Saltburn is perhaps one of the weirdest movies I have ever seen. There are scenes in that movie that I never believed would be put to screen, and that I don’t believe I can describe in a school newspaper. But beneath the surface of a perverse dark comedy lies a film so complex that it has been labeled by the Guardian as “the most divisive film of the year.”
The story follows Oliver Quick, who is welcomed to the Catton family and their estate, Saltburn. The film takes place in 2006, and in an interview with the website RogerEbert.com, Emerald Fennell, the director, said that the time period was a very deliberate choice, stating “If you go earlier than 2006 or 2007, and you even go to Y2K, it’s already back. It’s already cool. It’s already beautiful. Or if you set it now, everyone looks gorgeous. Fifteen years ago, wherever you are in time is lame. So there’s something about this movie that you have to acknowledge that these people are human and that even though they live in this enormous house and that they go to Oxford and all these timeless places, they still are human and fixed in a time that is not that cool.”
However, despite taking place in 2006, Saltburn shows that it is a relatable story that could be repeated throughout the ages, in particular through its settings. Oxford and Saltburn, the Catton estate, are both ancient structures that feel dissonant with the modern world. Wood paneling and oil paintings are combined with vending machines, Superbad, and raves. Saltburn tells a timeless tale of desire and obsession, which is shown no better than with the character of Oliver Quick. Without describing what he does, if you watch the movie, you can certainly see his obsession with the Catton family with every action he takes. Oliver’s antics are certainly shocking and entertaining on a first watch, but on a second watch of Saltburn, the cracks start to show. Shock value is like a well that is running out of water. The first time you use it, you get a lot out of it, but each subsequent time you use it, you get less and less until eventually the well has just dried up. Despite Fennell’s talents, I felt this on my first viewing as well. Towards the end, the more shocking moments just felt empty. This is, in short, the main problem I see with Saltburn.
When you watch Saltburn without the presence of shock value, you begin to notice the problems within the movie. For one, the movie portrays itself as an “eat-the-rich” type of movie, a scorching satire of the elite, yet it constantly glamourizes the wealth of the family. With its gargantuan, opulent manor, plot twists, and daft aristocrats, it revels in everything it claims to satirize. All in all, Knives Out (both the first one and Glass Onion) did it much better than Saltburn. In a more and more prudish cinematic landscape, I do applaud Fennell for going the exact opposite direction with the most graphic and disturbing things imaginable. However, the shocking moments and the candy coating glazing the entire movie doesn’t make up for the things that Saltburn is lacking in. If you are looking for a fun, albeit gross thriller flick to watch and you don’t mind turning your brain off for two hours, I can’t recommend Saltburn enough. If you haven’t seen it, I would recommend it just for the experience alone. All in all, I mostly agree with the general consensus of scores given to it by IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metascore, and give it a 6.5-7 out of ten.
