Emerald Fennell’s Saltburn divides audiences with its provocative visuals and lush aesthetics, but ultimately fails to deliver on its promise of depth and satire.
Emerald Fennell’s sophomore feature, Saltburn, has ignited a heated debate among viewers and critics alike. The film, which initially gained attention for its successful limited release in the US, has left audiences divided. While some see it as a flashy and self-satisfied mess, others find it to be an absorbing erotic thriller with titillating shocks. Saltburn’s provocative visuals and luxurious tableaus of wealth and debauchery have captivated audiences, but do they mask a lack of substance and narrative intention?
The Power of Vibes:
Saltburn’s divisive reception can be attributed to its reliance on vibes, those abstract and ineffable feelings that can be evoked by art. Vibes serve as a powerful tool in cinema, allowing filmmakers to transport audiences to different times and places. Films like Sofia Coppola’s Priscilla and numerous festival circuit entries this year have effectively used vibes to communicate the unspoken human experience. However, Saltburn’s preoccupation with vibes raises questions about the balance between aesthetics and substance.
The Vibes of Saltburn:
Emerald Fennell is undeniably skilled at creating vibes. She employs luscious montages, nostalgic needle drops, and dioramas of beauty and brawn to immerse viewers in the world of Saltburn. The film opens with a focus on the physicality of its characters, emphasizing desire and intoxication. Saltburn wants its audience to feel first and think second. While this approach can be enchanting, it can also distract from the film’s lack of depth and narrative coherence.
A Lush but Hollow Satire:
Despite its attempts at satire, Saltburn ultimately falls short. The film revels in its opulent setting and plot twists, but lacks the necessary substance to deliver a meaningful critique of wealth and class. It echoes the vibes-rich but substance-lacking TV show Euphoria, which has also garnered a divided response. Both projects mistake vibes for depth, overestimating their power to engage and provoke.
Botched Nostalgia and Lazy Vibes:
Saltburn’s attempt to capture the nostalgia of the mid-aughts feels haphazard and lazy. While the film sets itself in 2006, it fails to capture the specificity of the era. The lack of smartphones is not enough to create an authentic sense of time and place. Additionally, Fennell’s use of nudity, sex, and violence often feels gratuitous and disconnected from genuine human character development. Shocking moments become mere opportunities for visual impact, lacking narrative intention.
Conclusion:
Saltburn’s reliance on vibes and aesthetics may have captivated audiences, but it ultimately falls short of delivering a coherent and meaningful narrative. While vibes can be a powerful tool in cinema, they cannot mask a lack of depth and narrative intention. Saltburn’s provocative visuals and lush aesthetics may be enticing, but they fail to provide a substantial foundation for the film’s supposed satire and exploration of desire. In the end, Saltburn is a film that prioritizes style over substance, leaving audiences divided and craving a more fulfilling cinematic experience.
Leave a Reply