This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This movie creeped me out.
Something about how beautiful the people were, and how needlessly Oliver killed them. It didn't feel like the movie wanted me to especially sympathize with Oliver, but it didn't feel like the movie ruled it out either. There were a few instances where it almost seemed as though the movie wanted to make sure the rich English nobles were not sympathetic. I noticed this most when Farley got into an argument with Felix, and nailed him for not bothering to know the names of his valets. Until this point Felix had been pretty admirable and blameless, so I'm not sure what "point" the scene had except to mar Felix with the audience. (Felix also says some clumsy things about race in this scene, which I thought were inoffensive but suspect were meant to convey latent racism.) And so Oliver gradually kills them all, and it seems like a tragedy, but the logic of the movie doesn't treat it tragically. The family sits around in a red room eating supper with stiff upper lips trying not to acknowledge the death of the heir, and it was more dark than comedy.
Oliver is a deeply malevolent force. He kills all those people. He robs a family of their only two children, and sexually desecrates both. It's hard to imagine a more evil act. And it's all almost passed over, as though Oliver's feelings and motivations are more interesting. But a lot of his motivation strikes me as petty rationalizing. He... resented them? But as the ending makes clear he targeted them from the very beginning. In that sense, Oliver isn't a character with motivations, he's a force of nature, he was set loose on the story with this motivation because he was born that way. Every other explanation falls apart.
I also think at least about 30 minutes could have been cut out of this movie. Watching it, at first I was nodding along to the logic, it was a classic looking-in story. Oliver was Nick Carraway, entering this privileged world of the noble elite, with no real important characterization or skill of his own. There's a logic to these kinds of stories. The first scene that told me something was wrong was when Oliver talks with Lady Elspeth about the expulsion of Pamela. Oliver suggests to Lady Elspeth that Pamela might have been lying all along. Hang on, wait a second, Oliver has competence, he's meddling in Saltburn, something is happening here. After that, it became rather obvious to me that Oliver was slowly conquering the place, and so most of the twists didn't really surprise me.
I think the movie could have ended about 30 minutes earlier than it did. The scene in the red room after Felix's death was more or less the right moment. Felix is dead, Oliver is still hanging around, Farley has just been taken out (again), and Lady Elspeth insists that Oliver must stay on. That line of hers makes the rest of the movie a foregone conclusion: he kills the rest of them so he can usurp Saltburn for himself. Nothing that follows is surprising, then, it's all gratuitous. So the movie limps along until the shock (surprise!) twist that Oliver did it all. Which was obvious. The only "surprise" was that he planned it all along, even from the moment he caught Felix with a flat tire. Which wasn't really necessary.
Saltburn reminded me immensely of Barbie. Supposedly, the director, Emerald Fennell, is a protege of or collaborator with Greta Gerwig. This makes a sort of pleasant sense to me, because I thought Barbie and Saltburn shared a few distinguishing features. Both movies start in a happy comedic genre and transition to a serious dramatic genre. Both movies borrow so much from comedy and tragedy that they effectively escape their genres altogether. Both movies have a sort of lurking political bloodlust. Neither one really ends up making a coherent sense. I can't decide if this is a tendency of these two directors as familiars, a burgeoning new style in cinema, a casual series of resemblances, or something important about female creative vision in general that has had less play in Hollywood until recently. I don't think I'm making it up. But if they're really only similar by coincidence, I would ascribe it to this: both movies are very well-executed with excellent design, scripting, and casting, but neither in the end to me made a lot of sense. (They also each could have cut out about 30 minutes, but I would say this of most major movies I've seen in the last 15 years.)
Everyone gave excellent performances and everything looked beautiful.
There a few plot points that didn't make sense to me.
Oliver frames Farley by having sex with him, then stealing his phone to send an email attempting to sell the Palissy plates. How did Oliver know that would work? It's one of those movie plots that sounds fine because it was "supposed" to happen that way. But what if Farley rolls over in the night, looks at his phone, and sees what Oliver's sent? What if the museum doesn't respond, or even notice his email? By the time Oliver wakes up, Farley is already on the way out, so I guess the museum director woke up, decided Farley must be stealing, decided not to try to string Farley along, decided to immediately forward the incriminating email to Sir James, who then immediately decided to call for Farley and send him packing. If I were the mastermind Oliver trying to eliminate the entire family, I would... simply not expect that everything would work so obviously perfectly. Change a single detail and Oliver is screwed.
There's a sort of rollercoaster logic a lot of films operate on, where scenes follow each other in a way that makes sense, but only as long as you don't step back and consider the entire ride. Why does Farley come back the first time, but not a second time after Elspeth dies? Wouldn't Oliver killing Elspeth be incriminating? Isn't it lucky that nobody investigated Felix's body and found poison? In the logic of film, you're not really supposed to ask these questions, and they don't matter while you're watching the movie. But these are sloppy mistakes that matter in the end, when we try to sit back and ask what it was all about. Because if the plot doesn't make sense, then the movie is really about the visceral horror of watching Oliver dismember and destroy this noble family. In which case, the plot is actually getting in the movie's way.
I think Saltburn was very well-made, but I didn't like it. I think it suffers from a serious structural flaw as a consequence of faking a start as a romance or social comedy before switching to (essentially) a vampire movie. This makes it hard for me to parse the deeper "meaning" of the film, because, ultimately, the film is in several places at once.
Interesting. I thought the scene was meant to convey the hollowness of the character's appeals to morality. Farley doesn't really care about the valets, he uses the servant issue and the race issue cynically to try to get money out of Felix.
I agree with you that the film could have been thirty minutes shorter, and that the plot relies on significant "just-so" contrivances (I found marrying the mother particularly eye-rolling). It definitely prioritized uncomfortably long set pieces. I joked with my wife that the censored cable version of it will be better, because the "fucking the grave" scene would cut before the pants are off, the bathtub scene will imply what is happening rather than committing to minutes of it, the final scene will cut at the row of rocks. The film relies on holding uncomfortable scenes for so long that a range of emotions run through the audience, from disbelief to disgust to humor. I felt that the crossing of genres was one of its strengths, carrying a movie that would have been too boring and one note if it had been a straight vampire film.
I also disagree with the theory that Ollie conquered Saltburn, Saltburn conquered Ollie. It's the labyrinth, most clearly in the hedge maze, but over and over it is repeated that "People get lost in Saltburn." Ollie gets lost in Saltburn. He isn't happy at the end, having conquered, he is lost, he is insane, he is miserable. He has foreclosed the rest of his life, sacrificed it to that one summer he will only ever live in the memories of. What does he do with the rest of his life?
I only meant that the movie starts with Oliver as the passive Nick Carraway observer archetype, but a third of the way through he transitions into something different.
Thinking about this some more though, I think you'd be right thematically, except for the plot of the movie. Saltburn definitely conquers Oliver spiritually in the sense you describe. But the twist at the end makes clear that Oliver more or less planned it all out, from before he even saw Saltburn. So I don't think the movie makes sense on its own terms.
There's also the scene where he eats out a bloody Venetia on her period. Although, again, I thought these scenes weren't uncomfortable, just gratuitous. I've encounter more disturbing sexual scenes on 4chan. So they didn't especially phase me. The shot I thought was most disturbing was when he removes Elspeth's intubation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link