Saltburn, Explained: Does The Ending Ruin The Film? 

.Ms. Obrien and Thomas and Cora would of Sniffed him out!

I agree, his dance was the final F*ck you that tied it all in together! We knew the entire time that he was psychotic, creepy, weird. Once he killed Felix it was clear where the plot was headed. So yeah 100% same as you said, the end was the reveal of the full picture and then he Danced off into the sunset (saltburn) feeling like a murderous queen! 😂

I was actually hoping that Felix's death ACTUALLY was going to be an accident. I feel like that would have subverted more expectations...and only then does Oliver really try to take advantage 100% (following a small psychebreak after the death)

@@ciaraskeleton how did he kill felix when with what good coke.

@@johndean4727what was this mindfuk of a sentence?

@@johndean4727 what?

100% agree! The lunch scene was chilling

Haha exactly! Even though Oliver basically “had the last laugh”, i’m glad that Felix caught him on his bull$h@t. That psychopath was so embarrassed 😅 lmao

I soooo fucking agree with you!!

omg yes it reminded me of the part in Great Expectations when Pip is embarrassed by his uncle...Oliver was so wrong for treating his family like that. And I totally agree abou tthe lunch scene, it was so tense and beautiful and the red curtains and the overflowing wine were just visual genius

I felt like the curtains making the room red was just too obvious. And I'm no film connoisseur but maybe there's been a lot of movies lately that create those kinds of visual.

I personally interpreted the monologue to be a continuation of Oliver’s lies, with him lying to himself and the audience when he repeated “I hated him” over and over again, as he had fallen for Felix somewhere along the way in his plan to acquire their estate, and had to process his feelings for him in the weird, twisted way that he did. I think Fennell is smarter than that and that it’s on-the-nose nature was supposed to showcase his true malevolence whilst showing that his lies have ran so deep that he even lies to himself to cope and attempt to tell himself like he had the edge over them the entire time and was their true superior

100%

Come on, there is no way you already knew that he slashed Felix’s tire to get him to be friends with him…

@@martinep.3384I think part of the point is that we didn’t need to know that specifically. It could’ve become clear he was this kind of puppet master without it actually showing us the lengths he went to

@@martinep.3384uhh not right away, but once we met Oliver’s parents, I immediately knew him and Felix’s meeting was orchestrated. I even leaned over to my friend & said I bet he did something to his bike in the beginning 😭 Ambiguity would’ve helped the ending. If the entire family is dead, I don’t think a smart audience would need it spelled out that Oliver is the cause of their demise.

⁠@@Daniella9658I think the scene with Oliver’s real parents showed how frustrated and complacent he was with them. They were so happy to be middle/upper middle class and have a boy that was as accomplished as Oliver, but he wasn’t at all content with that. Even when they mentioned his sisters he was pissed because the attention wasn’t all on him.

Ya when I watched it the most basic layer was “eat the rich” vibes. But it just had so many layers if you’re willing to donate you’re time to a concept.

Generally agree with indiajohnson4149's statement, just have a bit of an issue with the class parameters she uses and that frame the following replies. My understandings come more from studying 19th century and early 20th century Brit Lit, so my understandings are somewhat dated. The primary difference between middle class and upper class is title not wealth. A person in "Great Britain" could have all the money in the world, but if they were not at least a baronet, they were middle class. Enough money would make them upper middle class. Conversely, a person could be penniless, but if they are the Duke or Duchess of Decayedgentryville, then they are upper class. With enough money one could purchase a title ("indirectly", of course) but the idea that one had to work for or earn money (outside of Parliament, the law, the church, or the military) to do such a thing diminishes the "blueness" of ones titled blood, because this undercuts feudal understandings of title and accepted concepts of the divine right of kings and the great chain of being, no matter how far these concepts had been obscured and decoupled by the Industrial Revolution and then furthermore by WWI and the advent of Modernity. This would render Oliver's actual family middle class (not untitled titans of industry, but economically comfortable and likely petite bourgeois... small business owners or middle managers in a large corporation). They could be working/middle class as they may earn a very high wage as highly skilled labourers, but there are some stereotypical class markers that the film provides that would argue against a working class distinction and this doesn't quite suit the dynamics being examined in the film, though possible). This ruins his crafted deception to the Cattons as a protagonist in a Dickens' novel: a virtual and destitute orphan, but yet a "natural" Christian whose abilities and intrinsic goodness shine through to show that he deserves and should be able to climb out of his designated station of poverty and its accompanying dangers. This persona he adopts and is effective in endearing him to the Cattons is a very traditionally Liberal conception (think Locke, J.S. Mill and Bentham, less contemporary ideas of diverse social inclusion), as it provides/d a rhetorical vehicle for social advancement for the middle class that is at once palatable to the "charitable and generous" nature of the upper class... or palatable to some in the upper class for reasons of, perhaps, authentic goodness or some sort of self-aggrandizement (i.e. Are the Cattons good or self-preening?)...... N.B. I don't ascribe to this outdated and outmoded thinking especially as it is often an attempt to ascribe ethical evaluations to people or groups based on socio-economic circumstances, achieved through merit or otherwise. But that is not to say that these ways of thinking and understanding are absent from the schemata of human cognition regardless of their inaccuracies. I believe this is part of what this film is very actively examining and through allusions is conversing with many films and novels that explore this socio-economic dynamic alongside individual desires (which themselves are affected by socio-economic concerns that regulate everything from fashion to gender norms). This film references The Talented Mr. Ripley, Gosford Park (especially the American producer's "butler"/Hollywood actor researching a role character), Brideshead Revisited (which itself references Jude the Obscure), The Little Stranger, The Turn of the Screw, Oliver Twist, David Copperfield (especially the David and Steerforth relationship), A Modest Proposal, and A Midsommer Night's Dream. Oliver, in some ways, even resembles a far more successful version of Uriah Heep from David Copperfield.... all of these texts in print, stage and film adaptations are highly cognizant of and thoroughly examine and question class and socio-economic distinctions in concert with individual desires because these desires cross these boundaries and can disrupt these orders, which not only complicates the fulfillment of these desires, but excites the fears of those potentially affected by these disruptions, whether they are in the forms of people or gods. Their collective subject matter is truly fascinating and critical in understanding who we are as individuals and as a community of interdependent beings numbering in the billions. Discounting the collective to the individual in the interpretation of this film is a disservice to it, even if it is more effective on an individualist level (imo) Guess I needed to get that off my chest. Thanks for listening if you made it through the whole scree.

​@@crowboggsyou did a lot of talking but nothing to say

@@cowsgomooono, you just didn’t pay attention, or get its

Toward the end of your second paragraph I immediately thought “he COVets!” Á la Hannibal Lector. This is well put.

So well said, I love your interpretations! And totally agree, but you articulated much better than I could.

This is an excellent interpretation, and it actually answers a question that I had in my own comment.

it's not just a better lens, but it's actually what the movie's themes are. from its first look, everyone involved in the movie just talks about how it's a story about obsession and desire.

This is generally what I took away from the movie and what the director talks about when discussing the film. I'm not sure this take really interpreted the points of the movie quite right

Call Me By Your Name... Sigh 😔😢 that film broke me, as did the book. 😢😢😢

This is the proper way of describing saltburn hahaha

You left Out The Talented Mr Ripley

And fall of the house of usher and Harry Potter

There were a lot of references in the movie too, which feels cheap when the movie isn't up to par. It's like, thanks for reminding of better media, I guess?

It honestly feels like a movie about upper class fear of an uprising. I got that impression but it was confirmed when I heard emerald was upper class herself.

Venetia literally says “you ate him up and licked the plate.” It is about antisocial desire and greed etc etc but in the end a middle class boy destroys an entire family and takes the crown of their wealth. He turns their savior complex, treating him as a toy, into a tool to dehumanize them in turn. He kills them when he sees they no longer serve his interests. The film doesn’t explore the reasons behind this beyond an obsession to obtain what seems out of reach. So it’s there, but not explored well

Mhm true but I’m never a fan of movies that bait a genre only to switch up the last minute.

Exactly!!!..

​@@theodoe946lol, what.

The best summarization I've seen so far.

Loved the naked dancing through the house. This movie had a couple of scenes that were so original and unique. He was celebrating his victory. Be interesting to see what he would do once he gets bored there by himself.

so relieved to read this, I felt the same way and was surprised by the take in the video

Exactly

Ikr, imagine complaining about a film being “bad” because it didn’t explore/“sufficiently” explore the particular themes YOU personally wanted it to - when even the director herself explicitly said that the focus of her film lay elsewhere.

@@alexbennet4195 there is a troubling rise in that form of criticism i've noticed. judging the movie not for what it is, but instead for what it should have been. which is just misguided imo

I thought the same!

Or the butler!

Same! Him or the butler. Kinda some loose ends, but all and all a great film.

Too much of a good thing. 😊

Ugh Farleigh had such a punchable face

I thinks it has more to do with a foreseen of him dieing. By that time he didn't want to "save" Oliver from poverty 😅 it it happened before he learned the truth I can totally see it but seen him with angel wings right before dieing it totally a foreseen

I loved it!

That’s exactly what I did. Didn’t know anything of the plot or synopsis never watched a trailer nothing. I literally decided to watch this movie because I’m a fan of Barry keoghan and loved the still of him in a suit with the castle in the back. Walking in totally clueless, I loved the movie so much. Maybe they spoonfed the ending but it didn’t affect my mood on the movie at all

@@rickjamesdos2239I thought the ending was so fun even if spoonfed. And I loved him dancing nude thru the mansion. That guy has a fabulous body! And the song w his dance made me giddy lol

I think most movies (if not all movies) should be experienced just like that: walk into the theater, knowing little to nothing about the story, and just experience it.

Wonderful movie 🎉

This. The film is masterfully directed (at least the first hour and a half) but the writing was just okay.

I think it was pretty easy to pick up on his bad motives and weirdness tbh. And saying he hates him because he can't accept that a) he did love him and b) he wanted him and wanted to be him so badly that it turned to hatred and resentment

He switched on a dime. It wasn't clear until he just suddenly became bad. @@shanxiety

@@KittiyKyat I disagree. Did you not catch that something was up with him literally right in the beginning when he said he didn't smoke (he's dishonest to Felix) and stood outside his window smoking (intrusive, no boundaries, obsessed)? I found it fairly clear with a satisfying escalation. I'm of the opinion that ending speeches are for the people who missed something or didn't pay much attention

@@shanxietysame i noticed the smoking thing and how creepy he was watching felix and sneaking around right away

You are forgetting that sex is not always about sexual desire or love. Sometimes it is simply about power and conquest and that is what Oliver’s sexual deviance was truly about. It wasn’t necessarily that he wanted to love Felix by the time he arrived at Saltburn, he wanted to exert power over him. That’s why he fucks his grave. That was the only moment he was able to truly conquer Felix: when he was dead.

I thought Saltburn as a movie was pure psychopath.

​@@Senate300Oliver was a psychopath, not a sociopath

Saltburn is the brilliant hybrid of Brideshead Revisited and the Talented Mr. Ripley.

I actually loved the villain monologue and loved the fact even more that he was saying this to Elspeth (Rosamund Pike)….interestingly enough Rosamund Pike played a villainous character in Gone Girl and had a villain reveal monologue too that a lot of people love 😂 I literally watched this movie for Rosamund and she was my favorite part of it. Loved that the director had fun with that monologue scene. 😂

I can see what she was doing 😂 when she got Oliver (Barry) to say this Elspeth (Rosamund) at least that’s my take on it.

I’m just so glad they didn’t have “Ollie” doing anything with elspeths body 🤮

@@anakinjmanu I know what you mean! For a sec I thought….is he gonna go the Ted Bundy way???? Lmao 🤣 frrr

@@carolinagoldgirl8706 that would have been my last straw and I would have ended it there 😓

Woww I like this!!

This is very astute… I’m impressed and delighted because it’s kind of rare for people to take all this into account-I mean the background or personality of the director and/or writer of a film. But that’s so important when analysing art. Regarding your last question, I think Fennell wanted us to sympathise with the “poor” rich, to feel genuinely sorry for these hapless victims of a psychopath. “Oh, some of them were awful, sure. But not all the time, and not as awful as HIM. And they were right to look down on an interloper and right to judge him harshly. It’s only natural for them to be cautious because look what can happen.” What do you think?

finally someone said what i was thinking as well. thanks everyone in this thread!

Beautiful analysis!

i would just like to add that from an evolutionary psychology perspective, the desire to guard wealth makes total and perfect sense. people always want to bash the rich and sum it like its simple greed, like they should be more inclined to share and give a bunch of their wealth away or something, but the truth is that they want to maintain their status and lifestyle the same way as any of us in any other class would, out of fear of falling into poverty.

I really loved it. And the audience laughs and gasps during it was so much fun. Not everything has to be a commentary about race and class. Of course that was set dressing for the much bigger theme of obsession and love. It doesn't need to go deeper than that. The audience can surmise those for themselves.

except for the stupid police.

Yep! I kept waiting for it to be revealed that the scenes with him messing with each of the family was all a delusion after the scene with the broken mirror. Or at least be a little more ambiguous.

I think it would've been better if Oliver didn't kill Felix and it was just fortune instead that he died that night. I think it would've been more impactful if Oliver technically never had to kill anyone and the family sort of collapsed on itself as a result of Oliver's presence and manipulations.

@@Ray03595 I actually agree. I sort of thought maybe it was implied he provided the drugs in the champagne, but it was "up to" Felix to decide to drink it. But having it just be an accident would have been best. I'm also a bit confused as to how Elsbet was injured?

​​@@Ray03595Oliver has to kill the family for the themes to make sense. He can't just be given Saltburn. His obsession with Felix and all that the Saltburn estate represents requires Oliver to take it rather than remain passive and be given wealth by chance. The film goes so far to explicitly say that he's a predator and they're his prey.

I don't think him killing the family was the twist. I saw the twist more as Oliver planned everything from the very start, showing that he was always a monster rather than evolving into one.

It was obvious to me in the first half of the film that he was manipulating each and every individual. He would use flattery, lust, lies, anything to get what he wanted. He was also very obviously callous to others even in Oxford (the girl he hooked up with, the nerdy math guy, etc).

I’m all for good critical analysis but some of these “takes” genuinely make me question… do you even want… art? Because it sounds like you just want… propaganda. It sounds like you want a film that will cover the exact political talking points that you personally want it to cover, and end with the exact strong political message that you want it to have - the less ambiguity, the less questions raised (instead of answers given), the better

@@alexbennet4195 I guess that might be a result of people “over-politicizing” everything these days? Particularly in very black-and-white terms: you’re either part of the “solution” or you’re part of the problem.

She's an incredibly talented director. This feels like something that didn't take much eirk for her sadly

Class was all over the film. It just didn’t bash you over the head with it and made it nuanced.

@@damonjones7787 My issue is that I actually think it did bash us over the head with it for the first two-thirds of the film, only to let that theme evaporate at the end. The class critique was there, but only as a misdirect. Which to me means that the director thinks the theme of classism is just a fun gimmick and not actually something worth exploring in depth. At the end of the day, I think the film just reinforced the idea that rich = good. Or perhaps even more perversely, that being rich makes you a victim. But that would be a cynical take. My more optimistic take is that the director really just didn’t give it much thought beyond “audiences and critics like eat the rich stories.”

@@Micoke12 Interesting. What are we meant to make of Oliver at the end, now that he is the rich one?

@@HuntingViolets Hmm, good point! Yeah I suppose you could see it as a tale of the horrible length people will go to in pursuit of wealth. But honestly I struggle to understand Oliver’s motivations. He seemed to have some desire to fit in and for the wealthy lifestyle, but his romantic desire for Jacob Elordi’s character seemed far more prominent. The twist that he did it all to inheret Saltburn felt more like a plot device than any genuine revelation of character or themes.

That was quite unrealistic for me. I mean police will obviously suspect him first.

Maybe that’s because the wealthier get away with a lot more.

According to Olivers plan and scheme, Farleigh didnt need to be killed. Oliver only had to make sure Farleigh was partly to blame for Felix death and being cast out from the family forever, which Oliver successed with.

I had issues with the third act but god damn this movie entertained the hell outta me. I had fun along the way 😂

Me neither. To me, it just added another layer of someone who always had a second intention to the whole situation. Makes the rewatch super fun

He isn’t a “nice guy” though…? He only likes Oliver in the first place because he gives him that “poverty роrn” he wants

Me too!!! I though I was the only one!!!

THANK YOU for this comment. Not every piece of media has to have some profound commentary on social politics, sometimes people just want to tell a story. That's how I looked at this. It was a strange, hilarious, tragic, human, thrilling story that stuck with me, and I didn't need for it to be anything more or less.

Right was Felix a bit sinister, like apparently bringing new friends each summer only to get bored of them. He lowkey probably liked how Oliver was obsessed with him. He also seemed unbothered when Pamela died.

Is it underdeveloped or did the writer want us to determine these things for ourselves?

Agreed!

Problem is, the story didn't sit right, so 'over-thinking' it is hard to avoid if you're the kind of person who prefers logic. The third act is a mess. If you love it though, yeah, perhaps don't look too closely...

You're absolutely right. It became utterly ludicrous, not to mention illogical.

RIGHT? And then the "twist" came and I was like...why is this movie treating this like it's a reveal? 😭

@@mischr13the reveal was that aside from killing the family (which you should have picked up), he’d actually orchestrated literally everything. Even from the bike

Horseshit. Ironically, I think it's those of us who do value 'deep' cinema that have some issues with the ending. It's the more mainstream viewers who seem to be loving it without really spotting the glaring holes in the film's logic.

I feel that simply showing his final monologue and murder of Elspeth would've made it very clear that he was responsible for the other two deaths and would've gave the film a lot more nuance

@@q.waiters6666definitely agree

I think a lot of the negative talk around the movie is about how the ending shows a “twist” that was obvious the whole time

Oh wow this is a really interesting insight and a good point! Would love to watch it again thru this lens

I'll jump in because you raise a similar point that came to mind with the mirror smashing scene. Oliver smashes the mirror in the shared bathroom in a controlled fit of anger (he wraps his hand first). Almost miraculously, the mirror is almost instantly replaced without mention. I can believe that the incident would go without mention as that would be part of the unspoken order of the house. I can believe the people hired as staff in the house could replace a mirror rather quickly, but it occurs so quickly and quietly that it doesn't follow and I wondered if the incident only occurred in Oliver's mind. While a question of what actually happened and what didn't is a fraught one in a fictional film, the audience's perspective does not seem guided by a non-objective, unreliable narrator even in a film that is not committed to realism and does not leave Oliver's person or focused gaze. I think the tire popping trap and the ruse of not having the money to pay for the round at the bar likely did occur in the "history" of this film's world, but they don't follow. They reveal Oliver's cleverness and powers of observation all of which aid in achieving his goals, but the logistics of timing in these situations for the "traps" to spring are dubious. They serve a larger purpose than realism in what they convey and how they carry forward the plot, but I found them too non sequitur here. I think this occurred in Promising Young Woman, as well, but it didn't stand out and ultimately matter half so much as I felt it did here (I find Promising Young Woman to be a brilliant film, and this one was a good but (imo) not great film). Agreed, especially here, there is something of a story structure problem that takes away from all the interesting facets of life that the film is engaging with and trying to examine through art. Venetia's soliloquy about Oliver to Oliver being a moth and not a spider is, I found, the most telling and poignant speech to the audience than the rest of the dialogue of the film. Though, maybe she is the Cassandra of this film.

i don't think he targeted felix in the sense that he always intended to take out his family. i think he was infatuated and wanted to enter that circle, and constructed that 'meet cute'. on a rewatch it's evident that farleigh taunting oliver about never coming back to saltburn is what motivates him to switch his objective from being with felix to being felix.

Felix already knew his real background and didn't trust him if he had taken out the family first it wouldn't have worked

What are the missteps in promising young woman

@@rayanneflorence1830 Howdy. Your question may be directed at miguelalbarracin9077 based on your phrasing, but I can show what I saw in terms of timing that could be considered missteps (relative to plausibility). Again, I think Promising Young Woman effectively/affectively works and functions on most every level, but these scenes (especially on a second viewing), challenged my suspension of disbelief mildly. Before Cassandra goes to the Dean Walker's office, she rolls up on the dean's daughter and lures her to a safe location so to menace the dean with her safety to challenge the dean's perspective in regard to the reporting of sexual assault, most especially in her handling of Nina's disclosure. Cassandra does her homework on the dean's daughter to learn her schedule and provide incentives to disarm Amber's mistrust. Believable, but Cassie's timing in finding her and the ease of the interaction to steal her phone and leave her waiting for her favorite band to supposedly appear in a diner, all in coordination to be punctual with the scheduled appointment with Dean Walker... possible and it all serves the greater purpose of challenging the dean and the audiences' perspective, which is breath takingly effective. Is it plausible that everything out of her control within the execution of Cassie's plan breaks her way here (e.g. Amber could wise up before the meeting with the dean either begins or ends and find a way to contact her mother about how her phone was stolen, which I am guessing most people would figure out relatively quickly while waiting alone in a diner), sure, but probable? Again, realism on this level isn't the point and it is plausible, exceedingly clever and shows Cassie's cleverness, intellect and unwavering determination in a variety of ways... the timing is just mildly suspect, which is fine because we aren't interacting with a film that is committed to realism on this level (but very much so on other levels that are far more critical). I suggest looking at the final scene in the same light. The timing of when the cops arrive and the pre-scheduled text messages to Ryan... again, it is both possible and probable that Cassie, even in the worst case scenario of her death at the hands of Al, could fix his (and the other culprits in she and Nina's demise) wagon with the help of the repentant lawyer. On the level of artistic catharsis, this scene achieves excellence. The film is effective in winning hearts and minds to its perspective of real world inequalities that lead to horrific consequences for very real people. It provides at least a moment of catharsis for its audiences. Is some of the timing within an intricate plot a little dubious? A little, but does it really matter in this film? I don't believe so. Is the same timing issue more problematic in Saltburn? I found it so. Still a good film, and if I were able to create a work of art half so coherent and aesthetically captivating as Fennell, I would realize a great deal of personal satisfaction.

I agree

You are so right! I'd never heard of that movie but I checked out the trailer and it's an obvious play on that theme. Nothing really original in Saltburn is there?

@@acechadwick Yep- I liked some of the performances, but wasn't overwhelmed by "Saltburn"- I'm sticking with "Something for Everyone," which lives up to its title.

Right especially the 15+ years this "plan" took. Why not kill James within a year ?

Sweet and empathetic? Were we watching the same character? Felix is callous, but being beautiful and beloved by those around seems to distract from it.

@@AstraeaAntiope Yes the same character who invited his grieving friend to stay the summer with him 🙄

It is possible to do something for selfish reasons that, on the surface, appears generous. Felix's family liked a "project" and someone they could focus on instead of each other: Dear Pamela, Oliver, to a lesser degree Farleigh. You saw how much they actually cared about Dear Pamela when they tossed off the news of her death. Felix was using Oliver by inviting him just like Oliver set out to use him. The way Felix treated all of the women in the film was callous, as were many of the subtle challenges he threw Oliver's way. If you watch Emerald Fennell talk about the film, it is part of the point that Felix is blindingly beautiful but not kind or good (and how beauty distracts us from the facts of his behavior.)@@bouncyshak

@@AstraeaAntiope In the context of planning a family reconciliation behind Oliver's back with his "grieving" mother, the plot hole is still glaring. So much implausible nonsense in the film. More focus should have been spent on the actual text, as opposed to just subtext.

@@bouncyshak That is still not kind. It shows a complete lack of respect for Oliver's boundaries to go behind his back and contact what (Felix had been told) was an estranged, abusive parent and force contact, even when Oliver desperately pleaded otherwise. We know he was pleading because he was lying, but if everything had been just as he said he would have had good reason to break off his friendship with Felix entirely. Felix used people as playthings for his own gratification. The game he liked to play was "Rich Savior."

We got to see his ding-dong!! 👀👀😅😂😂

@@milanakravchenko546 they definitely dropped the ball there😂

Yup a fabricated fear tbh