‘She’d do anything for attention’: The beautiful shortcomings of ‘Saltburn’

Dylan Hostetter, Opinions Editor

Coming off her Academy Award win for Best Original Screenplay for 2020’s “Promising Young Woman,” all eyes were on director and writer Emerald Fennell’s sophomore effort, “Saltburn.” 

The film stars several breakout young actors, including the likes of Barry Keoghan (“Eternals”), Jacob Elordi (“Priscilla”) and Alison Oliver (“Conversations With Friends”), along with seasoned veterans Rosamund Pike and Richard E. Grant.

“Saltburn” follows Keoghan’s Oliver Quick, an awkward Oxford student who accompanies the unfathomably wealthy Felix Catton to his English mansion, Saltburn, for the summer. Once there, a series of tragic events unfold, revealing dark truths and even darker intentions.

One would think that Fennell’s authorship along with such a superb cast would make for an equally superb film, but that is sadly not the case.

Cinematographer Linus Sandgren paints every frame with an affluent decadence, though despite its beauty, I feel the film’s visuals can become wrapped up in their own vanity. It is undeniably well-shot — the locations, including the titular estate, are breathtaking — but some choices seem to be merely for attention, rather than for any deeper narrative purpose.

For instance, the film is shot entirely in the 4:3 aspect ratio which can lead to beautiful frames but also work to suffocate the scene and undermine the grandness of Saltburn. It is as if the film’s visual choices are there to say, “Look at me, I’m cool, I’m different!”

The “look at me” attention-grabbing aspect of the film also bleeds into its script and performances. It is forgivable for a film to have a single scene whose intent is purely to shock, but “Saltburn” is riddled with such scenes.

Keoghan not only ruins bathtubs for an entire generation, but also manages to have his way with the dirt of a freshly-covered grave. The film’s final sequence, in which he frolics nude throughout Saltburn to celebrate his victory, is wildly gratuitous. It was like watching a dog urinate to mark his territory, only much less entertaining.

Oliver Quick’s intentions — left a mystery for most of the film — and his eventual victory over Saltburn’s inhabitants come across to me as extremely contrived. The film juggles the question of his motives — whether he yearns for Felix or merely his wealth — with a less-than-steady hand.

One moment he loves Felix and the next we are told he hates him. It is made even more unclear by the film’s ending montage — edited in a classic whodunnit fashion — whether Oliver intends from the beginning to overthrow Saltburn, or if his pathological lies just lead him to a place where it is his only option.

Speaking of the ending montage, I found it to be utterly goofy. I can take a tack in the bike-tire, but why does Oliver find it necessary to fake-type in a word document in order to look busy? He may as well have been playing a game of Solitaire. 

The lack of clear motive would not have been such an issue for me if Fennell had not been so insistent that this film was meant to explore the desire and obsession of love. I think the far more interesting — certainly more entertaining — theme that she seems herself to be overlooking is the film’s darkly-comic “eat the rich” stance.

One could even be left with a sense of apprehensive satisfaction at Oliver’s adept dismantling of such a self-absorbed and aloof family. But no, this film is not about how the uber-rich are so wasteful, boastful and vain, it is about a weird little guy who is in love with a weird big guy. That’s it, that’s the movie.

“Saltburn” just has so much potential, from the cast — I didn’t even mention the tragic underutilization of Carey Mulligan — to the breathtaking visuals. The film was just too needy for my attention and instead left me confused, frustrated and, in some instances, queasy. 

I mean seriously, of all the things Oliver puts in his mouth in this film, he refuses to eat eggs over easy? Those are some odd standards.