be a commentary about race and class. Of course that was set dressing for the much bigger theme of obsession and love. It doesn't need to go deeper than that. The audience can surmise those for themselves.
I think the film is split into two segments, before we know about Olivers true upbringing and after and they almost feel like two completely different films for me. I preferred the ambiguity of the first half and the twist that Oliver actually lied about his home life would've been enough for me without the murder (not so mystery) plot. However I still really loved the film overall and think reveal monologues can be fun, lending themselves well to a more interactive rewatch. Like in the pub scene for example, knowing he had the money in his wallet that whole time and probably not feeling even the slightest amount of guilt that he ditched his friend.
My first hint that Oliver was the "bad guy" was him talking s*** about Pamela! I found it so odd that he would insult her when she had already moved out, then it clicked that he's trying to empty the house out one by one and didn't want there to be any chance of her returning.
It was obvious to me in the first half of the film that he was manipulating each and every individual. He would use flattery, lust, lies, anything to get what he wanted. He was also very obviously callous to others even in Oxford (the girl he hooked up with, the nerdy math guy, etc).
I was confused with people calling it an “eat the rich” narrative. To me it’s very much not that it’s the horror show of class upheaval by middle class strivers.
Fennell is born into immense wealth, and that origin is useful for things like believable dialogue. The callous shallowness of how Oxford students and how Elspeth speaks about her friend or daughter is spot on. I know from going to an elite university with a princess in attendance, this is what wealthy southerners who are lords and ladies with boarding school education act and speak like.
The truth of Oliver’s origin could arguably be thought of as comfortably on the lower end of middle class (by British class standard) to the highest end of working class. The family have a big enough house, the parents seem nice and hard working and they have enough money to support multiple children and go to Mykonos regularly. To a lot of people Oliver’s actual life and home is like a palace. But it may as well be a wet cardboard box next to Saltburn. I did like the comparison to Oliver Twist in this video because of course the twist in Oliver Twist was that Oliver was rich the whole time.
But a literary reading I’m more interested in is Oliver calling himself a vampire. Classic vampires are usually lords and ladies and counts. They come from an antiquated old world, live in crumbling castles and sustain themselves feeding off the poor villagers down below. While Oliver is not literally a supernatural undead blood sucker- metaphorically- he is and kind of literally with how he consumes bodily fluids of some of the family. But of course this is a poorer person who eats the family and spits them out so he can have what they have.
I feel like Fennell went to great lengths to humanise the wealthy, especially Felix. While Oliver comes off completely transgressive taboo to the point of grotesque which makes it so sinister how he wins in the end.
I feel you were CLOSE early on in the video when you mention that old money are usually very guarded… so ask yourself why would someone who IS old money make a story about silly, frivolous beautiful, kind, naive rich people who let a poor into their castle only to be eaten out of house and home and frame it in the scariest way possible?
Woww I like this!!
This is very astute… I’m impressed and delighted because it’s kind of rare for people to take all this into account-I mean the background or personality of the director and/or writer of a film. But that’s so important when analysing art.
Regarding your last question, I think Fennell wanted us to sympathise with the “poor” rich, to feel genuinely sorry for these hapless victims of a psychopath. “Oh, some of them were awful, sure. But not all the time, and not as awful as HIM. And they were right to look down on an interloper and right to judge him harshly. It’s only natural for them to be cautious because look what can happen.”
What do you think?
finally someone said what i was thinking as well. thanks everyone in this thread!
Beautiful analysis!
i would just like to add that from an evolutionary psychology perspective, the desire to guard wealth makes total and perfect sense. people always want to bash the rich and sum it like its simple greed, like they should be more inclined to share and give a bunch of their wealth away or something, but the truth is that they want to maintain their status and lifestyle the same way as any of us in any other class would, out of fear of falling into poverty.
The ending should have either been ambiguous as to Oliver's actions or just been up front about since it was so obivous at certain point what was happening that to treat it as a big twist makes it a let down.
Yep! I kept waiting for it to be revealed that the scenes with him messing with each of the family was all a delusion after the scene with the broken mirror. Or at least be a little more ambiguous.
I think it would've been better if Oliver didn't kill Felix and it was just fortune instead that he died that night. I think it would've been more impactful if Oliver technically never had to kill anyone and the family sort of collapsed on itself as a result of Oliver's presence and manipulations.
@@Ray03595 I actually agree. I sort of thought maybe it was implied he provided the drugs in the champagne, but it was "up to" Felix to decide to drink it. But having it just be an accident would have been best. I'm also a bit confused as to how Elsbet was injured?
@@Ray03595Oliver has to kill the family for the themes to make sense. He can't just be given Saltburn. His obsession with Felix and all that the Saltburn estate represents requires Oliver to take it rather than remain passive and be given wealth by chance. The film goes so far to explicitly say that he's a predator and they're his prey.
I don't think him killing the family was the twist. I saw the twist more as Oliver planned everything from the very start, showing that he was always a monster rather than evolving into one.
i actually liked the end, i think the film knew that everyone knew what he did, but it was interesting to see just how much he had planned it
except for the stupid police.
For me I never looked at it as an eat-the-rich film at all. I really bought into the fact that it’s about a guy who resents being an outsider learning how to be an insider. It makes sense for Jacob Elordi to read Wuthering Heights for the role because it’s about an outsider working his way into the inside and still being depressed. I thought the film was masterful up until the midsummer nights dream party, and then it kind of gets a bit caught up with all the killings and such.
Reading and watching Fennell’s interviews is so refreshing because the message she was trying to communicate was exactly what I got out of this film. I think the ending was over-indulgent but I think it ultimately added to film and accentuated the themes the film was going for. I’m really tired of people veering this movie as an eat the rich movie because it’s not. As Fennell said it’s about the thin line between love and obsession and desire that we all contain within us. Wanting to be a part of something or someone that will never want you back is something so universally felt and Saltburn offers a new framework for this concept to be explored. I think some of the most amazing films present an idea rooted in our society and humanity and then subverts it or reveals a new layer through the storytelling. Saltburn is definitely not for everyone and I still think Promising Young Woman is Fennell’s magnum opus but I’m upset that people are disregarding the film as “the British version of parasite” or only focusing on the more provocative scenes because this movie really is examining something intricate and innately human which is what Fennell does best.
I have to say that I am shocked at the general trend of people nitpicking good movies and pointing out every single thing that is allegedly wrong or “not good enough” with them… I saw this happening with Killers of the Flower Moon and I’m seeing it now with Saltburn. 99% of today’s films are lazy reboots or sequels or prequels or other franchise-based stories with very poor writing, yet when we get real stories that the writers actually put some thought and emotion into, people start pointing out every single “flaw” in them as if they were Pauline Kael risen from the grave. Seems very toxic.
I’m all for good critical analysis but some of these “takes” genuinely make me question… do you even want… art? Because it sounds like you just want… propaganda. It sounds like you want a film that will cover the exact political talking points that you personally want it to cover, and end with the exact strong political message that you want it to have - the less ambiguity, the less questions raised (instead of answers given), the better
@@alexbennet4195 I guess that might be a result of people “over-politicizing” everything these days? Particularly in very black-and-white terms: you’re either part of the “solution” or you’re part of the problem.
What was off for me was Olivier being able to get away with the murders. Family members dying one after the other and no suspicion falls on him? Specially when he “inherits” the estate and fortune of that family?
That was quite unrealistic for me. I mean police will obviously suspect him first.
Maybe that’s because the wealthier get away with a lot more.
Can’t say I was surprised to hear the director grew up super wealthy 😂. The film’s total indifference to the theme of class was a dead giveaway. If anything, it felt like a critique of the middle class. The theme of desiring what you can’t have fits with that. All in all a really beautiful, well acted film, but thematically left a bad taste in my mouth. A big step down from Promising Young Woman, which I thought was incredible!
She's an incredibly talented director. This feels like something that didn't take much eirk for her sadly
Class was all over the film. It just didn’t bash you over the head with it and made it nuanced.
@@damonjones7787 My issue is that I actually think it did bash us over the head with it for the first two-thirds of the film, only to let that theme evaporate at the end. The class critique was there, but only as a misdirect. Which to me means that the director thinks the theme of classism is just a fun gimmick and not actually something worth exploring in depth.
At the end of the day, I think the film just reinforced the idea that rich = good. Or perhaps even more perversely, that being rich makes you a victim. But that would be a cynical take. My more optimistic take is that the director really just didn’t give it much thought beyond “audiences and critics like eat the rich stories.”
@@Micoke12 Interesting. What are we meant to make of Oliver at the end, now that he is the rich one?
@@HuntingViolets Hmm, good point! Yeah I suppose you could see it as a tale of the horrible length people will go to in pursuit of wealth. But honestly I struggle to understand Oliver’s motivations. He seemed to have some desire to fit in and for the wealthy lifestyle, but his romantic desire for Jacob Elordi’s character seemed far more prominent. The twist that he did it all to inheret Saltburn felt more like a plot device than any genuine revelation of character or themes.
I loved this film. I was locked in. Rosamund Pike was hilarious but heartbreaking when she was trying to process grief. She was like a malfunctioning robot.
I am a big fan of "reveal" monologues, I find them super satisfying. Yes it has been done before, but nobody is ever inventing anything new in reality, and that shouldn't be bad. The movie looked great, the freaky horny atmosphere worked great, and the greedy middle class man is a good villain to have (isn't there a saying about how evil is bred from boredom and mediocrity?)
I felt that Oliver had already investigated Felix before hand, because in one conversation early in uni they happened to be talking about Felix's family and Oliver casually says that Felix's family sounds straight up from some authors (dont remember the name) book. And Felix says that they were in fact the inspiration to this author story. Same thing happens when talking about the ceramics! He happens to name drop important artists related to the family, and they get surprised. Also, theres a scene where he is studying a Saltburn's book and other studying the laberynth and getting interrumped by Duncan.
I got that stalker vibe straight from the very beginning.
I love that the phrase “a little weirdness” is what you use to describe someone literally fucking the mud of a fresh dug grave. 🤣
I loved this movie so much. So rich and layered in the criticisms it has. I think one of the big commentaries was that Oliver sold us a story which we all believed, until we didnt. The empathy was only afforded to him when he fit a stereotype for the rich to feel better about themselves.
The only thing that surprised me was that Farleigh wasn't killed. Otherwise, it was thoroughly entertaining!
According to Olivers plan and scheme, Farleigh didnt need to be killed. Oliver only had to make sure Farleigh was partly to blame for Felix death and being cast out from the family forever, which Oliver successed with.
I gotta be honest, I do think the ending wasn't perfect, but this is still my #1 movie of the year
Watching this movie, I kept seeing similarities to the The Talented Mr. Ripley . Oliver kills for similar reason as Ripley, out of passion (over being rejected) and desperation to continue his ruse and not be caught. The difference with this movie is that with Ripley we see his set ups in real time and the ability to think fast on his feet. Ripley never really changes. He is always a nerd and an outlier and also somewhat unlucky always narrowly escaping getting caught.. With Oliver what we think we see is never the whole picture. He slowly transforms in front of our eyes into a completely different person to the point were we'd want to go back in time to see if everything was a ruse all along. Could we be certain that Oliver wasn't simply stalking Felix and got lucky with the flat tire> Being shown that he really had money in his wallet made more sense after knowing he wasn't really poor. The choice to have Oliver tell us rather than show us that there were no "accidents" (or leave it up to interpretation) is meant to leave no doubt that he is a pure calculating, maniacal psychopath who always had the upper hand even when we think he didn't.
Me too!!! I though I was the only one!!!
This is all very interesting. I had no issues with the ending LOL
I had issues with the third act but god damn this movie entertained the hell outta me. I had fun along the way 😂
Me neither. To me, it just added another layer of someone who always had a second intention to the whole situation. Makes the rewatch super fun
I thought this was great analysis - but curious it didn’t address the idea that part of us hates/ despises what we lust/obsess over… that proves to be the real theme of the movie…
I think they nailed the final scene. Very Saltburn-esque. I loved this film… the cinematography, the music, the tone, the actors… adoro tudo!
having seen the movie, i feel like olivers relationships with farleigh, venetia, and even rosamund pikes character were all infinitely more interesting than him and felix. i guess the intention was that felix was an object of obsession and not a real character, but considering how much he is used in the marketing i expected something more than "he is actually just a nice guy" lol.
He isn’t a “nice guy” though…? He only likes Oliver in the first place because he gives him that “poverty роrn” he wants
Just because the ending was a bit on the nose doesn't take away from the enjoyment. It felt like a 90s style thriller...
Too weird Oliver planned everything without having previous knowledge about the saltwater family
The ending is still meaningful but it feels like it isn’t for people who go in with their own expectations, I think we shouldn’t dismiss movies just because they don’t talk about politics and racial and wealth disparity, I think it’s interesting the director showed the characters love for the rich boy and I think this is different and new, and it has its own theme that isn’t going to cater to everything the audience would usually expect.
THANK YOU for this comment. Not every piece of media has to have some profound commentary on social politics, sometimes people just want to tell a story. That's how I looked at this. It was a strange, hilarious, tragic, human, thrilling story that stuck with me, and I didn't need for it to be anything more or less.
I was surprised that Oliver killed everyone only because I was endlessly waiting for Oliver to have a physical romance with Felix that never happened. There are so many unanswered questions. Was Felix bisexual? Did he have a crush on Oliver and that was why he was jealous/territorial of Ollie being intimate with his sister Venetia? I liked the film, but it feels a bit underdeveloped sort of like a movie adaptation of a book that contains the details that were left out for the big screen adaptation.
Right was Felix a bit sinister, like apparently bringing new friends each summer only to get bored of them. He lowkey probably liked how Oliver was obsessed with him. He also seemed unbothered when Pamela died.
Is it underdeveloped or did the writer want us to determine these things for ourselves?
I felt like it was so on the nose that Oliver killed the family members that I got genuinely confused if he did kill them because of how obvious it was.
You're absolutely right. It became utterly ludicrous, not to mention illogical.
RIGHT? And then the "twist" came and I was like...why is this movie treating this like it's a reveal? 😭
@@mischr13the reveal was that aside from killing the family (which you should have picked up), he’d actually orchestrated literally everything. Even from the bike
The film basically summarizes the point while we might say we want to "eat the rich" if given the chance the vast majority of people would rather be the rich.
I loved this movie! I suspected from the moment Oliver spoke with his mom on the phone that he was lying about his father's death. They didn't show the end of the phone conversation and that felt intentional.
I think most, if not all, weren't surprised that Oliver was the one who killed Felix as well as Venetia. What I liked about the reveal monologue is that we learn to what extent Oli planned infiltrating Felix's life.
After we learn that Oli lied to Felix about his parents, it's easy to assume that Oli just made it all up on the spot, especially his father's death. It's only in the monologue that we realize that Oli's lies weren't just Oliver getting carried away desperately trying to remain Felix's friend but rather a planned series of lies that all started with the way they met.
The end, to me, just felt inevitable. It's also rare to see the vilan end up victorious with no remorse or even consequences. He duped and killed and he ends up in the big house. He loved and hated Felix for who he was and what he had and now he's finally become the object of his mixed emotions and for what?
In the end we might see him happy but is he really?
I walked away from this movie focused on the main themes of obsession and desire, which the movie did really well, and the ending certainly didn't undermine or abandon those themes. I don't really think it was trying to be an "eat the rich" film at all, so while this theme wasn't fully fleshed out, that wasn't the point. I think we, as people, are hungry for "eat the rich" themes and the disappointment that this film didn't sasiate that is more of a projection of a cultural desire to see the rich fail (which i totally vibe with btw) than it is a failing of this film.
The people who didn’t enjoy the ending might’ve missed the fact that it perfectly reflects Oliver’s power dynamic flip. Not only does it allow for the why behind the narration throughout the film, but it also shows that Oliver finally has enough power to be honest about his violence. No one can stop him at that point and he knows it; so he wants to share details about how cunning and hard working he is to a woman who’s life is literally in his hands.
This video makes a good point about staying in the shallow end, yet the director does explore what she set out to do: explore taboos of desire and that being extremely wealthy is a cycle of greed and power. No matter who comes out on top, blood is spilled to acquire and maintain the spoils. She doesn’t implicate those who are traumatized from not having enough to live, but chose to explore greed in its purest form and how it dehumanizes everyone involved. No matter the SES, they all treat each other as materials and toys and tools and it’s violent and ugly and disturbing. That was her commentary on class and generational wealth. It was like watching a modern coup in a microcosm
The ending definitely didn’t ruin anything it just explained it for the many ppl who obviously can’t understand it or have fun with cinema 😭 I thought it was genius bc it catered to ppl who understand cinema and directors work with ppl who just go to the movies to be entertained with content.
Horseshit. Ironically, I think it's those of us who do value 'deep' cinema that have some issues with the ending. It's the more mainstream viewers who seem to be loving it without really spotting the glaring holes in the film's logic.
I feel that simply showing his final monologue and murder of Elspeth would've made it very clear that he was responsible for the other two deaths and would've gave the film a lot more nuance
@@q.waiters6666definitely agree
Its not like the ending was bad, but the beggining was so briliant that everyone expect an ending alike. It was good, just not as good as the first act
Absolutely brilliant movie. The ending was sensational. Stop overthinking it
Agreed!
Problem is, the story didn't sit right, so 'over-thinking' it is hard to avoid if you're the kind of person who prefers logic.
The third act is a mess. If you love it though, yeah, perhaps don't look too closely...
I wonder if the director was a Hannibal fan. I definitely felt similar vibes with the unhealthy desire and obsession, the need to consume/have/destroy the person object of said desire.
I disagree. I think this movie and its ending is exactly what it was supposed to be. It may have been marketed as a class commentary buts it’s clearly more interested in our love/hate relationship with desire. Oliver is the most obvious but everyone family member is toying with and ultimately gets what they want. Felix has a love / hate relationship with being admired. Vinitia with death . Farleigh with being his family’s outsider. Elsbeth with drama. Even the father has a love hate relationship with pretense. In the end Oliver gives the family exactly what they wanted. I’m so surprised because usually agree with your takes and I feel this one missed the mark.
I think a lot of the negative talk around the movie is about how the ending shows a “twist” that was obvious the whole time
Oh wow this is a really interesting insight and a good point! Would love to watch it again thru this lens
I rewatched it and ***SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER**
I think that some of the reason why people think it doesn’t work is because it’s simply told in a strange order. The way that it should’ve gone down, no pun intended, is that Oliver should’ve taken everybody out first. It makes a lot more sense for Felix to be the last one to go, especially with what happens at his grave. His speech about “I gave you what you wanted and in someways I’m your best friend“ would’ve rung a lot more true if he had gone through great lengths to take down the whole family.
The movie should’ve ended at the grave which I’m reluctant to say because that dance number is iconic but if we’re going for a harder shock we could’ve gotten the grave scene last.
Cut out the scene with Oliver’s villain explanation speech.
and another thing, and someone please jump in here, because I don’t know if it’s just me but I don’t necessarily buy that Oliver targeted Felix from the very beginning with the popped tire and everything. Like. Unless I missed something, it really doesn’t make sense. The movie makes a lot more sense for Oliver to be drawn into Felix‘s orbit and become infatuated with Felix’s kindness.
In any event, I still love the movie. I think Emerald Fennell is a fantastic storyteller and Director but between this and some of the missteps in promising young woman, I think she needs to work on her pacing and story structure a little more. I look forward to seeing what a complete work from her looks like in the future.
I'll jump in because you raise a similar point that came to mind with the mirror smashing scene. Oliver smashes the mirror in the shared bathroom in a controlled fit of anger (he wraps his hand first). Almost miraculously, the mirror is almost instantly replaced without mention. I can believe that the incident would go without mention as that would be part of the unspoken order of the house. I can believe the people hired as staff in the house could replace a mirror rather quickly, but it occurs so quickly and quietly that it doesn't follow and I wondered if the incident only occurred in Oliver's mind. While a question of what actually happened and what didn't is a fraught one in a fictional film, the audience's perspective does not seem guided by a non-objective, unreliable narrator even in a film that is not committed to realism and does not leave Oliver's person or focused gaze. I think the tire popping trap and the ruse of not having the money to pay for the round at the bar likely did occur in the "history" of this film's world, but they don't follow. They reveal Oliver's cleverness and powers of observation all of which aid in achieving his goals, but the logistics of timing in these situations for the "traps" to spring are dubious. They serve a larger purpose than realism in what they convey and how they carry forward the plot, but I found them too non sequitur here. I think this occurred in Promising Young Woman, as well, but it didn't stand out and ultimately matter half so much as I felt it did here (I find Promising Young Woman to be a brilliant film, and this one was a good but (imo) not great film). Agreed, especially here, there is something of a story structure problem that takes away from all the interesting facets of life that the film is engaging with and trying to examine through art. Venetia's soliloquy about Oliver to Oliver being a moth and not a spider is, I found, the most telling and poignant speech to the audience than the rest of the dialogue of the film. Though, maybe she is the Cassandra of this film.
i don't think he targeted felix in the sense that he always intended to take out his family. i think he was infatuated and wanted to enter that circle, and constructed that 'meet cute'. on a rewatch it's evident that farleigh taunting oliver about never coming back to saltburn is what motivates him to switch his objective from being with felix to being felix.
Felix already knew his real background and didn't trust him if he had taken out the family first it wouldn't have worked
What are the missteps in promising young woman
@@rayanneflorence1830 Howdy. Your question may be directed at miguelalbarracin9077 based on your phrasing, but I can show what I saw in terms of timing that could be considered missteps (relative to plausibility). Again, I think Promising Young Woman effectively/affectively works and functions on most every level, but these scenes (especially on a second viewing), challenged my suspension of disbelief mildly. Before Cassandra goes to the Dean Walker's office, she rolls up on the dean's daughter and lures her to a safe location so to menace the dean with her safety to challenge the dean's perspective in regard to the reporting of sexual assault, most especially in her handling of Nina's disclosure. Cassandra does her homework on the dean's daughter to learn her schedule and provide incentives to disarm Amber's mistrust. Believable, but Cassie's timing in finding her and the ease of the interaction to steal her phone and leave her waiting for her favorite band to supposedly appear in a diner, all in coordination to be punctual with the scheduled appointment with Dean Walker... possible and it all serves the greater purpose of challenging the dean and the audiences' perspective, which is breath takingly effective. Is it plausible that everything out of her control within the execution of Cassie's plan breaks her way here (e.g. Amber could wise up before the meeting with the dean either begins or ends and find a way to contact her mother about how her phone was stolen, which I am guessing most people would figure out relatively quickly while waiting alone in a diner), sure, but probable? Again, realism on this level isn't the point and it is plausible, exceedingly clever and shows Cassie's cleverness, intellect and unwavering determination in a variety of ways... the timing is just mildly suspect, which is fine because we aren't interacting with a film that is committed to realism on this level (but very much so on other levels that are far more critical). I suggest looking at the final scene in the same light. The timing of when the cops arrive and the pre-scheduled text messages to Ryan... again, it is both possible and probable that Cassie, even in the worst case scenario of her death at the hands of Al, could fix his (and the other culprits in she and Nina's demise) wagon with the help of the repentant lawyer. On the level of artistic catharsis, this scene achieves excellence. The film is effective in winning hearts and minds to its perspective of real world inequalities that lead to horrific consequences for very real people. It provides at least a moment of catharsis for its audiences. Is some of the timing within an intricate plot a little dubious? A little, but does it really matter in this film? I don't believe so. Is the same timing issue more problematic in Saltburn? I found it so. Still a good film, and if I were able to create a work of art half so coherent and aesthetically captivating as Fennell, I would realize a great deal of personal satisfaction.
The most natural and expected consequence following the ''death of his father'' is for Oliver to be with his mother
I’m always quite gutted when great acting, set design, costume design and cinematography go to serving absolutely woeful stories and unfortunately this is another example of that. Having now seen it I understand why it’s garnered the love it has in the places it has, namely tiktok, because in 30-60 second sections detached from the overarching lack of plot it looks absolutely beautiful.
This review is absolutely fantastic and this comment is from a viewer that decided to leave after Oliver’s birthday party. As a fan of mystery I felt it was the best move. After some time I couldn’t stop thinking about what happened and finding this review set my mind at ease. Thanks for sharing 🥂
It’s not a desire for normalcy it’s such a detachment from one’s emotions that they are unable to be vulnerable and process things. They’re all deeply disturbed hence why they are so detached from reality.
What’s interesting is that even though Felix is rich , he’s the nicest person in the story
"Something for Everyone" (1970) starring Michael York and Angela Lansbury is worth a look for (IMO) a better take on a similar subject.
You are so right! I'd never heard of that movie but I checked out the trailer and it's an obvious play on that theme. Nothing really original in Saltburn is there?
@@acechadwick Yep- I liked some of the performances, but wasn't overwhelmed by "Saltburn"- I'm sticking with "Something for Everyone," which lives up to its title.
The lady's name is Elspeth, which is the Scots form of Elizabeth.
It’s Talented Mr Riley, Call me by your name combo. It’s so unrealistic because the first person the police should have suspected was Oliver. The writing was in the wall.
Wouldn't the banner welcoming the "Class of 2006" indicate that the year is 2002 at the beginning of the film?
can't a story be just a story? the film is perfectly contained on what it wants to be, wanting more than that it's on you. it's your problem, not the film's problem
In my opinion the movie should have been a series with 8-10 episodes to make some elements connect better. I think there was more to explore and many topics were interesting and relevant to our society like the mental health issues of the family members or even that of the main character. I do like a good thriller though.
I have been wondering if that would be a vampire story and if the family was some sort of secret society ritualists. The movie could have gone in so many different directions as they were all very strange and enigmatic people.
I agree
A nitpick, I think it began in 2002, class of 2006 being 4 years later. It's more important because it's pre-facebook, even in the Oxford arrival scene, notice no one in the crowd is on their phone.
I never thought Oliver was even close to be in love with Felix or loved him. From the start he asked himself that question and I tend to always put the narrator in the box of Unreliable Narrator. After that, nothing is a surprise. Half way I was asking myself when this movie is going to end.
Honestly the dance sequence was the best part. That and Pamala.
To me it's an (unintended) metaphor for our obsession with the rich/celebrity and lengths some of us will go to achieve it.
If you take the way the film was marketed literally, yes this could be a disappointment. But if you look to find the human truths that live within, I think you'll find a lot more enjoyment in it.
I know I left the theater with my head spinning in the best way possible.
The ending made me realize realise something: Now I get it why Harley Queen stays with him for so long. 🤣
I agree that the disappointing ending didn't need to negate the light entertainment value of the earlier part of the film. Jacob Elordi's and Rosemond Pike's fantastic performances alone make it worth seeing. (Even if the latter's performance was wasted by the material she was given.) Given how predictable and uninspired the last act was, though, I think Fennell could have edited it down by about 45 minutes and I would have left the theater feeling more satisfied.
Quick is based on Steerpike from Gormenghast. The final scene nailed it for me:
Steerpike does a similar dance after finding the two aunts dead. Fennell is no plagiarist, but I am sure that is where the character comes from.
This is exactly how I felt. I enjoyed the movie, but it felt hollow in a way. Like it didn't have as much to say as it thought it did, and then it just ended with the obvious conclusion.
I never went into it expecting it to be commentary on elitism or anything like that, which I feel is best when you watch something completely new (not a sequel, prequel or existed IP). You just have to let the film take you where it wants and the trailer does a fantastic job of not revealing the plot. Watch it without any preconceived assumptions about it and see if it’s for you, it doesn’t have to be what you expect but it can still entertain you. Films shouldn’t have to carry the burden of people’s expectations.
At one point during the movie I was thinking: "It would be really stupid if it turned out he had it all planned from the beginning".
I will never understand how people can think that ending was anti climactic or that it was just a fun ride". Just cuz it didn't say what you wanted it to say. It's not eat the rich its a character study of a sociopathic little parasite with an ass that won't quit
Felix is such a sweet and empathetic character - we're supposed to believe he would have a whole conversation with Oliver's mum and not wish her condolences for her 'deceased husband'? Somebody called this movie The Untalented Mr. Ripley and I have to agree.
Sweet and empathetic? Were we watching the same character? Felix is callous, but being beautiful and beloved by those around seems to distract from it.
@@AstraeaAntiope Yes the same character who invited his grieving friend to stay the summer with him 🙄
It is possible to do something for selfish reasons that, on the surface, appears generous. Felix's family liked a "project" and someone they could focus on instead of each other: Dear Pamela, Oliver, to a lesser degree Farleigh. You saw how much they actually cared about Dear Pamela when they tossed off the news of her death. Felix was using Oliver by inviting him just like Oliver set out to use him. The way Felix treated all of the women in the film was callous, as were many of the subtle challenges he threw Oliver's way. If you watch Emerald Fennell talk about the film, it is part of the point that Felix is blindingly beautiful but not kind or good (and how beauty distracts us from the facts of his behavior.)@@bouncyshak
@@AstraeaAntiope In the context of planning a family reconciliation behind Oliver's back with his "grieving" mother, the plot hole is still glaring. So much implausible nonsense in the film. More focus should have been spent on the actual text, as opposed to just subtext.
@@bouncyshak That is still not kind. It shows a complete lack of respect for Oliver's boundaries to go behind his back and contact what (Felix had been told) was an estranged, abusive parent and force contact, even when Oliver desperately pleaded otherwise. We know he was pleading because he was lying, but if everything had been just as he said he would have had good reason to break off his friendship with Felix entirely. Felix used people as playthings for his own gratification. The game he liked to play was "Rich Savior."
There were so many shocking scenes, I will not forget this movie.
To me, the ending wasn’t a let down at all. He played the part that was expected of him if he was going to associate with them, in order to keep them elevated. It was about control and who really had the upper hand. What troubled me most was are we supposed to hate Oliver for wanting more and doing anything to get it? I don’t get the love connections at all. This movie had nothing to do with love, only obsession.
THANK YOU FOR THIS TAKE it is needed
Did anyone notice the wallpaper after Oliver plays with the maze display? Its the same as the carpet from the Overlook Hotel in the Shining! I thought that was a cool easter egg
I came into this movie knowing absolutely nothing about it. I only heard of it a few days ago when my sister was mentioning the bath scene. Curiosity got the best of me. I could not figure out what the point in the movie was, especially after Felix dies. I’d been seeing him almost like the main character. The end was not obvious to me at all. I thought Oliver was just innocently being sucked into the world of wealth and how much freedom it could buy. I was genuinely surprised at the end and that’s what made the movie for me. I guess I was the target audience.
Nice rundown. I totally agree. I would have preferred the movie to go a bit more extreme into one direction. More shock or more commentary or more something. Still great visually and kept me invested until the end which isn't always easy to do these days.
I just realised that Saltburn is an ode or different rendition of “ The Talented Mr. Ripley “ 😮💯 just think about it for a sec…
I will just say, as a person who is not a movie buff by any stretch, this movie took me through these phases with absolute ease:
- In the beginning, I felt a nostalgia, and familiarity, with the way we were immersed into Oliver’s attraction to Felix.
- I then felt like Oliver was being swept up in the world Felix was showing him. He tried to become an unremovable part of their lives so that maybe Felix would realize his feelings for Oliver.
- then I thought maybe Oliver was going through the “if I can’t have him, I’ll become him” obsession… gaining his charm, winning over everyone, wielding influence and power over people, and getting lost in that.
- when he had sex with Venetia and lied to Felix about it, it was apparent he had issues.
But maybe I’m dumb, but I did NOT suspect whatsoever what was to come after all of that… I was jaw dropped and shocked the entire time.
It truly is a remarkable film right up until the dance at the end. The way it’s explained, i was in suspended disbelief that he was truly just going for the entire estate until he removed the breathing tube. It was all shocking. Extremely well told story, and I am very unbothered by the ending, I found it captivating.
a mix of “Ingrid Goes West,” and “Parasite.” Entertaining movie. The 80s vibe was great as well.
Saltburn is one of those movies where you think you already know what it is and sort of predictable, then the movie makes you question that maybe you dont and theres so much more, then you finish it and realize "ah yes, thats all it is". I was slightly disappointed.
The ending *made* the film. I haven’t finished watching the video but I saw the film last week.
I dont think The writer wanted the deaths to be too shocking. The main character even said “im sure you know what happens next” implying the audience is smart enough to know he killed them
I’ll have to watch it again because you begin to notice things more and understand things better. I felt on my 1st screening, I felt like Oliver was a genius and knew how to move his chess pieces. The movie had scenes reflecting on wanting that lifestyle being permanent vs temporary, and then understood this was a man’s perverse way of reaching the top. I however didn’t understand his obsession with Felix when he said he hated him and wasn’t in love with him, yet did some scandalous things when coming to Felix.
Brilliant film about the dangers of opening doors. Hilarious, stylish and perfectly paced. A rare gem of 2023
My problem with the movie is the bad guy won. We just watched a guy (Oliver) lie, manipulate and murder his way through an entire family to get more money, and he gets away with it, scot free.
And it wasn't like he was dirtscabble poor; his parents had a pretty nice house in a decent neighborhood; he didn't NEED the money. And the family were elitist and snobbish, but they weren't evil and they didn't derserve death. It's not like Oliver was getting revenge for what the bad rich people did to him. The entire movie was a plot -- literally.
Whether or not he loved Felix is beside the point, really. Oliver was a villain. This was a supervillain origin story.
When I saw it, I didn't see it as an "eat-the-rich" film but as a film about status-striving. I wasn't really bothered by a lack of explanation to Oliver's motives or why someone middle class would still seem wealth because it's so entrenched in our culture. This film just takes that drive to the extreme.
I want Rosamund Pike to have a Netflix stand up comedy special with just one liners similar to those in Saltburn. She is phenomenal😂
Oliver is very much like the Catherine Tramell character from Basic Instinct. The mindset of those characters are operating from the position of winning any situation, scenario and environment. The critiques this film has that Basic Instinct and The Talented Mr. Ripley doesn’t have is it’s nothing repetitive during the journey of the story. That being said Saltburn does work very well, the film does explore indulgence, boredom and greed.
I felt like the film was building up a narrative of the truths of people that lie behind the smoke and mirrors they create - the way they come to believe their own smoke & subterfuge, and the way it falls apart at points they are confident with it. The curiosity with Oliver was never the murders, but rather the way he slowly grew confidence to weave his own power into a web of smoke, navigating this dance with the other characters. It felt like they would build up to surprising truths, especially those born out of believing ones own illusions. I loved the twisted and somewhat genuine intimacy between Oliver & (that beautiful boy). It would be better to have ended with a focus on or unravelling of that web, revealing truths, especially those made true out of smoke.
That scene after Felix's death, bathed in red, as the family stretched every ounce of their ability to weave illusions in order to ignore truths, ugly truths, necessary truth to acknowledge, was BRILLIANT. GOD that was brilliant. God they tried so hard.
I thought this movie was going to be indeed about Olliver being poor and disadvantaged.
The Saltburns would take him in and he'd have a sort of Call Me By Your Name vacation there.
But then, they'd take advantage of him in some way and he'd have to re-tell the story in the future, reconsidering what those events meant for him.
It seems to also take place in a world without police or forensic science.