Jump to content

Talk:Saltburn (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

anything to do with the actual town?

[edit]

asking for teessiders-in-exile worldwide. 86.162.182.228 (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem so. EPEAviator (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American English?

[edit]

This article is such a "quintessentially British film", to borrow some words from a Guardian article, surely it should follow British English conventions? To my eye the American dates and spelling look distinctly odd. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the majority of its audience is likely to use American English & the article was originally written in American English, so it should probably stay so (as much as it pains me, a Brit, to say this). EPEAviator (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you could probably say that about most films, given the relative populations? I would argue MOS:TIES here. Not that I'm going to take up arms about it. If someone else agrees, I'm more than happy to do the changes. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost I would encourage rephrasing to simply avoid any unnecessary Americanisms or Britishisms and make every effort to use neutral internationalized English as much as possible. Nonetheless it is a UK and US coproduction by a British director, British subject matter, and a predominantly British cast. It would be strange not to use British English here. (The nationality of Wikipedia articles is not determined by the size of audience, they'd probably all be Indian English if size of audience was the criteria.) -- 109.77.197.48 (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is a film set in the UK with a UK production team and a largely British cast, I think that putting the article in British English is not an unreasonable ask, despite American production companies being involved in the production and it having a wide release in the US. I think MOS:TIES can apply here. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone has changed it anyway. I just fixed all of the dates to adhere to dmy format, per template. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has well-formed policies on this. It should 100% be in British English, per WP:LANGVAR and MOS:TIES. Do change anything to BrE that is not so now (I think the article has been transformed since the original comment was made.) Moncrief (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver - Farleigh Bedroom scene

[edit]

The scene in the film where Oliver threatens Farleigh in the bedroom seems to be open to interpretation as to whether the interaction was consensual or not. While some might argue that any sexual interaction without explicit consent is sexual assault, this is not a standard that applies to descriptions of events in most films. There is ambiguity here in whether the interaction is non-consensual or implies the use of power in a dom-sub type relationship. While Oliver initiates the interaction, it is the witholding of sex that compells Farleigh to say he'll behave - implying consent to ongoing interaction. The interaction should be read in light of the queer relationship and the wider flirting between the characters. Description in the synopsis probably should leave room for interpretation. Gentrifiedkereru (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Anonymous editor has now added "Farleigh gives no enthusiastic consent" which is technically true - but is also true of the scene with Venetia. This creates different standards for the queer and heterosexual interactions in the film.
Thematically, the film implies consent or that this is something Farliegh wants. In all of his interactions with the characters, Oliver first gives the characters what they want (Felix - someone to pity and to care for, Venetia - sex and validation of her body, Elspeth - beauty and validation of her world view, and Farleigh - validation of queerness and the repartee of their power relationship). It is only when these characters fail to live up to what Oliver wants, or they get in the way of his goals, that he punishes them or removes them through manipulation or murder. Gentrifiedkereru (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early 2000s or mid-2000s?

[edit]

Can someone clarify why the mention of early 2000s (and its note for the rationale) as the timing of this film was changed to mid-2000s? Is the system in the UK such that if you're in the class of 2006, that is your first year at university? In North America, the class of 2006 started their four-year studies in 2002. Just curious -- not doubting it, if that's how it works in Britain. Moncrief (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been changed back. Mike Allen 02:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As a follow-up note, why does it now say "In 2022" for the cafe scene? Where is the proof of that? Clearly it's meant to be at some point after the appearance of COVID, and 2022 is a fine guess with the mixture of masks and maskless, but we aren't here to make guesses. Please advise, someone, of the solid proof for 2022, or I'll change it. Moncrief (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pausing on the scene where Oliver reads the Newspaper obituary for Sir James shows he died in 2022 - given the newspaper aricle is referenced by Oliver in the cafe scene, it seems reasonable to assume the scene took place in 2022. Gentrifiedkereru (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Britain, "class of 2006" refers to the starting year, not the graduation year. The film begins in 2006, the main part at Saltburn thus takes places in the summer of 2007. All cultural signifiers (songs, films) seen/heard in the movie also point towards a 2006-07 setting. This has also been confirmed by director and writer Emerald Fennell: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/emerald-fennell-saltburn-interview-2023 Thejooner (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I don’t think the exact year is needed. Just saying in the 2000s suffices. Mike Allen 13:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. "Two countries separated by a common language" indeed! Moncrief (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Categories

[edit]

Not sure why the LGBT categories were removed, Fennel herself has referred to the queer themes in the film. [1] The film has also been covered extensively in the LGBT press and wound up on several "Best LGBT films of 2023" lists.

Might now be labeled a "modern cult classic"

[edit]

A recent edit I made was removed that confirmed that the film, thanks to its high viewership on Prime Video and formation of a devoted fanbase, particularly on social media, has resulted in this becoming a cult film. I found sources that confirm it may now be so:

HM2021 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say only the Harper's Bazaar article is a good source, and the headline is contradictory because it says Saltburn is both a "cult film" and a "smash hit". The article itself says it's now a "cult hit film". By definition, a cult film is one that is not a smash hit on a mainstream level – it has a cult following by a smaller devoted fan base, niche community, or subculture. Personally I think it would be okay if you added that Saltburn has already achieved cult film status and then used the Harper's Bazaar article as a source for that. But I also think that Saltburn has gotten too much mainstream public attention as a hit film and it has achieved too many high profile nominations (including Golden Globe and BAFTA awards) to be considered a classic cult film or "modern cult classic". 2600:1700:E050:8120:1C9D:7187:6FAC:3E8F (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thought: it does sometimes happen that controversial/polarizing films like Saltburn have achieved both cult status and mainstream success (through box office success and/or film award nominations), such as with A Clockwork Orange, but it's not that common. These days, sources sometimes say a movie is a "cult film" when that's really just a marketing ploy for the film studios. 2600:1700:E050:8120:1C9D:7187:6FAC:3E8F (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A cult classic after 2 months of the first release? None of those sources are reliable sources that can be used in Wikipedia. Mike Allen 14:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not common, but some films achieve cult status soon after they're released - such as Eraserhead. If you need a source for that, read this article on Eraserhead by film critic Peter Sobczynski, in which he recalls "David Lynch's one-of-a-kind debut feature that had become a notorious cult classic ever since its 1977 debut."
https://www.rogerebert.com/streaming/defying-explanation-the-brilliance-of-david-lynchs-eraserhead
But the article also shows how a film like Eraserhead was a true cult classic because it was underground. The article says, "When 'Eraserhead' premiered in 1977, it received largely poor reviews and minuscule returns at the box office and might have drifted off into obscurity were it not for the efforts of distributor Ben Barenholtz, whose championing of Alejandro Jodorowsky's 'El Topo' a few years earlier made it a cult sensation through regular screenings on the then-developing midnight movie circuit. Based on little more than a gut feeling, Barenholtz took the film on, and, even after its initial playdates met with little success, he continued to have faith in it and convinced a theater owner in New York to keep it on until it eventually developed a loyal fan base that kept it playing for the next few years and made it one of the most (in)famous of all cult movies." 2600:1700:E050:8120:1C9D:7187:6FAC:3E8F (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saltburn_(film)&oldid=1236932493"