Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/broeydeschanel
That's how you do a good ad-read. Make it a narrative, make it relevant to the presenter and interesting to follow. And don't make it Better Help, those despicable frauds. A+
@@2nd3rd1st ooh, do go on! I have always thought something seemed a little off about their ads but I guess I put it down to some of the happy customers (sorry, I misspelled ‘paid actors’. Must be more careful in future) being annoying and overly perky to this jaded toaster
I think you need to watch some of the director's interviews to get it. It def left me weirded out too-esp with how easily Oliver let the opportunity go when it was right within his grasp. It def help plant the idea that this ran deeper than just wanting to own the riches of the family.
@@alinachrist8416 I think a story teller has failed if I still have to ask them what their main character wants at the end of the film. I don't care about their interviews.
@@alinachrist8416 Oliver seems to hint at complexity but the character is awfully shallow. We're expected to believe he's in love with Felix because he drinks his bathwater and humps his grave when nobody's watching, but then he's just dancing naked and smiling at the family's namestones in the end? Wouldn't his plan require Felix to be eliminated from the very beginning? What purpose does having sex with the sister serve in the story, besides the shock value of the menses-coated cunnilingus? Does he hate the family, envy them, is indifferent or just sees them as hapless victims of his plans? The director's interview hints at a sociopathic character that's hard not to sympathise with, but we just get a dude with a scholarship at Oxford, from a loving upper-middle class family and who isn't exactly victimised outside of a few mean comments here and there.
All the “shocking” stuff in Saltburn just feels juvenile. Like, just superficially gross without making me feel disturbed on any deeper level. It feels really safe
It's like something out of a Garth Ennis comic book. Just shock value for the sake of it And it feels even more pointless after he reveals it was all an act, so why do all that weird shit?
@@Apostrophe4035poor things wasn't gross for shock value like saltburn is, it was gross to enhance how weird and disgusting the world is from a newborn's pov
It's brutalism is supposed to lure you in. Actions that are socially taboo or disgusting, but the movie fails to make those scenes coherent within the story. It feels like misplaced tonally beats. They reek of a body horror genre, but such horror can only do well if there is character to pair it up with. It brings meaning to those scenes, makes you want to watch them again and understand the emotions, even through fear or disgust. With Saltburn I only felt the urge to fast forward. Edit: spelling
This movie came off to me like the director watched talented Mr ripley and was horrified/ sympathized with Jude laws character and said, “I need to correct this”
Thinking that Ripley and Saltburn are the same is silly Saltburn is about the myth of England's rise, is about aristocracy, and how aristocracy doesn't change, the brutality that needs to rise Ripley talks about my American accession mith,self-made men type thing
IMO Saltburn is not an Eat the Rich movie - it's a Fear the Poor (and the middle class) movie. It's not a movie About the rich For the middle class - it's a movie For the rich About the middle class. That's why, in this movie, the wealthy aren't horrible (and their horribleness is their naivete born from privilege), whereas the inflator is horrible for no apparent reason - the reason isn't necessary because the poor and middle class are always a threat to the rich regardless of their reasons for being so. It's a cautionary tale to the wealthy to distrust the middle class. But with enough familiar references and aesthetics as window dressing to confirm the middle classes assumption that they are the target audience (since they are in almost every case of popular cinema). Understanding that Fenell hails from the wealthy elite class makes it clear that she is writing about what she knows. So from the lens of Fear the Poor the entire movie makes so much sense.
@@kostajovanovic3711 oh for gods sake, many people and movies are apolitical. Being apolitical is not a “privilege” either it’s literally a choice. I’m a gay man and I’m probably center but I don’t pay that much attention because it’s boring to me lowkey lol. I do love Obama and am sick of people calling him and George bush war criminals, like get over yourself. A few other republicans I love are Jared Kushners and Ivanka Trump, they seem lovely and Ann Coulter who was HILARIOUS at the Rob lowe roast and the roasts about her were so ctuel and personal, it was appalling like they actually didn’t like her and thought she was a bad person My parents voted for Trump and some of you think we should cut them out of our lives, enough already
u act as if emerald’s family comes from the same league of landed gentry as the characters of the movie. i’m sorry if u think that the rich people are somehow sympathetic or meant to appeal to the audience. the film is a story about the corrupting capacity of power and wealth. oliver for all intents and purposes would’ve become a normal person if he wasn’t so fixated on this type of wealth that you can’t naturally gain. the cattons are cold and callous and utterly uncaring of any of his real or fake experiences. in the end, he’s as soulless as the rest of them and it isn’t a cautionary tale to the elite, it’s a cautionary tale about the cyclical tale of corruption that is so intertwined with power
@@user-ft3vt6se3nThe purpose of a film is to tell a story. If that story is told poorly, it did not serve its purpose. And chill, it seems like you can't handle a differing opinion. Movies ARE subjective, so separating a film that "is" good from a film that "looks" good is perfectly within someone's right.
I don’t think I would have minded Saltburn as a fun thriller so much if it didn’t constantly seem like it was trying to say something. They put so much almost commentary into it that it tricked people into thinking it had more depth than it did.
I pointed out to my friends that the first half Saltburn was clearly trying to introduce themes of desire, class, and a good old fashioned English stately-home mystery, but then proceeded to give up all this in the second half. All they could say in response was "your expectations were wrong going into it, it's just a fun thriller". Soo annoying how Saltburn fans refuse to see how shallow it is
@@jw-ob1wv it’s not shallow in the slightest and your tone is condescending and like it’s an “objectively shallow movie” it’s fine to not like it but stop acting like movies aren’t subjective.
I was actually kind of relieved it wasn’t a class commentary type movie (not that I’m against that, it’s just there were several movies the year before with the exact same type of approach) and liked the SPOILER Twist that he wasn’t actually poor but after that it felt like they didn’t know what to do with the movie at all. I’ve seen a lot of interpretations of it and frankly I find them to be a bit grasping at straws in terms of the plot’s coherence. There were themes, sure but part of media literacy is critiquing whether a film achieved its commentary, not just that it felt like there was commentary there. The Idol was supposedly about sexual liberation but I’d say most people would say it failed miserably on that mark.
And then when none of it added up or made sense came back in with the lol its just a silly trashy thriller it's not that deep lol! What? Then why did they take the time to include so much symbolism? The problem is it didn't go anywhere meaningful or connect back in a way that's satisfying. Its just there
For real! I was waiting to feel conflicted or like I was there, sexy and attracted to Jacob Elordie. The film has 0 rizz, indeed. It's so muted and eh.
@@ForageGardener is the -getting there- that seems so trivial to most audience, hence the true nature of lack of "aesthetic enough to my senses" distraction where the thrill actually comes from Thanks for sharing your view! It made me re-evaluate this pov of mine
I think saltburn suffered because of the director's blindness to her own privilege. She's a part of the upper upper class, and the tale of a middle class person lying about their finances to steal the wealth they covet is a nightmare of the elite, a scary story they tell each other. She can't reflect deeply on class, homoeroticism, or race because she doesn't want to lose her access to her privileges, and so her film is just as shallow.
Agreed. This is the same woman who is close to the delevingnes and went to public school (public schools in the uk are high fee paying private schools) who also won an academy award for her first film. The upper class can’t write about the middle or working classes because they never once seen them as equals
i wouldnt even call Barry Keoghan's character middle class, rather lower upper class. personally i think theres nothing really to discuss about saltburn. imo its just a fun, goofy lil movie that has nothing to say. however a conflict about lower vs upper upper class (with the middle and lower classes being completely absent) makes it slightly more interesting
@mvximillivn His character is middle class. Upper class in the UK = the peerage, gentry and hereditary landowners (worth a read - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_Kingdom#Upper_class). In fact, reading her bio, Emerald Fennell herself is upper middle class.
@lrigsnart6821 Such as Parasite where the rich family literally does nothing wrong and the rich father gets murdered out of the poor father's own insecurity.
@ord8919 That is where Parasite fails for me as well as a class conscious movie albeit not as bluntly as Saltburn. It might've been effective had they made that family the ones that built the bunker & screwed with the guy running from loan sharks or not had the Kims screw over the other working people under the Parks. Instead of being about class disparity, it inadvertently supports the idea rich folks have that yes, poor people are leaches/vermin/parasites that'll drag society down. It doesn't matter if some of the Kims later on get class conscious (and honestly I don't think they fully do), it's far too late.
To be fair, the joke about southern English people not knowing where Liverpool is, is actually a common joke in British comedy circles. Catherine Tate was making that joke 15 years ago.
There's actually a variant of that joke in the Bible: "And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" John 1:46 Shakespeare gives us another variant: Casca: "Those that understood him smiled at one another and shook their heads; but, for mine own part, it was Greek to me." Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2
I actually think Saltburn is a movie for the masses disguised as something more ‘alternative’. Even the ‘disturbing’ scenes that caused it to go so viral are not particularly shocking for anyone who has seen any film out of the mainstream. Not to mention the plot is predictable and simple and the foreshadowing is glaringly obvious. The fact that everyone and their mother has seen it is also testament to that. It’s got the bones of an ambitious indie film that’s then been watered down and chopped up into bite size pieces so that the viewer will feel smarter without doing any work. An ambiguous ending might’ve saved it a little but it was so cut and dried that there wasn’t anything left to ponder.
@tinker_belle41 I agree to an extent. I don’t think they were particularly meant to be that shocking in terms of them being the most “disgusting” and “gross” thing ever but that’s how people took it, and she had to know they have the added value of being shocking. However, while sexy, they are also supposed to be confronting/daring and raw and graphic and Emerald definitely knew that when including them. I would argue the whole film is built on shock factor, if not the graphic imagery, then the plot twists. Emerald even said herself the idea was built around the idea of someone licking a plughole. And that’s kinda the problem with it because it doesn’t go beyond the plughole so to say. It’s a beautiful, haunting image but it can’t carry a whole film and she must’ve known that because she added in a whole other component about class and wealth and greed, and thats where it becomes messy and loses its message in my opinion.
Could be a gateway for all the people experiencing the "shocking" movie to watch more unconventional and actually disturbing movies. Since mainstream popular movies right now are generally especially terrible I take comfort in this even if it's only slightly outside mainstream.
“Indie film” has become a genre in the since that a movie with massive budget can copy an old book or film beat for beat and they can just apply “alternative cinematography” to make it look more indie and “aesthetic” it’s pretentious for the sake of, it’s the same as an adult cartoon being crude for the sake of “adult”
I’m curious if the class differences between Minghella and Fennell also influence why Minghella was more interested in dissecting class dynamics. Fennell comes from high society herself- her 18th birthday was even documented by Tatler. I personally feel like she was never really willing to make the Cattons truly contemptible or dissect class dynamics because it would mean dissecting her own privilege, and frankly nepotism, in an unflattering way. She fell back on “it’s not a commentary, it’s a love story,” to further distance herself from dissecting her own privilege and class. Saltburn also lends an interesting perspective of how the upper classes view the lower classes, rather than the other way around. You get the impression, through Fennell, that the upper classes believe that society’s issue with them is solely due to their lifestyle being coveted, rather than issues of inequity. Not saying it isn’t coveted, but that the upper classes want to believe that’s the only true complaint and desire, when it’s not. It’s like Fennell was told this her entire life and she made a film based off of an upper class assumption.
What is the difference between the rich's lifestyle being coveted, and inequity? Unless you're saying its not that the poor want to live like the rich, but that they want the rich to live like the poor?
I think you've completely missed the point of the movie which I initially did as the majority of the audience were coerced into thinking this was a movie about class when it isn't and it's very hard to see that as a result of the Oxford aesthetic we are conditioned to at the start. It is a movie about love and obsession and the endless desire for more and more, and highlights the fact that Ollie's love for Felix wasn't just at the surface level of gay love but rather a love for everything he stood for. The failure of the movie for me was due to the fact that the wrong aesthetic was chosen to convey the ultimate message, and it took me a while to actually understand what the message of the movie is and I think the movie itself gets confused with this narrative too. there are no good characters or ones to root for, and it becomes very apparent throughout the subliminals of the movie that the rich are absolutely horrible for no reason, despite the fact you somehow fail to recognise this?
I mean, is it even a misunderstanding? The movie is hardly anti-rich considering it portrays the rich family as mostly nice and the person trying to kill them as an insane greedy incel.
They didn't misunderstand anything, flexing wealth and anti poor is the moral of this shallow movie 😭 I thought it'd be deep but ig it's just saying if u encounter a scholarship student make sure to lock your doors up tight, most likely a diabolical and depraved person. His gross scenes worked well tho for the shock value, every one was curious abt the movie cus of it
The director is a woman who grew up mad rich😭 who's father was jeweler for Elton John and madonna, she went to school with princess kate Middleton and then she went to Oxford. We can't really expect a good movie abt class consciousness from someone like that
@@user-ft3vt6se3nI’m open minded even to criticism as long as well substantiated. As an Australian that loves film, it was a romp. it was meant to be fun. On reddit in particular something I noticed acutely was that Americans didn’t get it. They don’t get the sense of humour or the cinematic references, and I hate to spoil it but there are so many reference points in this film, to English cinema, not American cinema. Sometimes films are made for different markets and if you didn’t like it, that’s okay, but it inherently doesn’t make the film, shallow or ineffective.
I agree with this excellent review! It also troubles me that the writer didn’t credit the many (obvious imho) sources she “borrowed” from right and left w/Donna Tartt’s The Secret History and Mr. Ripley and Brideshead…The Talented Mr. Ripley is a fantastic film based on a compelling novel - the actors featured were also at their absolute best. This film seems like such a tired plodding imitation.
The way Oliver reveals everything at the end in comic book villain like monologue is hilarious considering the review that claims that this is so superior from super hero franchises
that part was the absolute worst in my opinion as well, he just dumped a ton of information on us that i think would've been more compelling to see while it was happening. i understand the desire for plot twists but it just felt incredibly rushed and lazy at the end
@@llbearll nope, the explanation was needed and emerald is a brilliant director and I’m sick of people researching her and calling her a “nepo baby” tell me you’re pretentious without telling me you’re pretentious 🙄
The worst part of the film was how they explained the ending, frame by frame, as if it wasn't blatantly obvious that Oliver killed Felix, and the director thinks the audience is too stupid to figure it out
My hot take on Saltburn is that it would have been much better if it ended after he f*cks the grave. The last act retcons the first two somewhat; it plays much more as a story about obsessive love than as this ‘infiltration’ narrative.
I agree. It makes the scene where he drinks the bathwater and fucks the grave as played just for shock value. If his whole plan was to get all their money and he wasn't actually obsessed with Felix, why do all of that then, like, what was the point?
@@coralflorist he was obsessed with Felix. When he realised he could never get him, he decided to take his place out of this sick want him/want to be him mindset. That's what I interpreted at least
This is solidified to me because I thought Keoghan did a fantastic job, All the way up until the 'revelation' scene. He's incredible at playing naturalistically, feeling like you're watching a real person who's not on camera- so monologuing exposition as an 'arch' villain I didn't feel was playing to his strength. Movie looked good tho!
I think the main issue with Saltburn is that Oliver isn't tragic; you never feel his regret or conflict. He seems SUPER satisfied, if annoyed he had to kill people to get it. Tom is still empty and hollow at the end, realizing that nothing he achieved could have made up for how he got it, Oliver is just annoyed that he had to go through so much work to get his house; he is not trying to fit in, he is trying to increase his own status, for himself, rather than others. It's really weird; like the moral of the story really is the "middle class wants the bag" and literally nothing else
i think your mistake is in insisting that oliver must represent a larger societal group, or that this story has to be saying something about class, when i honestly dont think the director was thinking too hard about that. this is a work of almost fantastical fiction, and sometimes films are intended to be viewed as just that. i think the film is definitely saying something, but that "something" can be interpreted in many ways, which i actually like a lot more than if this film had tried making a singular, heavy-handed statement about #society or whatever
Oliver is a monster. He’s the consequence of the aspirational culture the upper class keep disseminating and promoting. It’s like a fable, where an action has extreme consequences. The best comparison would be Asami in Audition. She’s an hyperbolic consequence of misogynistic culture. She just happens to be a psychopath and the protagonist let her into his life due to his unrealistic expectations of women. Something similar happens in Saltburn. The premise of Saltburn is solid. The execution, not so much. It’s a little too sympathetic to the rich that it almost sounds like a cautionary tale. To be wary of the lower classes.
The difference is this is a satire. It is intentional that there is no real way to feel at the end. Oliver is completely ambiguous. It goes back to Farleigh's the "creepy little doll factory they make Olivers in." Where you are left not knowing what to feel. The anti-hero of Oliver is ultimately that he is a protagonist AND antagonist, for no other reason than that he 'won', or did he? feeling. And then you're left empty, stunned, confused. Practically every frame and dialogue of this is a clue or a reference that this is nothing that it seems. Suspenseful almost sinister music in odd places. Oliver's mostly clumsy, lucky cleverness....
when i saw saltburn my first thought was it must’ve been manufactured in a lab for tumblr gifs & web-weaved collages…. beyond the aesthetics saltburn is so empty.
That doesn't mean people can't enjoy it for what it is. I wasn't exactly a fan of this film either after watching it, but there's something oddly nice about the 'experience' of Saltburn. Maybe it's just the simplicity, the escapism it offers. I think the problem here is that it got the aesthetics of an A24 film, and suddenly everyone's expecting it to be this deep, philosophical masterpiece. Can't we just enjoy a visually pleasing, maybe mindless flick sometimes? It's funny how aesthetics can mess with expectations. It's like people expected a revelation just because it looks pretty. Yes, Saltburn might be lacking in substance. But maybe we all need a reminder that not every movie has to have life-altering storytelling. Sometimes, the general 'feel' of a movie can still be meaningful if it hits you at the right moment in life. Like a melancholic song. Or even Tumblr gifs.
@@Catfood430 A film doesn’t have to have “life altering” storytelling BUT this kind of film that emerald fennel was trying to create should have some form of substance. The pretty looking aesthetics actually make the lack of substance stand out more and make the experience of watching the film more frustrating in my opinion. It’s empty calories. When looking at tumblr gifs I have a completely different set of expectations than going into a film with the hype being so high and everyone saying how it’s such a thought provoking movie with deep themes…
What also really frustrates me is that one films portrayal of queer identity in the face of self-loathing is made for queer audiences, while the other fetishizes it for heteosexual audiences. One character is a horrifying portrayal of relatable queer emotions in the face of desire and a need to survive, while the other is a emotionless brick who wants a fancy house.
Something that I think is also a symptom of the TikTok-ification of movies is that literally every single character has to be impossibly hot and clean. I'm kinda sick of it. No one looks like a person, everyone looks like they've been put through an instagram filter that gives them the same face. All for viral hotness. It's off-putting. Imagine someone like Philip Seymore Hoffman in Saltburn, lol. An amazingly talented character actor with a non-commercial face just seems like a thing of the past.
@lrigsnart6821 Huh, haven't thought of it as a direct result of controversy, that's an interesting take. What's also weird is that casting beautiful people for specific roles completely makes sense. Like Don Draper. But it seems to have become an overshadowing trend to make every piece of media look like something between a La Mer commercial and an episode of Hannah Montana. Netflix is especially egregious. It's like we want everything to be smooth and agreeable and disconnected from reality now.
I don't think it's a TikTok problem that has been a problem in a lot of stories not wanting characters that aren't conventionally attractive characters to be important characters sometimes that can lead to problems like the storytelling being confusing because the story is telling something else but the looks of the character contradict it. Examples of that are a lot of video game women characters or the ugly high school nerds.
I disagree, Barry Keoghan is not conventionally attractive, certainly not relative to Jude Law and Matt Damon for example . Attractive film stars and Hollywood heartthrobs have always been a thing. I think now more than ever are we seeing interesting looking actors over conventional looking ones, British acting and cinema has certainly been a bastion in this regard. Also we shouldn’t ignore human nature, it’s not just a social construct, there is a natural appeal to attractive looking people, which really does make a film more desirable. Also human beings tend to look and fashion themselves in a way that relates to how they behave. This is symbolism is important; following these ‘archetypes’ (possibly the wrong word) and then knowing how to occasionally subvert them them, makes for a natural film. I don’t think cherry picking ‘ugly’ or ‘normal’ looking people just for the sake of making a social justice type point would have a positive result.
My friends and I did Saltburn then The Talented Mr. Ripley as a double feature and while I finished Saltburn going "okay that was an okay movie, that made me laugh, the visuals are good, I'd say it's fun" after I watched the masterclass that is Ripley, I realized how poorly constructed Saltburn actually is. I love this deep dive of a video and you've made me appreciate Talented Mr Ripley even more!! This video has inspired so many ideas for my own screenwriting project too, so thank you!
I want to be friends with you. Also going to do this suggestion because I don’t want to watch Saltburn but having something to directly compare is going to make it better
I really didn't feel anything for Mr Ripley, Actually, I felt so little, I had forgotten I had watched it at all and had to re-watch it after Saltburn and seeing people compare them, and even now I still say Saltburn is the better of the 2.
The fact that the concept of the entire movie began with the idea of slurping bath water tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the movie.
Yes and no, this visual evokes strong feelings, but in more body horror style than this watered down thriller. Sometimes great ideas come from one strong image/ feeling but unfortunately not in this case
@@anotherhuman3221 While true. The way I'm interpreting it is that she had a notion that would be shocking to film, and everything else that followed was devoted entirely to that theme.
It's funny how Minghella wasn't afraid of depicting the rich as terrible people but Fennell, consciously or not, couldn't. Then people say the directors class plays no part in it 😅
on the one hand i understand where you'r coming from. on the other hand, by ur measure, Parasite isn't a good class critique. and i think the danger of painting the rich as all terrible brings up a different problem. It implies the issue of class is that terrible ppl get rich, and not the system and culture that makes ppl so harmfully rich. Rich ppl are normal, diverse, and complex like you or me. And we should still eat them.
@@JunLo-tu1sz Oh, ofc individual rich people can be good or bad just as anyone else. It is the b#urg3oisie as a class that needs to be eliminat3d. But I'm talking specifically about Saltburn, where Fennell fails to actually make the rich family look bad, she just says she is doing it, but it shows a more empathetic picture of them all the while d3m0nizing a middle class person lol (making Oliver look like a random leech and not a complex character like Tom in Mr. Ripley). So i agree with your last paragraphs, it's not a moral choice, but Fennell puts in those terms and fails to deliver, that's what im commenting on. PS: Censored some words that i think are the ones making the all mighty algorithm delete my reply (which i had made more than 30 minutes ago).
@@BE-fw1lr Oh no no I was referring to the fact that the film portrays the upper-class as "nice" while the poor are ruthless crabs-in-a-bucket, and that despite on the surface portraying the rich more favorably, the nuance actually improves its critique of the bourgeois class.
@@grmgt Ah I see what you mean! Yeah, the film clearly fails to meet the 'scathing eat-the-rich critique' label that the movie has endlessly marketed itself with.
it was dog shit, such good cinematography in this film, there were moments where barry was flooded with blue liight which was a motif of the film, and im sure they are trying to cover up for the fact they cant afford to throw a billionaires party, but it looks taccy and it felt likeso many other party scenes ive seen in shit films. it felt like the fall of the house of usher which was a shit tv series, phoney television shiteness. the cheap lasers and discos lights were bad and they should have stuck with blue lighting, more reserved rather than tacky. the film felt like it was made for tv and then edited into a film like a lot of these semi small budget breakaway successes do feel like. because they score high with test audiences before marketing even gets a hold and they are given the much more risky and expesnive chance to go to cinema. the story remained good but the party scene let them down and lets not forget talented mr ripley was a complicated and brilliant film and this is dance music and the little shit getting away with it conseuence free, hardly exploring the larger themes at play in the stories it borrows from. watered down gen x propoganda shit. one of the best films of the year, thats not saying much. infinity pool was great@@user-ft3vt6se3n
I think the biggest reason they wrote the film to take place in 2006/07ish was due to the pre-emergence of the social media era where it wasn't a given that everyone had facebook, myspace, etc. It would've made Oliver's background history a lot harder to track and a lot easier for someone to just take him at his word, especially since his surface level demeanor is diminutive and honest. I actually found that filmmaking decision pretty clever. I honestly thought Saltburn was fun; but I agree with a lot of your criticisms and was wishing for more of Oliver's backstory.
It's important to know that Farleigh did NOT try to steal their stuff, in the revelation scene it shows that after Oliver sleeps with him, he uses Farleigh's phone to contact Sotheby's, thus framing him. Farleigh was innocent.
for me, Oliver being able to "seduce" Farleigh (what reads on film as assault btw but I sincerely doubt Fennell meant it that way) was so egregious, he was distrusting of Oliver from the start! WHY would he fall for his attempts to seduce him! it makes no sense, justice for Farleigh. (edited for misspelling)
See when I watched Saltburn I took it as comedy/parody of a movie like Ripley. I thought the emptiness and shallowness was on purpose. I laughed at scene of the family sitting at the dinner table grieving over Felix and trying to eat breakfast. That seemed so ridiculous! The movie was ridiculous! Especially with the over the top ending where everything was revealed in a mustache twirling montage. But after seeing interviews with Fennel, I am no longer convinced it was intentional. Or even a comedy. Fennel was trying to make a movie with more depth without recognizing that her material came from the shallow end of a kiddie pool. Edit: seems like there is still some debate from the comments if the dark comedy elements of the movie were intentional or not. Either way, it is a ridiculous movie whether intentional or not.
You inspired me to watch Mister Ripley for the first time- that rowboat scene is going to live rent free in my head forever- first film I've watched in a while that really felt substantial, thank you for this!
living in London, I feel like I've met hundreds of Emerald Fennells. Nepo babies with a basic knowledge of an artwork, using that art form to comment on a class system they have only ever benefited from. Not anymore talented than anyone else, but just richer and with daddy's producer friend to help.
I'm convinced it's a Public school thing. I grew up in privileged circles in the Home Counties, but I went to a Grammar School. When I got to university the difference between the Public school kids and the rest (even just 'mere' private school types) was notable. They have a completely unreasonable degree of self-assurance about them. It's often innocuous, but I think it's actually pretty potent because it often manifests in simply having no inhibition. I used to think they lacked self-awareness, but in reality I think they just don't give a fuck.
@@user-ft3vt6se3n the daughter of a Eton educated multimillionaire jewellery designer and an author, who were friends with Dukes and Barons “made it on her own”? Are you fucking thick? I’m guessing you’re not British as anyone who’s from here knows how it works. Its just reality that shes benefited from extreme nepotism.
Anyone else feel that your superficial obsession with what you think is "attractive" is why part of the reason why this entire trash of a movie appeals to the new social media class?
As someone who adores The Talented Mr. Ripley i really appreciate how you broke down all the things that film does brilliantly and what Saltburn fails to do. It's a film that thrives so much on shock value and flashy aesthetics without adding anything of substance in the writing.
The tone was all over the place and full of pastiches. It baffled me too when she said The Talented Mr Ripley wasn't a ref. I could also see influences of The Shining and The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Saltburn analogous to the Overlook Hotel, and the miniature maze model foreshadowing them falling victim to Oliver in this case as Fennell mentioned vampires...? Perhaps it might have worked if it was straight up horror. Even magical realism. I think she was more focused on style and wanting to subvert expectations than crafting a coherent story.
oh yes it's like the shining with the person (oliver) taking over the place (saltburn). there needs no reason for why he is a psychopath but the reveal of how everyone dies is anticlimatic. and unbelievable - almost like he have strange powers like in sacred deer the satire and humor would still work even but it's just conflicting here
@@fayexibe Yup I found the reveal unnecessary. Even as a satire, the ending did not feel earned. It felt like what she intended did not translate for many as what they perceived, like this video pointed out - the implied film vs the actual film. Like Fennell's previous film, she liked a clean ending. For this one, the last act really didn't work for me. If she had set it up well and left it up to the audience to make their own conclusions...
not seeing the talented mr ripley as inspiration is crazy bc i remember watching the talented mr ripley right after saltburn and there being similarities in the dialogue, up to line by line similarity!
@@vaibh4vi Right? I really thought she was doing a satire or even parody of TTMR. She just said nope and people are just bad, period. ?? He's a vampire. He's smart. They're dumb. ??
It is very telling that the first movie that Emerald Fennell, who had a super upper-class upbringing, makes about "eating the rich" or class in general is not that good at examining class. It kind of makes me concerned about her viewpoint of middle and working class people considering how she portrays both sides.
Class is one thing but knowledge and awareness are another. The director of Parasite is also upper-class but he studied sociology which elevated his vewpoint.
I'm shocked the director is downplaying the Ripley connection. It's ...blatant. But so true about how thin it is compared to Ripley. Jude Law was so perfect as Dickie because he was ...fucking awful but SO SO charming that once he was dead you could *really* feel his absence. And comparing, say, romantic grave time to Tom holding Dickie's body in a boat ...one seemed like "oh OK, crazy guy" and the other, weirdly, read like "oh Tom you poor, sad, fool what have you done omg omg that's sick bro but aww geez poor guy" because of all the STAKES and relationships and planning and weaving around it. Iono. I don't think I have much to add here except to say The Talented Mr Ripley came out when I was 17 years old. I saw it in theaters. It gripped my throat. On rewatches, even knowing what's going to happen, it still grips my throat and is shocking and we just get a little Jude butt. Saltburn had many "shocking" moments and was absolutely an eyeball feast but I never hated/wanted Felix like I did Dickie, I never understood Oliver....like NEVER.... Farleigh didn't feel as dangerous as Freddie Miles. He just felt like a gnat. And despite moon-time smexy things, grave romance, tub slurps and bare Barry I was never exactly *shocked* It was written a bit like an edgy highschoolers drama project where you have to "retell a classic tale in modern times" and someone chose Mr Ripley and just stuffed it with edge Despite all that, I liked Saltburn fine. I was entertained. There were some solid little blips of decent acting. But I liked it the way I like when a sushi restaurant deep fries a roll and drenches it in mojo mega signature mayo slayer sauce or something. Like sure it tastes good. But it was unnecessary and a regular tuna roll is still on menus for a reason.
Thinking that Ripley and Saltburn are the same is idiotic Saltburn is about the myth of England's rise Ripley talks about my American accession The film has much more of Plein soleil, the 1960 version of the talented Mr Ryple, than of the American film MR Ripley
@@levadamusic fjdhdgdbdhdbrb "saltburn is about the myth of England's rise" where? where? your second point I kind of agree with, though I do feel it's a little moot as both films are adaptations of the same source book so saltburn being more similar to plein soleil doesn't negate its many similarities to the American film. But that first point I am genuinely baffled by
Tbh I was legit disappointed by the characterization and plot of farleigh bc he had a lot of potential I’ve actually read 2 articles that stated that saltburn would’ve worked better if farleigh was the lead or it was centered around his POV and I agree I think he best embodied what Emmald wanted Olivier to be with morality, identity, sexuality, social class status etc while adding in the dynamic of him being a biracial American and the fact that he’s a blood relative of the Cotten family. The unique intersectionality coupled with the great portrayal of Archie Madewke would’ve worked but I feel emerald just don’t got the range to go there.
This is actually where I think Fennel tricked me. The scene with the tutor where Farleigh hadn't done the reading and coasts on the tutor having had a crush on his mother, is what got me to sympathize with Oliver, to the point where I was he had given Felix's bike a flat. As a mixed blood gringo, albeit without a hot mom, I actually like the idea of someone whose grandfather was probably English working class offing the Toffs more than it being a distaff cousin like Farleigh. But I prefer the way the progressive stack functioned in the 1920s to the 2020s. Also, no one ever mentions that "having sex with mother earth" is how Celtic Kings sealed their possession of the land. I find this preoccupation with desire without issue between two-legged animals tiresome. Minotaur!
Couldn’t agree more! In watching this review I realized the better story would be about Farley and him possibly usurping the wealth from the family, or at least focusing on the interactions and social politics of being biracial within an old money English family.
@@je67tbdright I realized this when first watching the movie and the scene where farleigh and Felix are discussing the family’s undercover racism and how they give support to his mother I thought a second “why isn’t farleigh the lead? Why is this just a short monologue?” This question really got me more by the end of the movie, as aspiring writer I just randomly decided to started conceptualizing a whole fan fiction sequel for farleigh lol
Better than the books from what I'm seeing, seems like Highsmith actually identified with Ripley and agreed with his actions, if her self-loathing and Antisemitism is any indication
i loved this video so much, however i was so engrossed in your Mr. Ripley recounting that at some point when i remembered this juxtaposition was supposed to go back to saltburn i had to pause the video and sigh/groan because i reminded myself of saltburn
As I finished the film, all I could think is: Congratulations, Fennel, you made a movie that perfectly encapsulate its protagonista: Shallow, bizarre and awkward. It's like an alienated Glass Onion, but without the fun of having the obvious story unveiling.
Was there no obvious story unveiling for you? I feel most people disliked the movie out of spite for how obvious the story was - due to the demographic who watched the film most likely having seen Mr Ripley or any other movie referenced in the video.
I have been clocking sooo many pieces of media lately that just drip with "written by a former tumblr user" energy. it's like you can just tell when somebody started out writing fanfic in 2005. filled with nothing but aesthetic scenes meant to be desaturated and reposted in gifsets
i get you 100%. i liked saltburn because it was horny as a wattpad fanfic would be. i literally even told my lover months ago how i felt like the director was a former tumblr fangirl
@@tfoxx17 I can't decide if it's bad or good lol. on one hand I love that people who Get It are making media now but on the other hand sometimes it's bad lmfao
In Patricia Highsmith’s defense, the mixed takes on the book’s queerness make a lot more sense in the context of the Tom in the book, who is defined almost entirely by a sense of deep emptiness. All through the book the abusive narcissist aunt who raised him looms in his psyche and the book points to Tom’s lack of self as a kind of echoism (the flip side of narcissism often found in children of narcissists). I get the impression Highsmith felt critics and audiences were projecting a much stronger sense of self and identity onto Tom than the lack of identity she saw as his defining characteristic. Like there’s clearly queer stuff going on with Tom, but there’s so much more going on psychologically than just the closeted sexuality people latched onto. In the book there’s no one closet for Tom, he had to suppress his entire self
yeah, a denial of his identity, which he becomes a master at. He moves through the book like a shark - the very beginning he's being chased, and kind of HAS to leave the US.
Honestly, Collins is more believable. The story’s Japanese and the movie is too. We all know how Westerners who aren’t anime fans are like when it comes to media not in English.
@d_alistair-years Nah. It was one of the best selling books of the year it came out, so much so that a movie was greenlit and released within a year of publication. Writers and in particular publishers knew what it was. Taking inspiration from other works is fine, denying it is pathetic.
@@Goddamnlackofnames still that doesn’t mean that she knew what battle Royale was, you Weeb. I knew that battle Royale was a movie before I knew it was a book and that was only after watching it for maybe the third time. Regardless, even battle Royale is not an original idea and comparing hunger games to battle Royale is just silly because they are two very different stories. One is about the fall of a government/empire due to the rebellious actions of one tribute being unwillingly propped up as the symbol of hope for the resistance, the other is about children misbehaving in school being sent to an island for three days to fight to the death.
@LiminalStatesPhotography Firstly, you may not have heard of it but I'm gonna assume you don't work in literature publishing. Secondly if that's what you think Battle Royale is about you might wanna watch it again. The ripoff was so blatant she even copied the plotline of the terrible Battle Royale film sequel to make her own sequel lmao
Loved the way you broke this down and managed to change the way I view the film entirely. I've never seen more than a few scenes from 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' and only knew the general plot, so it wasn't obvious to me that this movie leaned on it so blatantly. But I think the fact that I didn't make the connection speaks volumes about what 'Saltburn' really is because the movie still managed to give me this mysterious feeling of emptiness the whole way through. Like I was hungry and seduced into believing that I was going to be fed at every turn, but then I was just given ice to suck on instead. It's like the performances, plot and cinematography were all carefully designed to get the audience salivating, but then there is no real return for the appetite it builds because there really isn't much underneath. It's artsy and beautiful looking and the story hooks you enough to keep you invested as a viewer, but those qualities basically trick you into liking it because it's really just trying to pass itself off as a unique and exciting film the whole time.
"Like I was hungry and seduced into believing that I was going to be fed at every turn, but then I was just given ice to suck on instead." You managed to formulate a single sentence that perfectly illustrates life during late stage capitalism.
I completely agree with this, I felt the same watching it in theaters. However, I can kind of let it go because it serves as a perfect metaphor of the exact conditions in the movie and the "draw" of the Catton family. The movie is enticing and seductive and beautiful but ultimately unfulfilling and shallow, just like the lifestyle of the family and the whole appeal of Felix and Saltburn.
@kaseygrace1396 Yes, you are totally right and I think that's actually a great point! There is a 'full circle' quality to the movie's design where the story itself and the style in which the story is told are one in the same. They complement each other and work together to make something that is both alluring, but empty. So it works literally and symbolically, which is definitely very cool. The movie actually becomes a lot more enjoyable when you look at it as being more self-aware than it seems. So it fools us in that way too lol.
It was the Euphoria of movies -- looks great but IS NOT. When finished it, I was so confused. I thought, "Why do I feel like I wasted my time? It was a good movie ... Right?"
@@enterthevoidIiIs the concept of other people having different tastes completely new to you? Do you think people are faking when they dislike foods, music or movies that you like? What an insanely main character take lmao
@@grmgt she had an outsider pretending to be poor and manipulating his way into a family and lots of room for ambiguity. She totally flipped the script. Please call her a “nepo baby” because she grew up rich 🙄. Enough already, the criticism this woman gets is ridiculous, she’s lovely from all I’ve seen and is now my favorite director with this and Promising Young Woman
@@grmgt I, for one, learned that the English aristocracy are, in the main, genial, well-meaning folk, while the middle-class are conniving, craven, and duplicitous. Working class? No--I'm not sure I know what you're talking about; that wasn't covered in the film...
You kept saying that Farley tried to sell their stuff, but part of the twist was that Oliver framed Farley for that by stealing his phone after basically assaulting him. Justice for Farley.
Yeah this kept sticking out to me. At first I thought it was just intentionally wrong as a framing device for the part of the video where the twist is finally mentioned, but even then it makes little sense, and I now would actually believe that she totally missed that, considering just how much of this movie she seemed to have missed.
A LOT of people I know make this mistake to the point I think it must be just that the viewer is exhausted by the time this is revealed and just don't care lol
One take I saw from someone was that the “shocking” scenes for which the viewer is meant to feel disgusted - I.e., bathtub,, grave, “vampire” hook up - should be juxtaposed against the scenes in which we feel “social disgust” for Oliver - ordering his eggs over easy only to send them right back bc runny yolks hurt his tummy, no one remembering his name while singing happy birthday, the awkward as hell karaoke song.
I get the comparison on a surface level but ultimately I just feel like these are two different films in tone and intent. I think the fact that the fam in saltburn isn't "evil" and is just vapid is part of the point. Flelix being normal is part of the point. Because it's still a commentary on the desire of money and class that exists, and I feel it actually works better when the rich people are functionally neutral. Saltburn for as much as it does on the surface have in common with Ripley is telling a completely different story.
Huge agree on most points! The only thing I disagree on is how I read Oliver's final monologue. The movie, while deeply flawed, did actually do a decent amount of footwork trying to convince us that Oliver is an unreliable narrator who tends to lie. Therefore, his final gloating monologue strikes me as discordant with his previous actions (wanting to kiss Felix, the grave scene, the bathtub scene); it makes me think that his actions are purposefully out of alignment with his words and this is him almost "saving face." He's trying to convince himself that he's this conniving villain who wanted to assume Felix's identity, rather than this pathetic lustful man who just wants his straight bestie to love him. The director for all of her flaws did emphasize the obsession and lust aspect of the film, and if you chose to view his monologue and "victory dance" as mournful and deceptive, it at least provides a little more clarity into Oliver as a character. Was this super clear in the film? No. Of course not. But given Oliver's clear obsession with Felix, it's not a stretch to think that Oliver is at least in that way similar to Tom Ripley --and that Felix would still be alive if he reciprocated Oliver's feelings.
Isn't this reinforcing the "gay serial killer" then? Victim-blaming the straight man for not being homosexual, and painting the homosexual character as inherently deviant because they don't fit into society? There are a couple negative responses to Brooey's analysis, and they center on Oliver just being a weak, cowardly homosexual who takes apart an otherwise good family. This seems to be a conservative lens of Mr Ripley, that there are parasites amongst us, and they tend to be the sexually deviant people, rather than an analysis of what the experience of viewing yourself as lesser-than does to a person. I'll be interested to watch both films, perhaps in one weekend and compare the two. Perhaps the problem is the same, but framed from above in one, and below in another.
Honestly if they had done it that way, and made it pretty clear that he's actually in denial at the fact that he's stuck with no one now, permanently living a lie, it would have been really impactful. Almost like him getting his comeuppance
@@Batchall_AcceptedYes! I don't think he was motivated by wealth, he just wanted a companion. I too wish they'd done it this way, emphasising his victory is hollow.
Someone I know said on Instagram that Saltburn is one of the best movies she's ever seen. Felt "Heavy Silence of the Lamb vibes from this, iconic" she said, that last sentence gave me psychic damage
@@zogwort1522 what does this movie have to do with a tumblr blog? And I haven’t finished silence of the lambs but need to but they both have serial killer plot lines
@@user-ft3vt6se3n ?? We are commenting on a video titled Saltburn: The Tumblr-ification of Cinema. And maybe you wouldn't feel so worn out by people looking deeply into film if you weren't here in a FILM ANALYSIS video
@@user-ft3vt6se3n you could've fooled me that you are sick of people looking deeply into shit and finding things to talk about when you are the one leaving the most comments out of anyone on this entire youtube video. try scrolling up, that'll help with your sickness of looking to deep and then spamming things to talk about.
I personally think Oliver's middle-class pretending to be poor masquerade is more modern than ppl give it credit for. I have noticed plenty of middle-class ppl masquerading as working class, or at least downplaying that they grew up well. I was a scholarship kid at a private school, and ten years on still have a handful of friends from there. I have heard them first hand downplay their family wealth or their upbringing. Ppl are embarrassed or ashamed to be rich. One of my best mates is from one of the richest families in my country. Grew up in a mansion. Everything you could possibly want. Yet to strangers, she completely downplays it, obfuscates and hides it. Edit to add: as someone who did grow up pretty poor, i just think it's interesting. However I think that could've been explored further - that Oliver thought being poor made him interesting. That he wasn't wealthy enough to be rich and exciting, but not poor enough to be hard done by. Though I actually think this sort of idea would have worked better in THIS era, as I feel it's most prominent now.
24:27 Your English correspondent confirms his posh credentials by thinking that Nottingham is in the North, rather than the Midlands. Unironically hilarious.
He's also not correct that posh people are only in the south- if you go to the landed gentry level they are all over the country, because they own the land.
In addition to making great points about how much Saltburn sucks, this video is a lovely tribute to the Anthony Minghella. Really shows how talented and insightful he was. Since he is sadly no longer with us, this video helps keep his work alive and hopefully exposes him to new people who can appreciate his films
As someone who likes Saltburn, I enjoyed this essay a lot; it's given me something to chew over while I re-examine my view of the movie. As other commenters have already expressed (and more eloquently), what I took away from Saltburn was a story about the 'new' class of billionaire -- the upper classes that are eating each other, replacing a banal evil with a calculated evil -- which to me was why the Cattons are presented as cruel in a very subdued way, a very hands-off and isolated way in comparison with the person that we know Oliver to be at the end of the film. BUT it is fascinating to learn more about Emerald Fennel and realize that I, too, am in part imagining the film that I would have liked to see -- and, through that exercise, did blindly see from my theatre seat. Comments on this video remark on the film as a 'Fear the Poor' film and I can absolutely see it; my own privilege reinforces my blindness, my lack of attention to the ways that Saltburn is uncritical of the Cattons, and is uninterested in choosing and conveying an inner life for Oliver. But at the same time, I think there is a sort of value in the understated play of Oliver -- that rather than making us complicit with his actions, with his path through the story, it should serve to alienate the viewer from ALL of the characters on the screen; that it should serve to, through its twists, shock the audience as we are informed that Oliver is a different, perhaps worse kind of evil than the Cattons -- that the idea that there could be no worse evil is foolish; that it is the money, and the love of money, that will continue to produce worse and worse kinds of people -- worse, and worse ends. But the film doesn't go there, and I don't think Emerald Fennel would have liked to.
I think the problem with Saltburn is that people went into the film expecting it to be a criticism of the upper class when Emerald Fenell, an upper class woman, is not able to separate herself from her wealth enough to serve that. Instead, Saltburn is a criticism of the upper middle class and the way they co-opt the voices and struggles of the lower class to cosplay poverty in order to take up the spots reserved within society for those of lower status thus perpetuating a society where money and opportunities only transfers from one rich person to another. As someone who has grown up with Olivers, this film doesn’t ring untrue to reality. Is it a film with impeccable commentary that adds a lot to the conversation? No, but it also shouldn’t be judged as a film attempting to look at the problems of the upper class as that isn’t what it is about.
You say this as if it was a good thing. "I think people were expecting this movie to be a criticism of nazis but because the director is a nazi is actually a criticism of jews so everything is fine." Is a reactionary movie for the Brexit era that just tells us to fear the poor. If you want a film like what you are describing just watch The King of Comedy or Nightcrawler.
In any case if you dont want a movie about class then dont put tons of references in the movie about money. Funny Games is a good example of a movie that is focused on rich people but because the director didnt want to talk about class in that particular movie he left all the references to class out.
@@angelsunemtoledocabllero5801this isn’t the same at all. First, this kind of statement is a straw man. The upper class are not nazis and the upper middle class are not Jewish people. It’s a terrible, ugly analogy to make in any regard. A similar more accurate analogy would be “I think people were expecting this movie to criticize nazis, but because the director is a nazi, it’s actually a criticism of the klu klux klan.” But in either analogy, it’s sort of a straw man that exists to shut down the other argument before you care to listen.
As a middle clas northern Brit who moved to Oxford in my 20s, new levels of class were revealed to me. Saltburn did a great job of needling at the carefree ignorance, arrested development privilege and cruel snobbery it is possible to witness any given day if you hang around the wrong Oxford pub or coffee shop long enough. I don't believe Oliver really had his plan from the start, despite what he might be trying to convince himself. I think he was obsessed with Felix, but that translated into a scorched earth policy from over exposure to the contemptible dopes in Felix's circle, and realisation that Felix was never going to be his. That isn't to say Oliver isn't a psychotic creep. Also, Saltburn is very funny, the funniest thing Minghella ever made was Cold Mountain, but I'm not sure that was intentional.
@@gavriloking5637don't know about Op but I did. But what exactly of their comment is in conflict with the video? It is just a different view one may have on the film: it not being about imitating Ripley but as an absurdist satire of aristocratic Oxbridge snobbery.
Saltburn can be summed up as "Arseholes meet A Monster". Or it could be seen as a House of Cards-style version of Wuthering Heights: a lower class man rises through the ranks of a rich family, and destroys them.
Yeah I’m actually kind of shocked that people aren’t picking up on that. I think it’s made almost obvious in two ways: During the middle section of the film, his seduction of venetia and his reeling back from it when Felix expresses disapproval is super clumsy. It’s not at all a calculated chess master move, it’s more like him throwing shit at the wall to see what works, backtracking when he realizes he makes a miss step. Then finally at the end what we think is just him narrating to the audience or to himself his diabolical plot is him talking to the mother before he also clumsily kills her. Like he has to say it out loud in order to convince himself “uh yeah.. I planned this all from the start!! Totally..” In a sense although it is derivative of Talented Mr. Ripley, Theorema, Borgman and dozens of other works that follow the “Mysterious Stranger” archetypal story structure, it does at least attempt to deconstruct it in that sense. I think the media and fans are giving it too much credit, and this video too little.
Me: Saltburn is just Call Me By Your Name with a higher body count and Euphoria filter. My brother: Right, basically just the gay version of Call Me By Your Name.
Nothing better than finding a new channel you whole heartedly enjoy and repeatedly agree with. Feel like part meerkat, part bobbing dog. This video has articulated and itched a scratch I’ve had since watching Saltburn. This shamefully includes never watching TTMR…. Yes I know, it’s top of the watchlist now. Love from Manchester, UK!
I think another thing which people miss all the time is the fact that Oliver (saltburn) desecrates Felix grave not out of love but out of powerlessness. He's spent the whole movie totally dominating and manipulating every character with the exception of Felix who vehemently rejects him upon learning he lied. Felix was the only character Oliver had no control over so he 'rapes' the grave as his final and fruitless attempt at control..
and that parasite tackles a lot korean issues like them having to lie and network to get jobs and, imitate what makes life in south korea suck apearently.@@MushiePuppet17
"Elsbeth is callous about Carey Mulligan but I think that's more a testament to a fraud friendship than anything" ok girl but the consequence of her callousness and prejudice because she thinks Pamela's lying is that the poor girl gets killed lol that's PRETTY F*CKING BAD in my books, she was in a seriously dangerous situation and Elsbeth only saw her as a form of entertainment she had grown tired of. Also we are explicitly told about how dismissive she is of the fact, that's insanely cruel, not just rude. I think you're underestimating just how bad these people were.
They're bad, but the film never actually villainess them for it. It's not just the characters playing it off as if it doesn't matter, the film plays it off as if it doesn't matter. Its a film by a rich posh person where the rich posh people are bad, but not as bad as tbe creepy middle class person looking to take all their money from them
@@likeawestern335 I think you've completely missed the point of the movie which I initially did as the majority of the audience were coerced into thinking this was a movie about class when it isn't and it's very hard to see that as a result of the Oxford aesthetic we are conditioned to at the start. It is a movie about love and obsession and the endless desire for more and more, and highlights the fact that Ollie's love for Felix wasn't just at the surface level of gay love but rather a love for everything he stood for. The failure of the movie for me was due to the fact that the wrong aesthetic was chosen to convey the ultimate message, and it took me a while to actually understand what the message of the movie is and I think the movie itself gets confused with this narrative too. there are no good characters or ones to root for, and it becomes very apparent throughout the subliminals of the movie that the rich are absolutely horrible for no reason, despite the fact you somehow fail to recognise this?
@@all-caps3927 no, death of the author. Whatever interpretation your deride from the money is true and the money has many elements of class warfare in it which it fails to capitalise on. Therefore saying it fails in doing so is completely valid.
@@all-caps3927 also, that's just your interpretation of the movie you're trying to pass off as fact. Yes the movie has elements of obsession but there's no love. No one in that movie loves anyone. If you've gone into that movie thinking somehow Oliver loves Felix I feel you've accredited a sympathetic element to his character that simply isn't there. Hell, even the family he visits don't love eachother. Oliver is a middle class parasite who worms his way into this family and makes himself irreplaceable in a toxic relationship and kills off any anyone who gets in his way. He's a cancer killing the rich, however the film doesn't know how to frame it properly or even know what it wants to say itself so it also paints Oliver as the villain more so than the rich elite giving this sort of boogeyman vibe from Oliver. Be careful rich people, the middle classes want to steal your fortunes. If the movie were to end at the death of Oliver, the death of the symbolic character the love and obsession is supposedly built around then maybe I'd believe your interpretation, but there's a further 45 minutes after that devoid of any love, only obsession for Oliver to elevate his status and take their fortune ( his obsession clearly set in the class element there). Hell, that last 45 minutes actively say "hey audience, in case you couldn't tell Oliver never loved or cared for Felix, he just wanted the money". And even if your interpretation was true, would the fact most people didn't get that and you actively didn't get it on first viewing either not show an incompetence from the film makers POV? Would it not show an inability of the director to get their point across?
While I can understand why the movie made an impact, especially on younger adults due to the more "shocking" scenes going viral and the casting of two popular young men who people thirst over online, as well as its better qualities in the form of the acting and cinematography, I agree with you. Its main success was with people who were unfamiliar with the movie's inspirations. and that it's derivative of older, better works with not much cohesive or interesting to say of its own.
It kind of reminded me of Parasite if it were written by the family in the house. Very aware of the haves and have-nots without the ability to critique the haves.
A brazilian critic called saltburn as if it parasite was written by val marchiori, val marchiori is a famous rich brazilian sociallite, like kim kardashian
I agree with a lot of the points in this video. I thought of Saltburn as a "fun movie" and less so as a "high brow film", which made watching it a good experience rather than a disappointing one. If I had gone to the theater seeking another Ripley, I would have enjoyed the movie far less. In particular, the point about the rich characters not being that bad: I found Farleigh and the nerdy boy at the beginning to be the most dislikable characters. And I think this shows a clear failing in the script/directing, if they were going for true class commentary. These characters are NOT the over-the-top rich ones who are portrayed as the morally bad in Talented Mr. Ripley or similar films. They are the ones who are (upper) middle class, perhaps seeking a way in similar to Oliver. So it seems overall in Saltburn, the main moral failing is NOT succeeding in being rich like the Cattons. Oliver succeeds and is thus portrayed as a sort of hero, gloating in his win at the end. Yes, the film is fun to watch in many ways, but if serious class commentary was the goal, Fennel fell hopelessly short. Also, I think the phenomenon described here is more a "tiktokification" rather than a "tumblrification", as it makes movies more about sound bites, montages, and shock value rather than substance. This is what people seek with our post-pandemic 10second video attention spans. But I'm still on Tumblr in 2024, writing essays about obscure television, so who am I to talk.
When I was watching Slatburn, I couldn't stop thinking of Parasite. Its not 1 to 1 but still has the main theme of lower class infiltrating and replacing the higher class. And while I fairly liked Saltburn, I had a feeling that I would rather be watching parasite right now.
'The Talented Mr. Ripley" is seen by some as a remake of "Purple Noon" a French film starring Alan Delon, which is also based on the book. It's worth a watch.
I wonder if her being so derivative of talented Mr. Ripley has roots in English/British elitism. Seems like she wants to be known for major classic English works but acts unawares about a seemingly popular American movie/novel. Could be a stretch but it’s highly unlikely she hasn’t seen the movie and thus could influence her 😅
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu Of course, it's an American novel and film. But I'm not sure the idea that an English director would feel conflicted about crediting an American film when the director of that American film was also English holds up. To the degree that she may be playing down comparisons with TTMR it's probably because she doesn't want people to think she's ripping it off.
Yeah, American cinema is so globally dominant it doesn't make any sense to sweep some of it under the rug just because of national pride. It's much more likely she wants to minimise the chances of viewers making this connection for fear of getting dismissed as derivative.
I think it's pretty obvious that the "savior complex" as you put it is what draws Felix to Oliver. Some parts of the movie show how much he enjoys seeing Oliver be at his beck and call and even gets jealous when someone else in his family has his attention. He also seems to like having an entourage and that was what Oliver used to get close to him and gave him a story to become part of his entourage.
Agreed, I’m very confused at her saying it’s unclear what draws felix to oliver shortly after having established his saviour complex. also saying that we don’t see oliver get humiliated when that’s such a pivotal part of the movie in the scene with felix meeting his parents. I agree with a lot of her points but parts of this analysis are a bit patchy and rushed
Do we learn that he had been planning the murder form the start? I thought we learned that he had been manipulative and inserting himself, but I didn't think it was implied that he had always been planning inheriting Saltburn and killing from day 1.
thank you for articulating why I had such a tough time enjoying this movie. Oliver isn't a person, he's obviously "sociopathic" from the beginning, and the twists undermine anything interesting the movie might have said. The final twist - that he planned it from the start, means that even the location doesn't matter. It doesn't get to have a "getting lost in the world of the rich" vibe, because its not there, oliver's never intoxicated or allured, he's entirely driven from the beginning because he's just a cipher for thriller villainy. He has no motivations beyond "what's the most fucked up way I can maximise my power in this moment" - which leads to dull reveals and moments which just leave you saying "why"?
He didn't plan it from the start, our narrator is a compulsive liar. We discover this in the movie. Why now are we believing his final monologue that he planned it?
@@henryofskalitz5212 the movie doesn't use surrealism at all, the stuff we see at the end is known to happen. If we can't believe anything we see then its entirely pointless anyway nothing in the movie matters. That's not a defence of the movie its just quite damning that its best defence is "nothing fucking matters"
@@henryofskalitz5212 you're using it to say that we can't trust any of the images on screen, which means nothing matters. Its facile to defend the film by saying we can't trust anything that happens in it
it's definitely not planned, there's so many points where he's plainly uncomfortable and making things up on the spot. he first flattens his tire because he wants an excuse to talk to him and spend time with a dude he clearly likes. every following action he takes is also things done in the moment and not in service of some higher plan. the end twist isn't even really a twist, it just confirms what you already know about each scene. that he's a sociopath with no morals that's been trying to get what he wants at every turn. initially the man he loved, and over time the power he craved. there's no "this was the plan all along" to be found here and any implication of that is just oliver's ego-trip and justifying himself after losing the love of his life to nothing but himself.
This is a great analysis of "Ripley" which is a truly great film - as Mark Harris (quoted in the video) hinted, in some ways better than Highsmith's book on which it was based. And Dechanel's analysis highlights the paradox that while Minghella's "Ripley" is based on a book that has even been filmed before and yet turns out to be highly original film, "Saltburn" is an original story that turns out profoundly unoriginal.
You hit the nail on the head !!! So tired of predicting every plot with unexplained psychopathy, easy cruelty somehow always just attributable to class. Makes no sense, it's very lazy. TTMR is a simple classic, the murder, outcomes, sexuality were by the by of the fascinating characters, not the main point. Saltburn wanted shock and disgust. Form without content!!
the one point i can think of, right now, that saltburn can make (by making the character a complete psychopath rather than an unbalanced person who can turn off their empathy at certain points but gets hit with the emotional impact aftewards) is that these rich people may eventually attract a human predator that devours them like the their ancestors devoured their competitors while amassing their wealth, so if you just want to see a film where rich* assholes who are "special" because they can afford to be get fucked, saltburn's nice. but ripley is a much better film. i think saltburn was a gorgeusly shot and well-acted film, but it really should have ended much much sooner. the naked dancing scene just felt like succumbing to a trend of shirtless dancing dudes and reminded me of morbius which isn't good optics. *people are talking about them being "posh", but "posh" can mean anything from upper middle class to super rich. the family in saltburn is obscenely rich and basically live in a castle. the "bad" they do is pick up people they think are interesting, introducing them to a dream-like way of life (for many people), seeing these people become entirely dependent on them and then throwing these people away when they feel they're not interesting anymore, replacing them with a new person. this is the entire point where they just let one character in the movie die because they're bored with her. they're not actively sadistic but they have no empathy whatsoever. oliver is NOT one of these people, he does not want their approval, he wants their house and their money.
Yeah except the thing about that is that most human predators who get into the lines of work of violence & social engineering are usually hired by families like this with dynasties of wealth to protect themselves. They outsource every household job to life-in professionals, including household security, and they'll see someone like Oliver & know exactly what he is. You don't have the levels of wealth inequality that we do without the wealthy investing heavily into securing everything they have by any & every means available to them.
I absolutely loved Ripley and would not hold Saltburn as any kind of comparison. But I saw Saltburn with two of my English friends (one who went to Eton....) and it was so fun to hear their thoughts on the film. They kept saying "we know all of these people" and remarking how some of those vapid conversations (like not knowing where Liverpool is) had happened in real life. Of course it's satire, of course people would actually know where Liverpool is, but it's overdone on purpose. Ripley feels real and authentic, Saltburn feels overly dramatized and satirical. Both have a place in cinema for me and I enjoyed them both. Although Ripley might be the one I come back for a rewatch, and not the other.
I can’t help but feel like we watched different films as my understanding of it is so different from yours. Emerald was pretty clear that her film is about obsession and the overlap of love and hatred, desire and disgust. It’s not meant to be a commentary on class or the “Eat the Rich” story many seem to think it is, although you definitely can view it through that lens (especially through Farleigh’s character and I agree with a comment I saw that said the film could have more interesting from his perspective). The biggest issue I have with many critiques of this film is that so many don’t seem to understand Oliver is an unreliable narrator. He isn’t a mastermind who planned to steal their money from the start. He wanted Felix, he was obsessed with him, and once he was rejected he changed course: if I can’t have him, I’ll become him. We literally see Oliver wearing Felix’s bathrobe the morning after he kills Felix. He lucked into Sir James dying and Elsbeth being receptive to him when he put himself in her path again, there’s no way he could have planned how well that worked out for him. I find it interesting you don’t think the Cattons didn’t treat people poorly. Felix doesn’t just reject Oliver for lying, but also for seeing through him, realizing he wanted a poor pet to save (the way he asks Oliver to describe his poor upbringing is so excited and riveted), for perceiving him for who he actually was. Felix was ready to throw Oliver away after he tried to clean his room, for forcing him to face his own helplessness and reliance on the help that clean up after him and by giving a face to that help/making them human, he only takes him back when Oliver lies about his father’s death. The Cattons don’t see the people that they view as below them as humans. They treat them like they’re disposable and like they’re only there for their entertainment. Felix enjoys being admired. He knows Oliver is obsessed with him, but he doesn’t see the danger in it. He’s jealous of Oliver and Venetia hooking up because that takes Oliver’s attention away from him. Even if he’s not going to act on it, he wants Oliver’s attention and adoration, he’s used to people fawning over him. Or maybe I’m just not intelligent enough to critique it the way you have, I didn’t get to finish school, and I don’t how I ended up writing an essay in a TH-cam comment 🤦🏻♀️ I didn’t realize I cared that much lol. Maybe I’m reading too much into it because I obviously liked it. I enjoyed The Talented Mr Ripley too and do think it’s a better film than Saltburn but that doesn’t stop me from still enjoying Saltburn. I’m also probably subconsciously offended at the title because I am a tumblr girly and I’ve really enjoyed the discussions about Saltburn on tumblr 😂 Your title makes me feel like we’re all just stupid people playing pretend at analysis, but I mean, we’re trying? Idk (Also, Farleigh doesn’t try and steal their things. Oliver framed him when he stayed in his room.)
this is incredibly welll put, don't underestimate yourself as not being inteligent enough because this is a very articulate comment and a great reading of the film. Thank you for having the patience to put all of this into words because I wanted to but could never have made it so good (and short lol)
you are absolutely intelligent enough to critique the film, you understood the movie better than the person making the video, and your analysis was very cogent and well stated. you should keep engaging with the films you enjoy and thinking critically about media, you are not any worse than the author of this video and i think you actually do a better job at it than she did
I know people will likely hate me for this but I felt like Poor Things was also ‘fast food film making’ as far as the plot is concerned. (Spoilers ahead) Beautiful, absurd, truly humorous in surprising moments, but the next day I found myself asking… What exactly was the point of that? She never really became human. She was never deeply affected by the things that happened to her. The plot got extremely convenient. Why is her previous husband just telling her directly about what he plans to do to her? Nothing that should of hurt her actually hurt. If it does for a moment she is soon over it. She somehow miraculously doesn’t get an STI? She was rich the whole time and could call her father to come get her whenever she needed. She just goes back home in the end and becomes her father…. So bored by the end.
Slightly concerned whenever a video like this comes out and people act personally victimized when a movie they enjoy is criticized. Friendly reminder to the angry people: your enjoyment of the movie and people's criticism of it can coexist.
People can dislike it, but I’m sick of people acting like things aren’t “objectively good.” Like enough already, so pretentious it’s not even funny “Just because you like it doesn’t make it good” anyone who believes that can gtf away from me
@@Senate300 disliking it and calling it “objectively bad but you’re allowed to enjoy it” are two different things and I’m not saying this critic Broey does particularly, but some critics really think they’re better than the creator, and if that’s the case, make a “better” movie instead and get off your high horse 🙄
I haven't seen Saltburn, but have been really happy with how much these reviews sound exactly like my feelings about Promising Young Woman. That was such a weird aesthetic girlboss approach to SA and r*pe culture, and it had such a confusing message/non-message about the whole topic. It's funny because I came across some writing at the time that discussed Fennel having a limited/out of touch perspective on some class issues, so it's funny to me seeing them get hashed out a bit more in Saltburn, and still feeling pretty off.
I think Saltburn is effective on something that it wasn't set to be: Depicting a selfish useless person, that is well aware he isn't going to be someone by talent or uniqueness. Just as the music video of Murder On the Dancefloor, the dancer knows she is by far the less talented, and therefore she will only win by eliminating her competitors. The director is crazy if she actually thinks he is relatable just by the fact that we all know the feeling of desiring to ascend to someone's class and privileges, that's as far as it goes, at least for me. I did enjoy the movie, but after sitting on it for a few days, i now think i enjoyed the beauty of some scenes, that to me looked like paintings, and the royal like color palette.
Thank you so much for this brilliant video essay, it's amazing to see my uncle's work explored so thoroughly. Just wanted to let you know that Anthony was from the Isle of Wight, not the Isle of Man! It's a similar small coastal place though, and you're right about his other background information. Thanks again!
Minghella died too young. I really appreciate the television work he did with Jim Henson in Henson's later stuff. I vividly remember Juliet Stevenson in one. His work on The Storyteller is among my favourite works ever put to screen. May your uncle rest well.
@@MFLimited it was an innocent mistake, no point in getting annoyed! Indeed they are both... Islands 😅 Thank you - missing him always but it's special to have so much to remember someone by
As a British viewer, I think I have a slightly different perspective, but I broadly agree with your analysis. I liked watching the film, although I think it is a film that benefits a lot from it being shown on a big-screen (I don't think I will ever re-watch it at home), but I think you hit the nail on the head as to why I enjoyed it when you called it fast-filmmaking. For context, I haven't seen or read any of the materials you demonstrate Saltburn is pulling from, so I only noticed the horror references in certain shots (Dracula, The Shining) and that definitely shaped how I interpreted the film. I've got to say, given my perspective on the film at the time, it has been a little weird for me to see Emerald Fennell double down on the idea that the film is a piece of class-commentary, because I only really enjoyed the film by the end by dropping the class analysis entirely. In fact, I would have gone as far as to claim at the time that the entire class framework was intended to act as a misdirection from the real purpose of the film, which I thought was to deliver a tongue-in-cheek, self-aware kind of popcorn murder mystery. As the film was set in the UK, I thought the film was pulling from a traditional sort of TV show that is popular here, which is British murder mystery shows. Obviously, the US has plenty of those shows, but in the UK I think we have a different variety of them whereby the appeal is almost inherently ironic (the most prominent example is 'Midsomer Murders', but there are plenty of others like 'Rosemary and Thyme', which is about a pair of elderly gardeners solving murders in their village). These shows come to mind because they are usually set in rural countryside areas and have predominantly posh characters in them, like Saltburn (Richard E Grant is exactly the sort of actor that we would expect to be in one of these shows). While these shows have an air of authenticity and seriousness, that only serves to heighten the sense of irony felt among the audience as the plots themselves are openly absurd. And they're fun to watch because of this ironic element. This is what I thought the final twist of Saltburn was supposed to deliver, particularly with the preposterousness of Oliver's plan and the silly, triumphant tone of the final dance sequence. It felt almost like a joke at the audiences expense for assuming that the events of the film were intended to be profound in some way, and I was happy to take that joke. However, Fennell's comments on the film make that interpretation a lot harder to still have as it becomes clear that she was just conceptually confused; the real irony is that she is probably completely unaware of the murder mystery shows I am talking about to defend the movie hahaha.
Lol well then it's good for us as (re)viewers that she insisted on promoting Saltburn as class commentary piece. If she didn't and kept it ambiguous, we could've mistaken the movie for some kind of quietly brilliant meta deconstruction or smth. But I guess this interpretation is still salvageable, we just need to assume she's like RDJ's character in Tropic Thunder, staying in character until Blu-ray release.
I would call the mom’s callous comment about Pamela’s death pretty “bad”. And you see the change on Oliver’s face the same when they can’t remember his name singing happy birthday to him.
The thing about commenting on class is having the eye and actually understanding the mentality of the class. If you aren’t poor and never had a real relationship with one, you won’t understand the shame of putting back groceries when you realize you can’t afford it at checkout. Saltburn is written by a wealthy person without empathy for the poors to have a complex relatable protagonist
Your "tumblification" comment about this film is the same issue I took with the movie X. It's like watching an Instagram scroll of a kid who just discovered Brian DePalma, Tarantino, and the 70's.
It's funny how differently people experience films. I dug X because it felt like a love letter to the horror genre while exploring the parallels and stigmas of the horror genre/violence and p*rnography/sex, amongst other things. The same reason I like Saltburn quite a bit is because it feels like a big homage to Talented Mr. Ripley. It's far less subtle than Ripley, but it's a very entertaining B movie.
I don’t know how we’re supposed to root for Oliver - I knew he was manipulative from the beginning and not loyal to his friends. But then when everything comes out, I just feel pure disgust which just gets stronger and stronger. I want him to face justice, not feel compelled to understand why he does things.
“If that’s a crime then consider me guilty” 😂😂😂 But Saltburn, despite being pretty was absolutely empty. So THANK YOU! I was so confused how people liked it.
i really enjoyed this analysis and it made me learn about movies im excited to watch now, but i have one basic thing about saltburn i saw so differently that i didnt have such a bad opinion of it: the opening of the movie shows oliver saying he didnt love felix WHILE showing us shots of him where he's clearly watched with love?lust? envy? so he immediately striked me as an unreliable narrator. By the end when he says he planned it all, i never took it at face value, i understood it as some sort of reframing of his actions for him to cope with them
Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/broeydeschanel
That's how you do a good ad-read. Make it a narrative, make it relevant to the presenter and interesting to follow. And don't make it Better Help, those despicable frauds.
A+
random but what camera do you use? I love the quality and im thinking of making videos and I want my videos to look like this!!
@@2nd3rd1st ooh, do go on! I have always thought something seemed a little off about their ads but I guess I put it down to some of the happy customers (sorry, I misspelled ‘paid actors’. Must be more careful in future) being annoying and overly perky to this jaded toaster
@@Satansclawps3 presumably without a ‘K’ sound at the end? Or is it like Van Gogh? A sort of guttural G/K sounding consonant?
@@chcowley Waugh is hell
my biggest issue with Saltburn was Oliver's motivations feel non-existant even after the reveal
I think you need to watch some of the director's interviews to get it. It def left me weirded out too-esp with how easily Oliver let the opportunity go when it was right within his grasp. It def help plant the idea that this ran deeper than just wanting to own the riches of the family.
@@alinachrist8416 If you have to watch supplementary material in order to get it then the writer failed at their job.
@@alinachrist8416 I think a story teller has failed if I still have to ask them what their main character wants at the end of the film. I don't care about their interviews.
@@alinachrist8416 Oliver seems to hint at complexity but the character is awfully shallow. We're expected to believe he's in love with Felix because he drinks his bathwater and humps his grave when nobody's watching, but then he's just dancing naked and smiling at the family's namestones in the end? Wouldn't his plan require Felix to be eliminated from the very beginning? What purpose does having sex with the sister serve in the story, besides the shock value of the menses-coated cunnilingus? Does he hate the family, envy them, is indifferent or just sees them as hapless victims of his plans?
The director's interview hints at a sociopathic character that's hard not to sympathise with, but we just get a dude with a scholarship at Oxford, from a loving upper-middle class family and who isn't exactly victimised outside of a few mean comments here and there.
Ingrid goes West is a better version of this movie.
"The implied film is better than the actual one" describes exactly how I felt about Don't worry darling
soo true! some movies could have been so great… if only..
Ugh, yes. I did not really care for that movie at all. I really loved saltburn, tho.
100%
yes that's very accurate, that was another fast-food movie
@@FileCode1459 "fast food movie" is such a good description of it.
All the “shocking” stuff in Saltburn just feels juvenile. Like, just superficially gross without making me feel disturbed on any deeper level. It feels really safe
That’s exactly how I felt about Poor Things
It's like something out of a Garth Ennis comic book. Just shock value for the sake of it
And it feels even more pointless after he reveals it was all an act, so why do all that weird shit?
@@Apostrophe4035poor things wasn't gross for shock value like saltburn is, it was gross to enhance how weird and disgusting the world is from a newborn's pov
It's brutalism is supposed to lure you in. Actions that are socially taboo or disgusting, but the movie fails to make those scenes coherent within the story.
It feels like misplaced tonally beats. They reek of a body horror genre, but such horror can only do well if there is character to pair it up with. It brings meaning to those scenes, makes you want to watch them again and understand the emotions, even through fear or disgust.
With Saltburn I only felt the urge to fast forward.
Edit: spelling
it's disturbing and gross, but it doesn't seem that bad compared to some much more disgusting stories with deep meaning behind the disturbance.
This movie came off to me like the director watched talented Mr ripley and was horrified/ sympathized with Jude laws character and said, “I need to correct this”
Thinking that Ripley and Saltburn are the same is silly
Saltburn is about the myth of England's rise, is about aristocracy, and how aristocracy doesn't change, the brutality that needs to rise
Ripley talks about my American accession mith,self-made men type thing
Because that was the problem. Painting the rich as evil and the poor as virtuous is completely backwards
What are these replies talking about
@@levadamusic Broey literally discussed this in the video. Did you even watch it?? 🤦♂
IMO Saltburn is not an Eat the Rich movie - it's a Fear the Poor (and the middle class) movie. It's not a movie About the rich For the middle class - it's a movie For the rich About the middle class. That's why, in this movie, the wealthy aren't horrible (and their horribleness is their naivete born from privilege), whereas the inflator is horrible for no apparent reason - the reason isn't necessary because the poor and middle class are always a threat to the rich regardless of their reasons for being so. It's a cautionary tale to the wealthy to distrust the middle class. But with enough familiar references and aesthetics as window dressing to confirm the middle classes assumption that they are the target audience (since they are in almost every case of popular cinema). Understanding that Fenell hails from the wealthy elite class makes it clear that she is writing about what she knows. So from the lens of Fear the Poor the entire movie makes so much sense.
Damn. You nailed it.
I think its simply not a political movie at all.
@@Laura-gd4ku and that would be false, no matter the movie
@@kostajovanovic3711 oh for gods sake, many people and movies are apolitical. Being apolitical is not a “privilege” either it’s literally a choice. I’m a gay man and I’m probably center but I don’t pay that much attention because it’s boring to me lowkey lol. I do love Obama and am sick of people calling him and George bush war criminals, like get over yourself. A few other republicans I love are Jared Kushners and Ivanka Trump, they seem lovely and Ann Coulter who was HILARIOUS at the Rob lowe roast and the roasts about her were so ctuel and personal, it was appalling like they actually didn’t like her and thought she was a bad person
My parents voted for Trump and some of you think we should cut them out of our lives, enough already
u act as if emerald’s family comes from the same league of landed gentry as the characters of the movie. i’m sorry if u think that the rich people are somehow sympathetic or meant to appeal to the audience. the film is a story about the corrupting capacity of power and wealth. oliver for all intents and purposes would’ve become a normal person if he wasn’t so fixated on this type of wealth that you can’t naturally gain. the cattons are cold and callous and utterly uncaring of any of his real or fake experiences. in the end, he’s as soulless as the rest of them and it isn’t a cautionary tale to the elite, it’s a cautionary tale about the cyclical tale of corruption that is so intertwined with power
“… which films are good and which films LOOK good.” Bam. You nailed it.
Same fucking thing, it served its purpose and movies are subjective
@@user-ft3vt6se3ndude get a life. You’re replying to literally every single comment here. It’s pathetic
@@user-ft3vt6se3nThe purpose of a film is to tell a story. If that story is told poorly, it did not serve its purpose. And chill, it seems like you can't handle a differing opinion. Movies ARE subjective, so separating a film that "is" good from a film that "looks" good is perfectly within someone's right.
@@MsLazykatnot at all, you chill. It’s the same thing and it’s a damn good movie and told a great story
Funny that Poor Things gets so much love when I believe it essentially commits the same cardinal sin to a much worse extent.
I don’t think I would have minded Saltburn as a fun thriller so much if it didn’t constantly seem like it was trying to say something. They put so much almost commentary into it that it tricked people into thinking it had more depth than it did.
I pointed out to my friends that the first half Saltburn was clearly trying to introduce themes of desire, class, and a good old fashioned English stately-home mystery, but then proceeded to give up all this in the second half. All they could say in response was "your expectations were wrong going into it, it's just a fun thriller". Soo annoying how Saltburn fans refuse to see how shallow it is
@@jw-ob1wv it’s not shallow in the slightest and your tone is condescending and like it’s an “objectively shallow movie” it’s fine to not like it but stop acting like movies aren’t subjective.
I was actually kind of relieved it wasn’t a class commentary type movie (not that I’m against that, it’s just there were several movies the year before with the exact same type of approach) and liked the
SPOILER
Twist that he wasn’t actually poor but after that it felt like they didn’t know what to do with the movie at all. I’ve seen a lot of interpretations of it and frankly I find them to be a bit grasping at straws in terms of the plot’s coherence. There were themes, sure but part of media literacy is critiquing whether a film achieved its commentary, not just that it felt like there was commentary there. The Idol was supposedly about sexual liberation but I’d say most people would say it failed miserably on that mark.
And then when none of it added up or made sense came back in with the lol its just a silly trashy thriller it's not that deep lol! What? Then why did they take the time to include so much symbolism? The problem is it didn't go anywhere meaningful or connect back in a way that's satisfying. Its just there
@@user-ft3vt6se3nyou are part of the group they were talking about.
for a erotic thriller saltburn has zero rizz
For real!
I was waiting to feel conflicted or like I was there, sexy and attracted to Jacob Elordie.
The film has 0 rizz, indeed.
It's so muted and eh.
Comments rarely make me laugh but this one got a chuckle from me. 😄
No rizz, nor fizz just zzz
Is a psychological horror movie not an erotic thriller.
It almost looks like an exotic thriller at first but the 2nd half is psych horror forsure
@@ForageGardener is the -getting there- that seems so trivial to most audience, hence the true nature of lack of "aesthetic enough to my senses" distraction where the thrill actually comes from
Thanks for sharing your view! It made me re-evaluate this pov of mine
I think saltburn suffered because of the director's blindness to her own privilege. She's a part of the upper upper class, and the tale of a middle class person lying about their finances to steal the wealth they covet is a nightmare of the elite, a scary story they tell each other. She can't reflect deeply on class, homoeroticism, or race because she doesn't want to lose her access to her privileges, and so her film is just as shallow.
Agreed. This is the same woman who is close to the delevingnes and went to public school (public schools in the uk are high fee paying private schools) who also won an academy award for her first film. The upper class can’t write about the middle or working classes because they never once seen them as equals
i wouldnt even call Barry Keoghan's character middle class, rather lower upper class. personally i think theres nothing really to discuss about saltburn. imo its just a fun, goofy lil movie that has nothing to say. however a conflict about lower vs upper upper class (with the middle and lower classes being completely absent) makes it slightly more interesting
@mvximillivn His character is middle class. Upper class in the UK = the peerage, gentry and hereditary landowners (worth a read - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_Kingdom#Upper_class).
In fact, reading her bio, Emerald Fennell herself is upper middle class.
@lrigsnart6821 Such as Parasite where the rich family literally does nothing wrong and the rich father gets murdered out of the poor father's own insecurity.
@ord8919 That is where Parasite fails for me as well as a class conscious movie albeit not as bluntly as Saltburn. It might've been effective had they made that family the ones that built the bunker & screwed with the guy running from loan sharks or not had the Kims screw over the other working people under the Parks. Instead of being about class disparity, it inadvertently supports the idea rich folks have that yes, poor people are leaches/vermin/parasites that'll drag society down. It doesn't matter if some of the Kims later on get class conscious (and honestly I don't think they fully do), it's far too late.
To be fair, the joke about southern English people not knowing where Liverpool is, is actually a common joke in British comedy circles. Catherine Tate was making that joke 15 years ago.
So, it's just another unoriginal thing Fenell did.
@@jalapenofarts Emerald is a fucking GENIUS and brilliant and lovely and is very original
Honestly had no idea.
@@jalapenofarts No, it's just a representation, albeit somewhat exaggerated, of the geographical/class divide within the UK.
There's actually a variant of that joke in the Bible:
"And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" John 1:46
Shakespeare gives us another variant:
Casca: "Those that understood him smiled at one another and shook their heads; but, for mine own part, it was Greek to me." Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2
I actually think Saltburn is a movie for the masses disguised as something more ‘alternative’. Even the ‘disturbing’ scenes that caused it to go so viral are not particularly shocking for anyone who has seen any film out of the mainstream. Not to mention the plot is predictable and simple and the foreshadowing is glaringly obvious. The fact that everyone and their mother has seen it is also testament to that. It’s got the bones of an ambitious indie film that’s then been watered down and chopped up into bite size pieces so that the viewer will feel smarter without doing any work. An ambiguous ending might’ve saved it a little but it was so cut and dried that there wasn’t anything left to ponder.
@tinker_belle41 I agree to an extent. I don’t think they were particularly meant to be that shocking in terms of them being the most “disgusting” and “gross” thing ever but that’s how people took it, and she had to know they have the added value of being shocking. However, while sexy, they are also supposed to be confronting/daring and raw and graphic and Emerald definitely knew that when including them. I would argue the whole film is built on shock factor, if not the graphic imagery, then the plot twists. Emerald even said herself the idea was built around the idea of someone licking a plughole. And that’s kinda the problem with it because it doesn’t go beyond the plughole so to say. It’s a beautiful, haunting image but it can’t carry a whole film and she must’ve known that because she added in a whole other component about class and wealth and greed, and thats where it becomes messy and loses its message in my opinion.
Could be a gateway for all the people experiencing the "shocking" movie to watch more unconventional and actually disturbing movies. Since mainstream popular movies right now are generally especially terrible I take comfort in this even if it's only slightly outside mainstream.
“Indie film” has become a genre in the since that a movie with massive budget can copy an old book or film beat for beat and they can just apply “alternative cinematography” to make it look more indie and “aesthetic” it’s pretentious for the sake of, it’s the same as an adult cartoon being crude for the sake of “adult”
Iv never heard of this movie untill now
god you people are so boring and pretentious
I’m curious if the class differences between Minghella and Fennell also influence why Minghella was more interested in dissecting class dynamics. Fennell comes from high society herself- her 18th birthday was even documented by Tatler. I personally feel like she was never really willing to make the Cattons truly contemptible or dissect class dynamics because it would mean dissecting her own privilege, and frankly nepotism, in an unflattering way. She fell back on “it’s not a commentary, it’s a love story,” to further distance herself from dissecting her own privilege and class. Saltburn also lends an interesting perspective of how the upper classes view the lower classes, rather than the other way around. You get the impression, through Fennell, that the upper classes believe that society’s issue with them is solely due to their lifestyle being coveted, rather than issues of inequity. Not saying it isn’t coveted, but that the upper classes want to believe that’s the only true complaint and desire, when it’s not. It’s like Fennell was told this her entire life and she made a film based off of an upper class assumption.
@user-hz6fj9xy4y im sorry but the ultra rich are 100% bad and on purpose. no one can be a billionaire and be a good person at the same time
@wormie1312Perhaps she did just that, but within her own worldview.
What is the difference between the rich's lifestyle being coveted, and inequity? Unless you're saying its not that the poor want to live like the rich, but that they want the rich to live like the poor?
the ugly truth
I think you've completely missed the point of the movie which I initially did as the majority of the audience were coerced into thinking this was a movie about class when it isn't and it's very hard to see that as a result of the Oxford aesthetic we are conditioned to at the start. It is a movie about love and obsession and the endless desire for more and more, and highlights the fact that Ollie's love for Felix wasn't just at the surface level of gay love but rather a love for everything he stood for. The failure of the movie for me was due to the fact that the wrong aesthetic was chosen to convey the ultimate message, and it took me a while to actually understand what the message of the movie is and I think the movie itself gets confused with this narrative too. there are no good characters or ones to root for, and it becomes very apparent throughout the subliminals of the movie that the rich are absolutely horrible for no reason, despite the fact you somehow fail to recognise this?
Rich tiktokers dancing through their fancy homes suggests Fight Club levels of misunderstanding the movie.
I mean, is it even a misunderstanding? The movie is hardly anti-rich considering it portrays the rich family as mostly nice and the person trying to kill them as an insane greedy incel.
They didn't misunderstand anything, flexing wealth and anti poor is the moral of this shallow movie 😭 I thought it'd be deep but ig it's just saying if u encounter a scholarship student make sure to lock your doors up tight, most likely a diabolical and depraved person. His gross scenes worked well tho for the shock value, every one was curious abt the movie cus of it
The director is a woman who grew up mad rich😭 who's father was jeweler for Elton John and madonna, she went to school with princess kate Middleton and then she went to Oxford. We can't really expect a good movie abt class consciousness from someone like that
@@tonystonem9614 it was a great movie, this needs to be my final comment but this video and this creator is so critical it pisses me off
@@user-ft3vt6se3nI’m open minded even to criticism as long as well substantiated. As an Australian that loves film, it was a romp. it was meant to be fun. On reddit in particular something I noticed acutely was that Americans didn’t get it. They don’t get the sense of humour or the cinematic references, and I hate to spoil it but there are so many reference points in this film, to English cinema, not American cinema. Sometimes films are made for different markets and if you didn’t like it, that’s okay, but it inherently doesn’t make the film, shallow or ineffective.
"The ghost of a better movie" NAILS what frustrated me about Saltburn so much. Thank you for this critique.
This
I agree with this excellent review! It also troubles me that the writer didn’t credit the many (obvious imho) sources she “borrowed” from right and left w/Donna Tartt’s The Secret History and Mr. Ripley and Brideshead…The Talented Mr. Ripley is a fantastic film based on a compelling novel - the actors featured were also at their absolute best. This film seems like such a tired plodding imitation.
The way Oliver reveals everything at the end in comic book villain like monologue is hilarious considering the review that claims that this is so superior from super hero franchises
Probably the weakest part of the film for sure
@@OrangeJulivs nope, the monologue explained everything and was needed
nope, the monologue explained everything and was needed
that part was the absolute worst in my opinion as well, he just dumped a ton of information on us that i think would've been more compelling to see while it was happening. i understand the desire for plot twists but it just felt incredibly rushed and lazy at the end
@@llbearll nope, the explanation was needed and emerald is a brilliant director and I’m sick of people researching her and calling her a “nepo baby” tell me you’re pretentious without telling me you’re pretentious 🙄
The worst part of the film was how they explained the ending, frame by frame, as if it wasn't blatantly obvious that Oliver killed Felix, and the director thinks the audience is too stupid to figure it out
My hot take on Saltburn is that it would have been much better if it ended after he f*cks the grave. The last act retcons the first two somewhat; it plays much more as a story about obsessive love than as this ‘infiltration’ narrative.
I agree. It makes the scene where he drinks the bathwater and fucks the grave as played just for shock value. If his whole plan was to get all their money and he wasn't actually obsessed with Felix, why do all of that then, like, what was the point?
@@coralflorist Exactly!
@@coralflorist he was obsessed with Felix. When he realised he could never get him, he decided to take his place out of this sick want him/want to be him mindset. That's what I interpreted at least
you're thinking too hard. consider bill hicks' take on basic instinct
This is solidified to me because I thought Keoghan did a fantastic job, All the way up until the 'revelation' scene. He's incredible at playing naturalistically, feeling like you're watching a real person who's not on camera- so monologuing exposition as an 'arch' villain I didn't feel was playing to his strength.
Movie looked good tho!
I think the main issue with Saltburn is that Oliver isn't tragic; you never feel his regret or conflict. He seems SUPER satisfied, if annoyed he had to kill people to get it. Tom is still empty and hollow at the end, realizing that nothing he achieved could have made up for how he got it, Oliver is just annoyed that he had to go through so much work to get his house; he is not trying to fit in, he is trying to increase his own status, for himself, rather than others. It's really weird; like the moral of the story really is the "middle class wants the bag" and literally nothing else
If thats what you took from the movie then youre stupid. It’s a story about desire and obsession
Why do you have to feel his empathy? He wanted something, driven by desire… and he got it.
i think your mistake is in insisting that oliver must represent a larger societal group, or that this story has to be saying something about class, when i honestly dont think the director was thinking too hard about that. this is a work of almost fantastical fiction, and sometimes films are intended to be viewed as just that. i think the film is definitely saying something, but that "something" can be interpreted in many ways, which i actually like a lot more than if this film had tried making a singular, heavy-handed statement about #society or whatever
Oliver is a monster. He’s the consequence of the aspirational culture the upper class keep disseminating and promoting. It’s like a fable, where an action has extreme consequences. The best comparison would be Asami in Audition. She’s an hyperbolic consequence of misogynistic culture. She just happens to be a psychopath and the protagonist let her into his life due to his unrealistic expectations of women. Something similar happens in Saltburn.
The premise of Saltburn is solid. The execution, not so much. It’s a little too sympathetic to the rich that it almost sounds like a cautionary tale. To be wary of the lower classes.
The difference is this is a satire. It is intentional that there is no real way to feel at the end. Oliver is completely ambiguous. It goes back to Farleigh's the "creepy little doll factory they make Olivers in." Where you are left not knowing what to feel. The anti-hero of Oliver is ultimately that he is a protagonist AND antagonist, for no other reason than that he 'won', or did he? feeling.
And then you're left empty, stunned, confused.
Practically every frame and dialogue of this is a clue or a reference that this is nothing that it seems. Suspenseful almost sinister music in odd places. Oliver's mostly clumsy, lucky cleverness....
when i saw saltburn my first thought was it must’ve been manufactured in a lab for tumblr gifs & web-weaved collages…. beyond the aesthetics saltburn is so empty.
facts
same 😭 i gave up at 40mins it felt so empty. read the spoilers and it didn't change my mind
That doesn't mean people can't enjoy it for what it is.
I wasn't exactly a fan of this film either after watching it, but there's something oddly nice about the 'experience' of Saltburn. Maybe it's just the simplicity, the escapism it offers. I think the problem here is that it got the aesthetics of an A24 film, and suddenly everyone's expecting it to be this deep, philosophical masterpiece. Can't we just enjoy a visually pleasing, maybe mindless flick sometimes?
It's funny how aesthetics can mess with expectations. It's like people expected a revelation just because it looks pretty. Yes, Saltburn might be lacking in substance. But maybe we all need a reminder that not every movie has to have life-altering storytelling. Sometimes, the general 'feel' of a movie can still be meaningful if it hits you at the right moment in life. Like a melancholic song. Or even Tumblr gifs.
@@Catfood430 A film doesn’t have to have “life altering” storytelling BUT this kind of film that emerald fennel was trying to create should have some form of substance. The pretty looking aesthetics actually make the lack of substance stand out more and make the experience of watching the film more frustrating in my opinion. It’s empty calories. When looking at tumblr gifs I have a completely different set of expectations than going into a film with the hype being so high and everyone saying how it’s such a thought provoking movie with deep themes…
So you're implying that tumblr girls are stupid?
What also really frustrates me is that one films portrayal of queer identity in the face of self-loathing is made for queer audiences, while the other fetishizes it for heteosexual audiences. One character is a horrifying portrayal of relatable queer emotions in the face of desire and a need to survive, while the other is a emotionless brick who wants a fancy house.
Something that I think is also a symptom of the TikTok-ification of movies is that literally every single character has to be impossibly hot and clean. I'm kinda sick of it. No one looks like a person, everyone looks like they've been put through an instagram filter that gives them the same face. All for viral hotness. It's off-putting. Imagine someone like Philip Seymore Hoffman in Saltburn, lol. An amazingly talented character actor with a non-commercial face just seems like a thing of the past.
@lrigsnart6821 Huh, haven't thought of it as a direct result of controversy, that's an interesting take. What's also weird is that casting beautiful people for specific roles completely makes sense. Like Don Draper. But it seems to have become an overshadowing trend to make every piece of media look like something between a La Mer commercial and an episode of Hannah Montana. Netflix is especially egregious. It's like we want everything to be smooth and agreeable and disconnected from reality now.
I don't think it's a TikTok problem that has been a problem in a lot of stories not wanting characters that aren't conventionally attractive characters to be important characters sometimes that can lead to problems like the storytelling being confusing because the story is telling something else but the looks of the character contradict it.
Examples of that are a lot of video game women characters or the ugly high school nerds.
Its especially angering when a character who's supposed to be ugly, but looks just as pretty as the rest of the cast.
@@haveagoodday7021I agree, though that's existed long since social media
I disagree, Barry Keoghan is not conventionally attractive, certainly not relative to Jude Law and Matt Damon for example . Attractive film stars and Hollywood heartthrobs have always been a thing.
I think now more than ever are we seeing interesting looking actors over conventional looking ones, British acting and cinema has certainly been a bastion in this regard.
Also we shouldn’t ignore human nature, it’s not just a social construct, there is a natural appeal to attractive looking people, which really does make a film more desirable.
Also human beings tend to look and fashion themselves in a way that relates to how they behave. This is symbolism is important; following these ‘archetypes’ (possibly the wrong word) and then knowing how to occasionally subvert them them, makes for a natural film.
I don’t think cherry picking ‘ugly’ or ‘normal’ looking people just for the sake of making a social justice type point would have a positive result.
My friends and I did Saltburn then The Talented Mr. Ripley as a double feature and while I finished Saltburn going "okay that was an okay movie, that made me laugh, the visuals are good, I'd say it's fun" after I watched the masterclass that is Ripley, I realized how poorly constructed Saltburn actually is. I love this deep dive of a video and you've made me appreciate Talented Mr Ripley even more!! This video has inspired so many ideas for my own screenwriting project too, so thank you!
I want to be friends with you. Also going to do this suggestion because I don’t want to watch Saltburn but having something to directly compare is going to make it better
Ripley will always been in my top 5
Its incredibly unfortunate she made basically a worse copy of the same story
i did the same thing and felt the same way lol
I really didn't feel anything for Mr Ripley, Actually, I felt so little, I had forgotten I had watched it at all and had to re-watch it after Saltburn and seeing people compare them, and even now I still say Saltburn is the better of the 2.
The fact that the concept of the entire movie began with the idea of slurping bath water tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the movie.
Yes and no, this visual evokes strong feelings, but in more body horror style than this watered down thriller. Sometimes great ideas come from one strong image/ feeling but unfortunately not in this case
@@anotherhuman3221 While true. The way I'm interpreting it is that she had a notion that would be shocking to film, and everything else that followed was devoted entirely to that theme.
Belle Delphine 😍
@@Arthur-nr5ciThat's a horrible way to interpret what she said.
It's funny how Minghella wasn't afraid of depicting the rich as terrible people but Fennell, consciously or not, couldn't. Then people say the directors class plays no part in it 😅
on the one hand i understand where you'r coming from. on the other hand, by ur measure, Parasite isn't a good class critique. and i think the danger of painting the rich as all terrible brings up a different problem. It implies the issue of class is that terrible ppl get rich, and not the system and culture that makes ppl so harmfully rich.
Rich ppl are normal, diverse, and complex like you or me. And we should still eat them.
@@JunLo-tu1sz No? Regardless of his current circumstances, Bong Joon Ho grew up working class.
@@JunLo-tu1sz Oh, ofc individual rich people can be good or bad just as anyone else. It is the b#urg3oisie as a class that needs to be eliminat3d. But I'm talking specifically about Saltburn, where Fennell fails to actually make the rich family look bad, she just says she is doing it, but it shows a more empathetic picture of them all the while d3m0nizing a middle class person lol (making Oliver look like a random leech and not a complex character like Tom in Mr. Ripley). So i agree with your last paragraphs, it's not a moral choice, but Fennell puts in those terms and fails to deliver, that's what im commenting on.
PS: Censored some words that i think are the ones making the all mighty algorithm delete my reply (which i had made more than 30 minutes ago).
@@BE-fw1lr Oh no no I was referring to the fact that the film portrays the upper-class as "nice" while the poor are ruthless crabs-in-a-bucket, and that despite on the surface portraying the rich more favorably, the nuance actually improves its critique of the bourgeois class.
@@grmgt Ah I see what you mean! Yeah, the film clearly fails to meet the 'scathing eat-the-rich critique' label that the movie has endlessly marketed itself with.
“Ghost of a better movie” is suchhhhh a good way to describe this film
I'm stealing that phrase!! 🤣🤣
@@stephenhawkins9476 kkkkk me too
God I swear there’s a lot of these “ghost” films lately
Spoooky
So is it worth watching the talented mr Ripley then?
Why did they shoot the party scene like a Netflix mini series
It was brilliant
it was dog shit, such good cinematography in this film, there were moments where barry was flooded with blue liight which was a motif of the film, and im sure they are trying to cover up for the fact they cant afford to throw a billionaires party, but it looks taccy and it felt likeso many other party scenes ive seen in shit films. it felt like the fall of the house of usher which was a shit tv series, phoney television shiteness. the cheap lasers and discos lights were bad and they should have stuck with blue lighting, more reserved rather than tacky. the film felt like it was made for tv and then edited into a film like a lot of these semi small budget breakaway successes do feel like. because they score high with test audiences before marketing even gets a hold and they are given the much more risky and expesnive chance to go to cinema. the story remained good but the party scene let them down and lets not forget talented mr ripley was a complicated and brilliant film and this is dance music and the little shit getting away with it conseuence free, hardly exploring the larger themes at play in the stories it borrows from. watered down gen x propoganda shit. one of the best films of the year, thats not saying much. infinity pool was great@@user-ft3vt6se3n
@@CHESSZILLA this was a brilliant movie by a sensational director
@@user-ft3vt6se3n "Nuh uh," is not an opinion, liking it regardless of flaws is...
@@nicholasmaniccia1005 absolutely not, you can dispute “flaws” it’s not “objective quality”
I think the biggest reason they wrote the film to take place in 2006/07ish was due to the pre-emergence of the social media era where it wasn't a given that everyone had facebook, myspace, etc. It would've made Oliver's background history a lot harder to track and a lot easier for someone to just take him at his word, especially since his surface level demeanor is diminutive and honest. I actually found that filmmaking decision pretty clever.
I honestly thought Saltburn was fun; but I agree with a lot of your criticisms and was wishing for more of Oliver's backstory.
It's important to know that Farleigh did NOT try to steal their stuff, in the revelation scene it shows that after Oliver sleeps with him, he uses Farleigh's phone to contact Sotheby's, thus framing him. Farleigh was innocent.
People MISSED that???
Justice for Farleigh
for me, Oliver being able to "seduce" Farleigh (what reads on film as assault btw but I sincerely doubt Fennell meant it that way) was so egregious, he was distrusting of Oliver from the start! WHY would he fall for his attempts to seduce him! it makes no sense, justice for Farleigh.
(edited for misspelling)
@@tinker_belle41realizing that someone is trying to scam and deceive your friend isn't being possessive over your friend's wealth
Sometimes gay people have sex with each other even if they don't like each other @@almostawesomeali
See when I watched Saltburn I took it as comedy/parody of a movie like Ripley. I thought the emptiness and shallowness was on purpose. I laughed at scene of the family sitting at the dinner table grieving over Felix and trying to eat breakfast. That seemed so ridiculous! The movie was ridiculous! Especially with the over the top ending where everything was revealed in a mustache twirling montage. But after seeing interviews with Fennel, I am no longer convinced it was intentional. Or even a comedy. Fennel was trying to make a movie with more depth without recognizing that her material came from the shallow end of a kiddie pool.
Edit: seems like there is still some debate from the comments if the dark comedy elements of the movie were intentional or not. Either way, it is a ridiculous movie whether intentional or not.
it's just Ripley if he won in the long run, which was a thing I didn't know that I wanted apparently
I actually think you’re right, I was laughing at a lot of the scenes due to the ridiculousness of it all.
yeah i was absolutely confident that it is meant to be funny
Well, it was supposed to be a dark comedy, over the top, and absurd.
Was it really not meant to be funny? That's quite sad, then.
One good thing is that we can go back and forth and really look at how fucking literally dark movies are now. No lights just vibes.
Games too. So dark you can't see shit unless you're in a pitch-black room
@@crakhaedMaybe that's why I only watch movies when it's dark xD
You inspired me to watch Mister Ripley for the first time- that rowboat scene is going to live rent free in my head forever- first film I've watched in a while that really felt substantial, thank you for this!
Highly recommend the book, too!
Jude Law was amazing in that movie. Watched it after Saltburn because everyone was making comparisons.
living in London, I feel like I've met hundreds of Emerald Fennells.
Nepo babies with a basic knowledge of an artwork, using that art form to comment on a class system they have only ever benefited from.
Not anymore talented than anyone else, but just richer and with daddy's producer friend to help.
I'm convinced it's a Public school thing.
I grew up in privileged circles in the Home Counties, but I went to a Grammar School. When I got to university the difference between the Public school kids and the rest (even just 'mere' private school types) was notable.
They have a completely unreasonable degree of self-assurance about them. It's often innocuous, but I think it's actually pretty potent because it often manifests in simply having no inhibition. I used to think they lacked self-awareness, but in reality I think they just don't give a fuck.
Oh please she made it on her own and she is a genius 🙄. Get over yourself
@@user-ft3vt6se3n?
@@user-ft3vt6se3n Emerald Fennell, is that you?
@@user-ft3vt6se3n the daughter of a Eton educated multimillionaire jewellery designer and an author, who were friends with Dukes and Barons “made it on her own”? Are you fucking thick? I’m guessing you’re not British as anyone who’s from here knows how it works. Its just reality that shes benefited from extreme nepotism.
Anyone else feel like Jacob Elordi’s attractiveness kind of carries the fanbase’s interest in the movie?
Yes lol
Anyone else feel that your superficial obsession with what you think is "attractive" is why part of the reason why this entire trash of a movie appeals to the new social media class?
@@hmicky-mickey go take a chill pill my dude
@@hmicky-mickey Fuck off, the guy is clearly physically attractive
@@caleidozkopie8344 Rent that empty space between your shoulders asap will you
Wow you hid a seminal Talented Mr. Ripley video essay in this one about Saltburn. Well done, Brooey.
What's seminal about it?
@@Emi-rr6ph Yeah I agree with the take but that's a weird adjective to use
As someone who adores The Talented Mr. Ripley i really appreciate how you broke down all the things that film does brilliantly and what Saltburn fails to do. It's a film that thrives so much on shock value and flashy aesthetics without adding anything of substance in the writing.
The tone was all over the place and full of pastiches. It baffled me too when she said The Talented Mr Ripley wasn't a ref. I could also see influences of The Shining and The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Saltburn analogous to the Overlook Hotel, and the miniature maze model foreshadowing them falling victim to Oliver in this case as Fennell mentioned vampires...? Perhaps it might have worked if it was straight up horror. Even magical realism. I think she was more focused on style and wanting to subvert expectations than crafting a coherent story.
oh yes it's like the shining with the person (oliver) taking over the place (saltburn). there needs no reason for why he is a psychopath but the reveal of how everyone dies is anticlimatic. and unbelievable - almost like he have strange powers like in sacred deer
the satire and humor would still work even but it's just conflicting here
@@fayexibe Yup I found the reveal unnecessary. Even as a satire, the ending did not feel earned. It felt like what she intended did not translate for many as what they perceived, like this video pointed out - the implied film vs the actual film.
Like Fennell's previous film, she liked a clean ending. For this one, the last act really didn't work for me. If she had set it up well and left it up to the audience to make their own conclusions...
not seeing the talented mr ripley as inspiration is crazy bc i remember watching the talented mr ripley right after saltburn and there being similarities in the dialogue, up to line by line similarity!
@@vaibh4vi Right? I really thought she was doing a satire or even parody of TTMR. She just said nope and people are just bad, period. ?? He's a vampire. He's smart. They're dumb. ??
nothing wrong with being more focused on style and wanting to subvert expectations than crafting a coherent story, for the record.
It is very telling that the first movie that Emerald Fennell, who had a super upper-class upbringing, makes about "eating the rich" or class in general is not that good at examining class. It kind of makes me concerned about her viewpoint of middle and working class people considering how she portrays both sides.
Maybe its not portraying a viewpoint of the middle and lower class? But rather the noble people
Class is one thing but knowledge and awareness are another. The director of Parasite is also upper-class but he studied sociology which elevated his vewpoint.
@@minhanhnguyen2213 Yeah sociology, the easiest major out there.
I'm shocked the director is downplaying the Ripley connection. It's ...blatant.
But so true about how thin it is compared to Ripley.
Jude Law was so perfect as Dickie because he was ...fucking awful but SO SO charming that once he was dead you could *really* feel his absence.
And comparing, say, romantic grave time to Tom holding Dickie's body in a boat ...one seemed like "oh OK, crazy guy" and the other, weirdly, read like "oh Tom you poor, sad, fool what have you done omg omg that's sick bro but aww geez poor guy" because of all the STAKES and relationships and planning and weaving around it.
Iono. I don't think I have much to add here except to say The Talented Mr Ripley came out when I was 17 years old. I saw it in theaters. It gripped my throat.
On rewatches, even knowing what's going to happen, it still grips my throat and is shocking and we just get a little Jude butt.
Saltburn had many "shocking" moments and was absolutely an eyeball feast but I never hated/wanted Felix like I did Dickie, I never understood Oliver....like NEVER....
Farleigh didn't feel as dangerous as Freddie Miles. He just felt like a gnat. And despite moon-time smexy things, grave romance, tub slurps and bare Barry I was never exactly *shocked*
It was written a bit like an edgy highschoolers drama project where you have to "retell a classic tale in modern times" and someone chose Mr Ripley and just stuffed it with edge
Despite all that, I liked Saltburn fine. I was entertained. There were some solid little blips of decent acting.
But I liked it the way I like when a sushi restaurant deep fries a roll and drenches it in mojo mega signature mayo slayer sauce or something.
Like sure it tastes good. But it was unnecessary and a regular tuna roll is still on menus for a reason.
My feelings exactly. Also, glad to see I wasn't the only person who thought the grave scene was kinda like the boat scene
Thinking that Ripley and Saltburn are the same is idiotic Saltburn is about the myth of England's rise Ripley talks about my American accession The film has much more of Plein soleil, the 1960 version of the talented Mr Ryple, than of the American film MR Ripley
Basically the euphoria version an excellent film.
@@levadamusic fjdhdgdbdhdbrb "saltburn is about the myth of England's rise" where? where? your second point I kind of agree with, though I do feel it's a little moot as both films are adaptations of the same source book so saltburn being more similar to plein soleil doesn't negate its many similarities to the American film. But that first point I am genuinely baffled by
Real
Tbh I was legit disappointed by the characterization and plot of farleigh bc he had a lot of potential I’ve actually read 2 articles that stated that saltburn would’ve worked better if farleigh was the lead or it was centered around his POV and I agree I think he best embodied what Emmald wanted Olivier to be with morality, identity, sexuality, social class status etc while adding in the dynamic of him being a biracial American and the fact that he’s a blood relative of the Cotten family. The unique intersectionality coupled with the great portrayal of Archie Madewke would’ve worked but I feel emerald just don’t got the range to go there.
100%
This is actually where I think Fennel tricked me. The scene with the tutor where Farleigh hadn't done the reading and coasts on the tutor having had a crush on his mother, is what got me to sympathize with Oliver, to the point where I was he had given Felix's bike a flat.
As a mixed blood gringo, albeit without a hot mom, I actually like the idea of someone whose grandfather was probably English working class offing the Toffs more than it being a distaff cousin like Farleigh. But I prefer the way the progressive stack functioned in the 1920s to the 2020s.
Also, no one ever mentions that "having sex with mother earth" is how Celtic Kings sealed their possession of the land. I find this preoccupation with desire without issue between two-legged animals tiresome.
Minotaur!
Couldn’t agree more! In watching this review I realized the better story would be about Farley and him possibly usurping the wealth from the family, or at least focusing on the interactions and social politics of being biracial within an old money English family.
@@je67tbdright I realized this when first watching the movie and the scene where farleigh and Felix are discussing the family’s undercover racism and how they give support to his mother I thought a second “why isn’t farleigh the lead? Why is this just a short monologue?” This question really got me more by the end of the movie, as aspiring writer I just randomly decided to started conceptualizing a whole fan fiction sequel for farleigh lol
I LOVE a media analysis of The Talented Mr. Ripley in the year of our Lord 2024. I truly was never the same after watching that movie.
Better than the books from what I'm seeing, seems like Highsmith actually identified with Ripley and agreed with his actions, if her self-loathing and Antisemitism is any indication
Same! I watched that film 6 years ago for the first time and that ending stayed with me for months. It's such a great film.
i loved this video so much, however i was so engrossed in your Mr. Ripley recounting that at some point when i remembered this juxtaposition was supposed to go back to saltburn i had to pause the video and sigh/groan because i reminded myself of saltburn
As I finished the film, all I could think is: Congratulations, Fennel, you made a movie that perfectly encapsulate its protagonista: Shallow, bizarre and awkward. It's like an alienated Glass Onion, but without the fun of having the obvious story unveiling.
Was there no obvious story unveiling for you? I feel most people disliked the movie out of spite for how obvious the story was - due to the demographic who watched the film most likely having seen Mr Ripley or any other movie referenced in the video.
I have been clocking sooo many pieces of media lately that just drip with "written by a former tumblr user" energy. it's like you can just tell when somebody started out writing fanfic in 2005. filled with nothing but aesthetic scenes meant to be desaturated and reposted in gifsets
You say that like it’s a bad thing 😂
i get you 100%. i liked saltburn because it was horny as a wattpad fanfic would be. i literally even told my lover months ago how i felt like the director was a former tumblr fangirl
@@tfoxx17 I can't decide if it's bad or good lol. on one hand I love that people who Get It are making media now but on the other hand sometimes it's bad lmfao
Then there's the literal adaptations of Wattpad fics, as well.
can I get euphoria for 500
In Patricia Highsmith’s defense, the mixed takes on the book’s queerness make a lot more sense in the context of the Tom in the book, who is defined almost entirely by a sense of deep emptiness. All through the book the abusive narcissist aunt who raised him looms in his psyche and the book points to Tom’s lack of self as a kind of echoism (the flip side of narcissism often found in children of narcissists).
I get the impression Highsmith felt critics and audiences were projecting a much stronger sense of self and identity onto Tom than the lack of identity she saw as his defining characteristic. Like there’s clearly queer stuff going on with Tom, but there’s so much more going on psychologically than just the closeted sexuality people latched onto. In the book there’s no one closet for Tom, he had to suppress his entire self
yeah, a denial of his identity, which he becomes a master at. He moves through the book like a shark - the very beginning he's being chased, and kind of HAS to leave the US.
@@MaHa-um5sv “moves through the book like a shark” perfect description!
That interview clip reminds me of Suzanne Collins pretending she'd never heard of Battle Royale
Honestly, Collins is more believable. The story’s Japanese and the movie is too. We all know how Westerners who aren’t anime fans are like when it comes to media not in English.
@d_alistair-years Nah. It was one of the best selling books of the year it came out, so much so that a movie was greenlit and released within a year of publication. Writers and in particular publishers knew what it was. Taking inspiration from other works is fine, denying it is pathetic.
@@Goddamnlackofnames still that doesn’t mean that she knew what battle Royale was, you Weeb. I knew that battle Royale was a movie before I knew it was a book and that was only after watching it for maybe the third time. Regardless, even battle Royale is not an original idea and comparing hunger games to battle Royale is just silly because they are two very different stories. One is about the fall of a government/empire due to the rebellious actions of one tribute being unwillingly propped up as the symbol of hope for the resistance, the other is about children misbehaving in school being sent to an island for three days to fight to the death.
@LiminalStatesPhotography Firstly, you may not have heard of it but I'm gonna assume you don't work in literature publishing. Secondly if that's what you think Battle Royale is about you might wanna watch it again. The ripoff was so blatant she even copied the plotline of the terrible Battle Royale film sequel to make her own sequel lmao
@LiminalStatesPhotography Also, you just described the plot of the trilogy, not the first book. Try again.
Loved the way you broke this down and managed to change the way I view the film entirely. I've never seen more than a few scenes from 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' and only knew the general plot, so it wasn't obvious to me that this movie leaned on it so blatantly. But I think the fact that I didn't make the connection speaks volumes about what 'Saltburn' really is because the movie still managed to give me this mysterious feeling of emptiness the whole way through. Like I was hungry and seduced into believing that I was going to be fed at every turn, but then I was just given ice to suck on instead. It's like the performances, plot and cinematography were all carefully designed to get the audience salivating, but then there is no real return for the appetite it builds because there really isn't much underneath. It's artsy and beautiful looking and the story hooks you enough to keep you invested as a viewer, but those qualities basically trick you into liking it because it's really just trying to pass itself off as a unique and exciting film the whole time.
"Like I was hungry and seduced into believing that I was going to be fed at every turn, but then I was just given ice to suck on instead." You managed to formulate a single sentence that perfectly illustrates life during late stage capitalism.
I like this, and I agree, it is wasn’t satisfying enough after the build up, even though I enjoyed it visually
I completely agree with this, I felt the same watching it in theaters. However, I can kind of let it go because it serves as a perfect metaphor of the exact conditions in the movie and the "draw" of the Catton family. The movie is enticing and seductive and beautiful but ultimately unfulfilling and shallow, just like the lifestyle of the family and the whole appeal of Felix and Saltburn.
@kaseygrace1396 Yes, you are totally right and I think that's actually a great point! There is a 'full circle' quality to the movie's design where the story itself and the style in which the story is told are one in the same. They complement each other and work together to make something that is both alluring, but empty. So it works literally and symbolically, which is definitely very cool. The movie actually becomes a lot more enjoyable when you look at it as being more self-aware than it seems. So it fools us in that way too lol.
@JacquelineDeWitt12 that's such a good point it almost makes me like the movie 😂
Saltburn will go down as one of the most overrated movies I have ever seen
It was the Euphoria of movies -- looks great but IS NOT.
When finished it, I was so confused. I thought, "Why do I feel like I wasted my time? It was a good movie ... Right?"
"barbie" is number 1
The movie is great and you just wanna be special by criticizing something that many people like 😂
@@enterthevoidIiand many people dislike
@@enterthevoidIiIs the concept of other people having different tastes completely new to you? Do you think people are faking when they dislike foods, music or movies that you like? What an insanely main character take lmao
'It's a class war alright, and we're [the ruling class] winning' -- Emerald Fennell, probably.
This is the perfect fake quote 😂
Sure Jan 🙄. She’s brilliant and did an amazing job depicting class warfare in this movie
@@user-ft3vt6se3n Did she now? What did you learn?
@@grmgt she had an outsider pretending to be poor and manipulating his way into a family and lots of room for ambiguity. She totally flipped the script. Please call her a “nepo baby” because she grew up rich 🙄. Enough already, the criticism this woman gets is ridiculous, she’s lovely from all I’ve seen and is now my favorite director with this and Promising Young Woman
@@grmgt I, for one, learned that the English aristocracy are, in the main, genial, well-meaning folk, while the middle-class are conniving, craven, and duplicitous. Working class? No--I'm not sure I know what you're talking about; that wasn't covered in the film...
You kept saying that Farley tried to sell their stuff, but part of the twist was that Oliver framed Farley for that by stealing his phone after basically assaulting him. Justice for Farley.
Yeah this kept sticking out to me. At first I thought it was just intentionally wrong as a framing device for the part of the video where the twist is finally mentioned, but even then it makes little sense, and I now would actually believe that she totally missed that, considering just how much of this movie she seemed to have missed.
A LOT of people I know make this mistake to the point I think it must be just that the viewer is exhausted by the time this is revealed and just don't care lol
@@clockwork_mindthe point she makes still stands
Then she shouldn't be making the video in my opinion@@juliab9709
"She" didn't even fully grasp the movie, lol.
One take I saw from someone was that the “shocking” scenes for which the viewer is meant to feel disgusted - I.e., bathtub,, grave, “vampire” hook up - should be juxtaposed against the scenes in which we feel “social disgust” for Oliver - ordering his eggs over easy only to send them right back bc runny yolks hurt his tummy, no one remembering his name while singing happy birthday, the awkward as hell karaoke song.
why?
I get the comparison on a surface level but ultimately I just feel like these are two different films in tone and intent. I think the fact that the fam in saltburn isn't "evil" and is just vapid is part of the point. Flelix being normal is part of the point. Because it's still a commentary on the desire of money and class that exists, and I feel it actually works better when the rich people are functionally neutral.
Saltburn for as much as it does on the surface have in common with Ripley is telling a completely different story.
Agreed
yes
Barry Keoghan's character was basically a a tumblr version of his 2017 ''The Killing of a Sacred Deer'' other character lol
Lmao 100%
barry keoghan is the tumblr version of tumblr if it were a tumblr post instead of the tumblr platform as a whole
Huge agree on most points! The only thing I disagree on is how I read Oliver's final monologue. The movie, while deeply flawed, did actually do a decent amount of footwork trying to convince us that Oliver is an unreliable narrator who tends to lie. Therefore, his final gloating monologue strikes me as discordant with his previous actions (wanting to kiss Felix, the grave scene, the bathtub scene); it makes me think that his actions are purposefully out of alignment with his words and this is him almost "saving face." He's trying to convince himself that he's this conniving villain who wanted to assume Felix's identity, rather than this pathetic lustful man who just wants his straight bestie to love him. The director for all of her flaws did emphasize the obsession and lust aspect of the film, and if you chose to view his monologue and "victory dance" as mournful and deceptive, it at least provides a little more clarity into Oliver as a character.
Was this super clear in the film? No. Of course not. But given Oliver's clear obsession with Felix, it's not a stretch to think that Oliver is at least in that way similar to Tom Ripley --and that Felix would still be alive if he reciprocated Oliver's feelings.
Ooh I like this take.
Isn't this reinforcing the "gay serial killer" then? Victim-blaming the straight man for not being homosexual, and painting the homosexual character as inherently deviant because they don't fit into society?
There are a couple negative responses to Brooey's analysis, and they center on Oliver just being a weak, cowardly homosexual who takes apart an otherwise good family. This seems to be a conservative lens of Mr Ripley, that there are parasites amongst us, and they tend to be the sexually deviant people, rather than an analysis of what the experience of viewing yourself as lesser-than does to a person.
I'll be interested to watch both films, perhaps in one weekend and compare the two. Perhaps the problem is the same, but framed from above in one, and below in another.
Honestly if they had done it that way, and made it pretty clear that he's actually in denial at the fact that he's stuck with no one now, permanently living a lie, it would have been really impactful. Almost like him getting his comeuppance
@@Batchall_AcceptedYes! I don't think he was motivated by wealth, he just wanted a companion. I too wish they'd done it this way, emphasising his victory is hollow.
Someone I know said on Instagram that Saltburn is one of the best movies she's ever seen. Felt "Heavy Silence of the Lamb vibes from this, iconic" she said, that last sentence gave me psychic damage
I completely agree with her, please tell us we have bad taste by all means 🙄
@@zogwort1522 what does this movie have to do with a tumblr blog? And I haven’t finished silence of the lambs but need to but they both have serial killer plot lines
@@zogwort1522 I thought emerald used the images great and I’m so sick of people looking deeply into shit and finding things to talk shit about 🤷🏻♂️
@@user-ft3vt6se3n ?? We are commenting on a video titled
Saltburn: The Tumblr-ification of Cinema. And maybe you wouldn't feel so worn out by people looking deeply into film if you weren't here in a FILM ANALYSIS video
@@user-ft3vt6se3n you could've fooled me that you are sick of people looking deeply into shit and finding things to talk about when you are the one leaving the most comments out of anyone on this entire youtube video. try scrolling up, that'll help with your sickness of looking to deep and then spamming things to talk about.
I personally think Oliver's middle-class pretending to be poor masquerade is more modern than ppl give it credit for. I have noticed plenty of middle-class ppl masquerading as working class, or at least downplaying that they grew up well. I was a scholarship kid at a private school, and ten years on still have a handful of friends from there. I have heard them first hand downplay their family wealth or their upbringing. Ppl are embarrassed or ashamed to be rich. One of my best mates is from one of the richest families in my country. Grew up in a mansion. Everything you could possibly want. Yet to strangers, she completely downplays it, obfuscates and hides it. Edit to add: as someone who did grow up pretty poor, i just think it's interesting. However I think that could've been explored further - that Oliver thought being poor made him interesting. That he wasn't wealthy enough to be rich and exciting, but not poor enough to be hard done by. Though I actually think this sort of idea would have worked better in THIS era, as I feel it's most prominent now.
24:27 Your English correspondent confirms his posh credentials by thinking that Nottingham is in the North, rather than the Midlands. Unironically hilarious.
seriously that guy was ridiculous
His point was that nobody knows where Nottingham is.
It's in that nebulous nowhere place sometimes called The East Midlands.
He's also not correct that posh people are only in the south- if you go to the landed gentry level they are all over the country, because they own the land.
Nottingham is in the North
@aeddiefarmer true but the spread is more south-centric regardless of it overall spanning the whole nation
In addition to making great points about how much Saltburn sucks, this video is a lovely tribute to the Anthony Minghella. Really shows how talented and insightful he was. Since he is sadly no longer with us, this video helps keep his work alive and hopefully exposes him to new people who can appreciate his films
It definitely did and I will for sure check out the talented mr. ripley!
“Mom I want the talented mr ripley!”
“we have the talented mr ripley at home dear.”
“but mooooom-“
As someone who likes Saltburn, I enjoyed this essay a lot; it's given me something to chew over while I re-examine my view of the movie. As other commenters have already expressed (and more eloquently), what I took away from Saltburn was a story about the 'new' class of billionaire -- the upper classes that are eating each other, replacing a banal evil with a calculated evil -- which to me was why the Cattons are presented as cruel in a very subdued way, a very hands-off and isolated way in comparison with the person that we know Oliver to be at the end of the film.
BUT it is fascinating to learn more about Emerald Fennel and realize that I, too, am in part imagining the film that I would have liked to see -- and, through that exercise, did blindly see from my theatre seat. Comments on this video remark on the film as a 'Fear the Poor' film and I can absolutely see it; my own privilege reinforces my blindness, my lack of attention to the ways that Saltburn is uncritical of the Cattons, and is uninterested in choosing and conveying an inner life for Oliver.
But at the same time, I think there is a sort of value in the understated play of Oliver -- that rather than making us complicit with his actions, with his path through the story, it should serve to alienate the viewer from ALL of the characters on the screen; that it should serve to, through its twists, shock the audience as we are informed that Oliver is a different, perhaps worse kind of evil than the Cattons -- that the idea that there could be no worse evil is foolish; that it is the money, and the love of money, that will continue to produce worse and worse kinds of people -- worse, and worse ends.
But the film doesn't go there, and I don't think Emerald Fennel would have liked to.
I think the problem with Saltburn is that people went into the film expecting it to be a criticism of the upper class when Emerald Fenell, an upper class woman, is not able to separate herself from her wealth enough to serve that. Instead, Saltburn is a criticism of the upper middle class and the way they co-opt the voices and struggles of the lower class to cosplay poverty in order to take up the spots reserved within society for those of lower status thus perpetuating a society where money and opportunities only transfers from one rich person to another. As someone who has grown up with Olivers, this film doesn’t ring untrue to reality. Is it a film with impeccable commentary that adds a lot to the conversation? No, but it also shouldn’t be judged as a film attempting to look at the problems of the upper class as that isn’t what it is about.
You say this as if it was a good thing. "I think people were expecting this movie to be a criticism of nazis but because the director is a nazi is actually a criticism of jews so everything is fine." Is a reactionary movie for the Brexit era that just tells us to fear the poor. If you want a film like what you are describing just watch The King of Comedy or Nightcrawler.
In any case if you dont want a movie about class then dont put tons of references in the movie about money. Funny Games is a good example of a movie that is focused on rich people but because the director didnt want to talk about class in that particular movie he left all the references to class out.
@@angelsunemtoledocabllero5801thats a whole new sentence, pretty lazy response
@@dalilaescayola9826 The irony of "pretty lazy response" being a pretty lazy response.
@@angelsunemtoledocabllero5801this isn’t the same at all.
First, this kind of statement is a straw man. The upper class are not nazis and the upper middle class are not Jewish people. It’s a terrible, ugly analogy to make in any regard.
A similar more accurate analogy would be “I think people were expecting this movie to criticize nazis, but because the director is a nazi, it’s actually a criticism of the klu klux klan.”
But in either analogy, it’s sort of a straw man that exists to shut down the other argument before you care to listen.
As a middle clas northern Brit who moved to Oxford in my 20s, new levels of class were revealed to me. Saltburn did a great job of needling at the carefree ignorance, arrested development privilege and cruel snobbery it is possible to witness any given day if you hang around the wrong Oxford pub or coffee shop long enough.
I don't believe Oliver really had his plan from the start, despite what he might be trying to convince himself. I think he was obsessed with Felix, but that translated into a scorched earth policy from over exposure to the contemptible dopes in Felix's circle, and realisation that Felix was never going to be his. That isn't to say Oliver isn't a psychotic creep.
Also, Saltburn is very funny, the funniest thing Minghella ever made was Cold Mountain, but I'm not sure that was intentional.
Did you watch this video?
@@gavriloking5637don't know about Op but I did. But what exactly of their comment is in conflict with the video? It is just a different view one may have on the film: it not being about imitating Ripley but as an absurdist satire of aristocratic Oxbridge snobbery.
Saltburn can be summed up as "Arseholes meet A Monster". Or it could be seen as a House of Cards-style version of Wuthering Heights: a lower class man rises through the ranks of a rich family, and destroys them.
@@planetofthegapeshe’s not lower class at all. Thats part of the plot, he’s basically rich himself and wants to be more than that
Yeah I’m actually kind of shocked that people aren’t picking up on that. I think it’s made almost obvious in two ways:
During the middle section of the film, his seduction of venetia and his reeling back from it when Felix expresses disapproval is super clumsy. It’s not at all a calculated chess master move, it’s more like him throwing shit at the wall to see what works, backtracking when he realizes he makes a miss step.
Then finally at the end what we think is just him narrating to the audience or to himself his diabolical plot is him talking to the mother before he also clumsily kills her. Like he has to say it out loud in order to convince himself “uh yeah.. I planned this all from the start!! Totally..”
In a sense although it is derivative of Talented Mr. Ripley, Theorema, Borgman and dozens of other works that follow the “Mysterious Stranger” archetypal story structure, it does at least attempt to deconstruct it in that sense. I think the media and fans are giving it too much credit, and this video too little.
Me: Saltburn is just Call Me By Your Name with a higher body count and Euphoria filter.
My brother: Right, basically just the gay version of Call Me By Your Name.
Am I misremembering that film or wasn't that about a gay relationship between a teenager and an adult? Or I'm missing the joke
@@crakhaed I think that's the joke.
Nothing better than finding a new channel you whole heartedly enjoy and repeatedly agree with. Feel like part meerkat, part bobbing dog. This video has articulated and itched a scratch I’ve had since watching Saltburn. This shamefully includes never watching TTMR…. Yes I know, it’s top of the watchlist now.
Love from Manchester, UK!
I think another thing which people miss all the time is the fact that Oliver (saltburn) desecrates Felix grave not out of love but out of powerlessness. He's spent the whole movie totally dominating and manipulating every character with the exception of Felix who vehemently rejects him upon learning he lied. Felix was the only character Oliver had no control over so he 'rapes' the grave as his final and fruitless attempt at control..
Farleigh didn't steal anything. He was framed by Oliver, surprised that wasn't pointed out. I also see the Korean movie Parasite as an inspiration.
Me too, n i aint even seen it
It may have been an inspiration, but is kind of an odd inversion. was way better and played with similar themes in a way less confused way.
and that parasite tackles a lot korean issues like them having to lie and network to get jobs and, imitate what makes life in south korea suck apearently.@@MushiePuppet17
so much of saltburn just feels like a long string of "wouldn't that be cool?"s and hearing emerald's starting point be the bath water makes sense
SHAKING THE TABLE!!!
"Elsbeth is callous about Carey Mulligan but I think that's more a testament to a fraud friendship than anything" ok girl but the consequence of her callousness and prejudice because she thinks Pamela's lying is that the poor girl gets killed lol that's PRETTY F*CKING BAD in my books, she was in a seriously dangerous situation and Elsbeth only saw her as a form of entertainment she had grown tired of. Also we are explicitly told about how dismissive she is of the fact, that's insanely cruel, not just rude.
I think you're underestimating just how bad these people were.
They're bad, but the film never actually villainess them for it. It's not just the characters playing it off as if it doesn't matter, the film plays it off as if it doesn't matter. Its a film by a rich posh person where the rich posh people are bad, but not as bad as tbe creepy middle class person looking to take all their money from them
agreed
@@likeawestern335 I think you've completely missed the point of the movie which I initially did as the majority of the audience were coerced into thinking this was a movie about class when it isn't and it's very hard to see that as a result of the Oxford aesthetic we are conditioned to at the start. It is a movie about love and obsession and the endless desire for more and more, and highlights the fact that Ollie's love for Felix wasn't just at the surface level of gay love but rather a love for everything he stood for. The failure of the movie for me was due to the fact that the wrong aesthetic was chosen to convey the ultimate message, and it took me a while to actually understand what the message of the movie is and I think the movie itself gets confused with this narrative too. there are no good characters or ones to root for, and it becomes very apparent throughout the subliminals of the movie that the rich are absolutely horrible for no reason, despite the fact you somehow fail to recognise this?
@@all-caps3927 no, death of the author. Whatever interpretation your deride from the money is true and the money has many elements of class warfare in it which it fails to capitalise on. Therefore saying it fails in doing so is completely valid.
@@all-caps3927 also, that's just your interpretation of the movie you're trying to pass off as fact. Yes the movie has elements of obsession but there's no love. No one in that movie loves anyone. If you've gone into that movie thinking somehow Oliver loves Felix I feel you've accredited a sympathetic element to his character that simply isn't there. Hell, even the family he visits don't love eachother. Oliver is a middle class parasite who worms his way into this family and makes himself irreplaceable in a toxic relationship and kills off any anyone who gets in his way. He's a cancer killing the rich, however the film doesn't know how to frame it properly or even know what it wants to say itself so it also paints Oliver as the villain more so than the rich elite giving this sort of boogeyman vibe from Oliver. Be careful rich people, the middle classes want to steal your fortunes.
If the movie were to end at the death of Oliver, the death of the symbolic character the love and obsession is supposedly built around then maybe I'd believe your interpretation, but there's a further 45 minutes after that devoid of any love, only obsession for Oliver to elevate his status and take their fortune ( his obsession clearly set in the class element there). Hell, that last 45 minutes actively say "hey audience, in case you couldn't tell Oliver never loved or cared for Felix, he just wanted the money".
And even if your interpretation was true, would the fact most people didn't get that and you actively didn't get it on first viewing either not show an incompetence from the film makers POV? Would it not show an inability of the director to get their point across?
came for the Saltburn slander, stayed for the Ripley analysis
While I can understand why the movie made an impact, especially on younger adults due to the more "shocking" scenes going viral and the casting of two popular young men who people thirst over online, as well as its better qualities in the form of the acting and cinematography, I agree with you. Its main success was with people who were unfamiliar with the movie's inspirations. and that it's derivative of older, better works with not much cohesive or interesting to say of its own.
It kind of reminded me of Parasite if it were written by the family in the house. Very aware of the haves and have-nots without the ability to critique the haves.
A brazilian critic called saltburn as if it parasite was written by val marchiori, val marchiori is a famous rich brazilian sociallite, like kim kardashian
ok so?
I agree with a lot of the points in this video. I thought of Saltburn as a "fun movie" and less so as a "high brow film", which made watching it a good experience rather than a disappointing one. If I had gone to the theater seeking another Ripley, I would have enjoyed the movie far less.
In particular, the point about the rich characters not being that bad: I found Farleigh and the nerdy boy at the beginning to be the most dislikable characters. And I think this shows a clear failing in the script/directing, if they were going for true class commentary. These characters are NOT the over-the-top rich ones who are portrayed as the morally bad in Talented Mr. Ripley or similar films. They are the ones who are (upper) middle class, perhaps seeking a way in similar to Oliver. So it seems overall in Saltburn, the main moral failing is NOT succeeding in being rich like the Cattons. Oliver succeeds and is thus portrayed as a sort of hero, gloating in his win at the end. Yes, the film is fun to watch in many ways, but if serious class commentary was the goal, Fennel fell hopelessly short.
Also, I think the phenomenon described here is more a "tiktokification" rather than a "tumblrification", as it makes movies more about sound bites, montages, and shock value rather than substance. This is what people seek with our post-pandemic 10second video attention spans. But I'm still on Tumblr in 2024, writing essays about obscure television, so who am I to talk.
OMGGGGGG do you have a PhD in PsychoAnalysis?!!!!! Can you help me?!
@@samryb 🙄
When I was watching Slatburn, I couldn't stop thinking of Parasite. Its not 1 to 1 but still has the main theme of lower class infiltrating and replacing the higher class. And while I fairly liked Saltburn, I had a feeling that I would rather be watching parasite right now.
'The Talented Mr. Ripley" is seen by some as a remake of "Purple Noon" a French film starring Alan Delon, which is also based on the book. It's worth a watch.
There are clips of it in this video.
It's even referenced at 9:39
Both are adaptations of the same book more than a remake I think.
They’re the exact same story, based on Patricia high smiths novel.
So why is she so pissed off that SALTBURN reminds her of The Talented Mr Ripley? Their both rip offs!!😂😂
I wonder if her being so derivative of talented Mr. Ripley has roots in English/British elitism. Seems like she wants to be known for major classic English works but acts unawares about a seemingly popular American movie/novel. Could be a stretch but it’s highly unlikely she hasn’t seen the movie and thus could influence her 😅
The Talented Mr Ripley was directed by an Englishman, so not sure that holds up!
She has but downplayed the comparisons.
@@jziffi Patricia Highsmith is American
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu Of course, it's an American novel and film. But I'm not sure the idea that an English director would feel conflicted about crediting an American film when the director of that American film was also English holds up. To the degree that she may be playing down comparisons with TTMR it's probably because she doesn't want people to think she's ripping it off.
Yeah, American cinema is so globally dominant it doesn't make any sense to sweep some of it under the rug just because of national pride. It's much more likely she wants to minimise the chances of viewers making this connection for fear of getting dismissed as derivative.
I think it's pretty obvious that the "savior complex" as you put it is what draws Felix to Oliver. Some parts of the movie show how much he enjoys seeing Oliver be at his beck and call and even gets jealous when someone else in his family has his attention. He also seems to like having an entourage and that was what Oliver used to get close to him and gave him a story to become part of his entourage.
Agreed, I’m very confused at her saying it’s unclear what draws felix to oliver shortly after having established his saviour complex. also saying that we don’t see oliver get humiliated when that’s such a pivotal part of the movie in the scene with felix meeting his parents. I agree with a lot of her points but parts of this analysis are a bit patchy and rushed
Do we learn that he had been planning the murder form the start? I thought we learned that he had been manipulative and inserting himself, but I didn't think it was implied that he had always been planning inheriting Saltburn and killing from day 1.
Agree.
thank you for articulating why I had such a tough time enjoying this movie. Oliver isn't a person, he's obviously "sociopathic" from the beginning, and the twists undermine anything interesting the movie might have said. The final twist - that he planned it from the start, means that even the location doesn't matter. It doesn't get to have a "getting lost in the world of the rich" vibe, because its not there, oliver's never intoxicated or allured, he's entirely driven from the beginning because he's just a cipher for thriller villainy. He has no motivations beyond "what's the most fucked up way I can maximise my power in this moment" - which leads to dull reveals and moments which just leave you saying "why"?
He didn't plan it from the start, our narrator is a compulsive liar. We discover this in the movie. Why now are we believing his final monologue that he planned it?
@@henryofskalitz5212 the movie doesn't use surrealism at all, the stuff we see at the end is known to happen. If we can't believe anything we see then its entirely pointless anyway nothing in the movie matters. That's not a defence of the movie its just quite damning that its best defence is "nothing fucking matters"
@@danielklein5829 How does the main character being a lier suddenly equate to nothing mattering?
@@henryofskalitz5212 you're using it to say that we can't trust any of the images on screen, which means nothing matters. Its facile to defend the film by saying we can't trust anything that happens in it
it's definitely not planned, there's so many points where he's plainly uncomfortable and making things up on the spot. he first flattens his tire because he wants an excuse to talk to him and spend time with a dude he clearly likes. every following action he takes is also things done in the moment and not in service of some higher plan.
the end twist isn't even really a twist, it just confirms what you already know about each scene. that he's a sociopath with no morals that's been trying to get what he wants at every turn. initially the man he loved, and over time the power he craved. there's no "this was the plan all along" to be found here and any implication of that is just oliver's ego-trip and justifying himself after losing the love of his life to nothing but himself.
This is a great analysis of "Ripley" which is a truly great film - as Mark Harris (quoted in the video) hinted, in some ways better than Highsmith's book on which it was based. And Dechanel's analysis highlights the paradox that while Minghella's "Ripley" is based on a book that has even been filmed before and yet turns out to be highly original film, "Saltburn" is an original story that turns out profoundly unoriginal.
You hit the nail on the head !!! So tired of predicting every plot with unexplained psychopathy, easy cruelty somehow always just attributable to class. Makes no sense, it's very lazy. TTMR is a simple classic, the murder, outcomes, sexuality were by the by of the fascinating characters, not the main point. Saltburn wanted shock and disgust. Form without content!!
the one point i can think of, right now, that saltburn can make (by making the character a complete psychopath rather than an unbalanced person who can turn off their empathy at certain points but gets hit with the emotional impact aftewards) is that these rich people may eventually attract a human predator that devours them like the their ancestors devoured their competitors while amassing their wealth, so if you just want to see a film where rich* assholes who are "special" because they can afford to be get fucked, saltburn's nice. but ripley is a much better film.
i think saltburn was a gorgeusly shot and well-acted film, but it really should have ended much much sooner. the naked dancing scene just felt like succumbing to a trend of shirtless dancing dudes and reminded me of morbius which isn't good optics.
*people are talking about them being "posh", but "posh" can mean anything from upper middle class to super rich. the family in saltburn is obscenely rich and basically live in a castle. the "bad" they do is pick up people they think are interesting, introducing them to a dream-like way of life (for many people), seeing these people become entirely dependent on them and then throwing these people away when they feel they're not interesting anymore, replacing them with a new person. this is the entire point where they just let one character in the movie die because they're bored with her. they're not actively sadistic but they have no empathy whatsoever. oliver is NOT one of these people, he does not want their approval, he wants their house and their money.
Yeah except the thing about that is that most human predators who get into the lines of work of violence & social engineering are usually hired by families like this with dynasties of wealth to protect themselves. They outsource every household job to life-in professionals, including household security, and they'll see someone like Oliver & know exactly what he is. You don't have the levels of wealth inequality that we do without the wealthy investing heavily into securing everything they have by any & every means available to them.
I absolutely loved Ripley and would not hold Saltburn as any kind of comparison. But I saw Saltburn with two of my English friends (one who went to Eton....) and it was so fun to hear their thoughts on the film. They kept saying "we know all of these people" and remarking how some of those vapid conversations (like not knowing where Liverpool is) had happened in real life. Of course it's satire, of course people would actually know where Liverpool is, but it's overdone on purpose. Ripley feels real and authentic, Saltburn feels overly dramatized and satirical. Both have a place in cinema for me and I enjoyed them both. Although Ripley might be the one I come back for a rewatch, and not the other.
I can’t help but feel like we watched different films as my understanding of it is so different from yours. Emerald was pretty clear that her film is about obsession and the overlap of love and hatred, desire and disgust. It’s not meant to be a commentary on class or the “Eat the Rich” story many seem to think it is, although you definitely can view it through that lens (especially through Farleigh’s character and I agree with a comment I saw that said the film could have more interesting from his perspective).
The biggest issue I have with many critiques of this film is that so many don’t seem to understand Oliver is an unreliable narrator. He isn’t a mastermind who planned to steal their money from the start. He wanted Felix, he was obsessed with him, and once he was rejected he changed course: if I can’t have him, I’ll become him. We literally see Oliver wearing Felix’s bathrobe the morning after he kills Felix. He lucked into Sir James dying and Elsbeth being receptive to him when he put himself in her path again, there’s no way he could have planned how well that worked out for him.
I find it interesting you don’t think the Cattons didn’t treat people poorly. Felix doesn’t just reject Oliver for lying, but also for seeing through him, realizing he wanted a poor pet to save (the way he asks Oliver to describe his poor upbringing is so excited and riveted), for perceiving him for who he actually was. Felix was ready to throw Oliver away after he tried to clean his room, for forcing him to face his own helplessness and reliance on the help that clean up after him and by giving a face to that help/making them human, he only takes him back when Oliver lies about his father’s death. The Cattons don’t see the people that they view as below them as humans. They treat them like they’re disposable and like they’re only there for their entertainment.
Felix enjoys being admired. He knows Oliver is obsessed with him, but he doesn’t see the danger in it. He’s jealous of Oliver and Venetia hooking up because that takes Oliver’s attention away from him. Even if he’s not going to act on it, he wants Oliver’s attention and adoration, he’s used to people fawning over him.
Or maybe I’m just not intelligent enough to critique it the way you have, I didn’t get to finish school, and I don’t how I ended up writing an essay in a TH-cam comment 🤦🏻♀️ I didn’t realize I cared that much lol. Maybe I’m reading too much into it because I obviously liked it. I enjoyed The Talented Mr Ripley too and do think it’s a better film than Saltburn but that doesn’t stop me from still enjoying Saltburn. I’m also probably subconsciously offended at the title because I am a tumblr girly and I’ve really enjoyed the discussions about Saltburn on tumblr 😂 Your title makes me feel like we’re all just stupid people playing pretend at analysis, but I mean, we’re trying? Idk
(Also, Farleigh doesn’t try and steal their things. Oliver framed him when he stayed in his room.)
this is incredibly welll put, don't underestimate yourself as not being inteligent enough because this is a very articulate comment and a great reading of the film. Thank you for having the patience to put all of this into words because I wanted to but could never have made it so good (and short lol)
you are absolutely intelligent enough to critique the film, you understood the movie better than the person making the video, and your analysis was very cogent and well stated. you should keep engaging with the films you enjoy and thinking critically about media, you are not any worse than the author of this video and i think you actually do a better job at it than she did
I know people will likely hate me for this but I felt like Poor Things was also ‘fast food film making’ as far as the plot is concerned.
(Spoilers ahead)
Beautiful, absurd, truly humorous in surprising moments, but the next day I found myself asking… What exactly was the point of that?
She never really became human. She was never deeply affected by the things that happened to her. The plot got extremely convenient. Why is her previous husband just telling her directly about what he plans to do to her? Nothing that should of hurt her actually hurt. If it does for a moment she is soon over it. She somehow miraculously doesn’t get an STI? She was rich the whole time and could call her father to come get her whenever she needed. She just goes back home in the end and becomes her father…. So bored by the end.
Slightly concerned whenever a video like this comes out and people act personally victimized when a movie they enjoy is criticized. Friendly reminder to the angry people: your enjoyment of the movie and people's criticism of it can coexist.
Not in this day and age. Criticism of one's favourite movie is seen as a declaration of war.
People can dislike it, but I’m sick of people acting like things aren’t “objectively good.” Like enough already, so pretentious it’s not even funny
“Just because you like it doesn’t make it good” anyone who believes that can gtf away from me
@@Senate300 disliking it and calling it “objectively bad but you’re allowed to enjoy it” are two different things and I’m not saying this critic Broey does particularly, but some critics really think they’re better than the creator, and if that’s the case, make a “better” movie instead and get off your high horse 🙄
Totally agree with you I love Barry Keoghans performance though. Never liked Matt Damon seems very full of himself.
Being on the outside is where I am often because of other people's ignorance and non judgemental.
I haven't seen Saltburn, but have been really happy with how much these reviews sound exactly like my feelings about Promising Young Woman. That was such a weird aesthetic girlboss approach to SA and r*pe culture, and it had such a confusing message/non-message about the whole topic.
It's funny because I came across some writing at the time that discussed Fennel having a limited/out of touch perspective on some class issues, so it's funny to me seeing them get hashed out a bit more in Saltburn, and still feeling pretty off.
Promising Young Woman, or, "what if a R-revenge movie was written like 13 Reasons Why"
I think Saltburn is effective on something that it wasn't set to be: Depicting a selfish useless person, that is well aware he isn't going to be someone by talent or uniqueness. Just as the music video of Murder On the Dancefloor, the dancer knows she is by far the less talented, and therefore she will only win by eliminating her competitors.
The director is crazy if she actually thinks he is relatable just by the fact that we all know the feeling of desiring to ascend to someone's class and privileges, that's as far as it goes, at least for me.
I did enjoy the movie, but after sitting on it for a few days, i now think i enjoyed the beauty of some scenes, that to me looked like paintings, and the royal like color palette.
i was really frustrated at promising young woman, so to see more critics looking closely and more negatively at saltburn makes me feel vindicated
Yes, this!
I haven't seen Saltburn yet but this just makes me want to rewatch Ripley, it is one of my favorite movies.
If you haven't yet, it's not worth it (it is over two hours long)
“At worst they’re a bit rude” is a wild take on the family in Saltburn.
Thank you so much for this brilliant video essay, it's amazing to see my uncle's work explored so thoroughly. Just wanted to let you know that Anthony was from the Isle of Wight, not the Isle of Man! It's a similar small coastal place though, and you're right about his other background information. Thanks again!
Amazing that you commented!! Are you also in the film business?
Minghella died too young. I really appreciate the television work he did with Jim Henson in Henson's later stuff. I vividly remember Juliet Stevenson in one. His work on The Storyteller is among my favourite works ever put to screen. May your uncle rest well.
@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 The Storyteller is absolutely a top notch project and I wish more people knew about it! Thank you X
That was very polite of you. To say the Isle of Man was similar to the Isle of Wight. They’re both islands. It’s true 😂
Your uncle was amazing
@@MFLimited it was an innocent mistake, no point in getting annoyed! Indeed they are both... Islands 😅
Thank you - missing him always but it's special to have so much to remember someone by
As a British viewer, I think I have a slightly different perspective, but I broadly agree with your analysis. I liked watching the film, although I think it is a film that benefits a lot from it being shown on a big-screen (I don't think I will ever re-watch it at home), but I think you hit the nail on the head as to why I enjoyed it when you called it fast-filmmaking.
For context, I haven't seen or read any of the materials you demonstrate Saltburn is pulling from, so I only noticed the horror references in certain shots (Dracula, The Shining) and that definitely shaped how I interpreted the film.
I've got to say, given my perspective on the film at the time, it has been a little weird for me to see Emerald Fennell double down on the idea that the film is a piece of class-commentary, because I only really enjoyed the film by the end by dropping the class analysis entirely. In fact, I would have gone as far as to claim at the time that the entire class framework was intended to act as a misdirection from the real purpose of the film, which I thought was to deliver a tongue-in-cheek, self-aware kind of popcorn murder mystery.
As the film was set in the UK, I thought the film was pulling from a traditional sort of TV show that is popular here, which is British murder mystery shows. Obviously, the US has plenty of those shows, but in the UK I think we have a different variety of them whereby the appeal is almost inherently ironic (the most prominent example is 'Midsomer Murders', but there are plenty of others like 'Rosemary and Thyme', which is about a pair of elderly gardeners solving murders in their village). These shows come to mind because they are usually set in rural countryside areas and have predominantly posh characters in them, like Saltburn (Richard E Grant is exactly the sort of actor that we would expect to be in one of these shows).
While these shows have an air of authenticity and seriousness, that only serves to heighten the sense of irony felt among the audience as the plots themselves are openly absurd. And they're fun to watch because of this ironic element. This is what I thought the final twist of Saltburn was supposed to deliver, particularly with the preposterousness of Oliver's plan and the silly, triumphant tone of the final dance sequence. It felt almost like a joke at the audiences expense for assuming that the events of the film were intended to be profound in some way, and I was happy to take that joke. However, Fennell's comments on the film make that interpretation a lot harder to still have as it becomes clear that she was just conceptually confused; the real irony is that she is probably completely unaware of the murder mystery shows I am talking about to defend the movie hahaha.
Lol well then it's good for us as (re)viewers that she insisted on promoting Saltburn as class commentary piece. If she didn't and kept it ambiguous, we could've mistaken the movie for some kind of quietly brilliant meta deconstruction or smth. But I guess this interpretation is still salvageable, we just need to assume she's like RDJ's character in Tropic Thunder, staying in character until Blu-ray release.
I would call the mom’s callous comment about Pamela’s death pretty “bad”. And you see the change on Oliver’s face the same when they can’t remember his name singing happy birthday to him.
My favorite new descriptor of something that you could enjoy but we won’t be talking about in ten years time: it’s a fun romp.
The thing about commenting on class is having the eye and actually understanding the mentality of the class. If you aren’t poor and never had a real relationship with one, you won’t understand the shame of putting back groceries when you realize you can’t afford it at checkout.
Saltburn is written by a wealthy person without empathy for the poors to have a complex relatable protagonist
Your "tumblification" comment about this film is the same issue I took with the movie X. It's like watching an Instagram scroll of a kid who just discovered Brian DePalma, Tarantino, and the 70's.
I cannot begin to tell you how much I disliked X. Horridly vapid.
It's funny how differently people experience films. I dug X because it felt like a love letter to the horror genre while exploring the parallels and stigmas of the horror genre/violence and p*rnography/sex, amongst other things.
The same reason I like Saltburn quite a bit is because it feels like a big homage to Talented Mr. Ripley. It's far less subtle than Ripley, but it's a very entertaining B movie.
I don’t know how we’re supposed to root for Oliver - I knew he was manipulative from the beginning and not loyal to his friends. But then when everything comes out, I just feel pure disgust which just gets stronger and stronger. I want him to face justice, not feel compelled to understand why he does things.
“If that’s a crime then consider me guilty” 😂😂😂
But Saltburn, despite being pretty was absolutely empty. So THANK YOU! I was so confused how people liked it.
i really enjoyed this analysis and it made me learn about movies im excited to watch now, but i have one basic thing about saltburn i saw so differently that i didnt have such a bad opinion of it: the opening of the movie shows oliver saying he didnt love felix WHILE showing us shots of him where he's clearly watched with love?lust? envy? so he immediately striked me as an unreliable narrator. By the end when he says he planned it all, i never took it at face value, i understood it as some sort of reframing of his actions for him to cope with them