#class mobility

As much time as I spend mulling over parallels in this film, one that I had never paid much attention to is the way General Cornwallis attempts to apply the label "gentleman" as a disciplinary measure to both William Tavington and Benjamin Martin. He tells Tavington, "You serve me, and the manner in which you serve me reflects upon me. I would have thought a gentleman from a family as esteemed as yours would understand that." He tells Martin "This is not the conduct of a gentleman" in reference to Martin's killing and capturing his officers. These scenes show Cornwallis's recognition of both men as belonging to the same class as himself and his attempt to use that recognition to leverage better behavior from them. What is interesting is that they both rebuff that recognition, albeit in different ways. Unlike Cornwallis, who has inherited wealth already and is seeking to gain more through victory in this war, Tavington and Martin have both experienced class mobility, and they are both a bit prickly about it.

Tavington responds to Cornwallis in this scene by pointing out that he inherited no wealth from his father. Technically, he is still a gentleman, but technicalities don't pay the creditors. He further explains that he can only advance himself by winning battles, implying that he cannot afford to leave anything to chance because, unlike Cornwallis, he has nothing to go home to if they lose. Tavington's beef with gentlemen of property extends beyond his commanding officer. His first targets at the Martin farm are not Martin's children but his house, his barns, and (what Tavington perceives to be) his slave, all of which are representative of his wealth. We also see Tavington take particular relish in catching Mr. Howard, a Charleston gentleman who has been using his wealth to supply the militia. All Patriots are traitors to his mind, but he seems to see those who are in rebellion despite the wealth they've accumulated under British rule as deserving of special contempt.

Martin, meanwhile, seeks to distance himself from the category of gentlemen altogether. He responds to Cornwallis by shifting focus from his behavior to Tavington's: "If the conduct of your officers is that of a gentleman, then I'll take that as a compliment." Even though we know less about his backstory than Tavington's, it is easy to infer that Martin's origins are what Cornwallis would describe as "rustic." He has an easy rapport with his backwoods militiamen, fondly reminiscing about their dog-eating shared past. He drinks liquor straight from the jug while Tavington and Cornwallis have their claret in tiny classes. He is comfortable doing hard, physical labor and uncomfortable with certain practices of South Carolina gentlemen, namely slaveholding. The film takes pains numerous times to show us that, despite his vast acreage, he's still Benny from the swamp.

The film even frames his contempt for gentlemen differently than Tavington's. While Tavington seeks to enrich his own side with Patriot wealth he deems undeserved, Martin's trophies work to show how unlike Cornwallis he is. The dogs he captures from Cornwallis's baggage train are a symbol of his status. Great Danes were originally used as hunting dogs by the European and British aristocracy, and this particular pair was gifted to Cornwallis by King George. Martin initially uses the dogs as leverage to get a meeting with Cornwallis in the first place, but their loyalty also serves to contrast him as a Real Man TM, an alpha (Robert Rodat is clearly a Caesar Milan devotee) with effete aristocrat Cornwallis.

Yet, in spite of all this, Corwallis and Tavington are right about Martin. He is a gentleman. He has more property than he can manage even with the help of a grown son and one who is near it. He attends the South Carolina assembly by invitation. He married a woman whose sister is an enslaver and then marries the sister. He feels as comfortable negotiating with a British lord as he is cracking open a not very cold one with the boys. He's come up in the world. How did this happen?

All of the film's foreshadowing of the Fort Wilderness reveal paints the event as a source of shame and regret for Martin. He refuses to talk about it. He scolds Thomas for going into his war chest. He hesitates to tell Gabriel the story even after Gabriel has seen him commit similar acts of violence first hand. Most commentors recount the story as evidence of Martin's temper, which we also see on display earlier in the film. But Fort Wilderness is not a story about Martin's loss of control. Martin is not a hero because he avenged the slain, mutilated, likely assaulted British civilians but because the brutality of that vengeance drove the Cherokees to break their treaty with the French, hastening the British victory. Not only did this tactic win Martin the esteem of his community, but his land was likely a reward for his service in the British Colonial Army under King George's Proclamation of 1763. The new status that came with his land and reputation allowed him to marry a gentleman's daughter and father a houseful of kids with her. Everything Martin has that he prophetically fears this new war will take from him springs from this atrocity.

It's clear the idea of being rewarded for such acts does not sit as easy with Martin as with Tavington. Tavington acknowledges that there will be consequences--"I can never return to England with honor"--but he is willing to accept them. Martin appears uncomfortable when Harry Burwell references his fierce fighting at Fort Wilderness, and when he describes himself and his men as "heroes" to Gabriel, he nearly chokes on the word. However, he could have rejected the trappings of heroism like other PTSD sufferers in war films have, including Hugo Weaving's character in Mel Gibson's own Hacksaw Ridge (2016). Instead, he accepts the honors and privileges of a gentleman as a reward for his actions, all while denying that he has changed at all so he does not have to grapple with the reasons behind that change.

There's a lot of talk about if Saltburn is or is not Class Commentary, and I am firmly in the camp that it is a film about class, but from what I have seen online about it, is that people don't seem to think a text is about class unless it is specifically critiquing the Upper Class and their control over everyone else. Because of this, people deny Saltburn of being about class, or that it fails to make any good commentary because it goes easy on the Upper Class.

I've seen reads of this film that boil it down to "poor people are the real villains" which is wild since Oliver lies about being poor and working class. There's people referencing the fact that the middle class was invented to destroy solidarity between the working class to protect the ruling class, and that is pivotal to the reading of this film. But just because Oliver is middle class, does not mean he represents the hero proletariat.

Saltburn is critiquing the concept of Class Mobility. As a narrator, Oliver wants to portray Rags to Riches, by lying about his origins, by ruthlessly competing and manipulating his targets. He fetishizes the Old Wealth of the Cattons. He's willing to degrade and debase himself to gain wealth and power. He has no loyalty or solidarity with anyone.

Just because the Middle Class is an invention to protect the Ruling Class, it should not mean that they are above criticism. The middle class are often class traitors. They appropriate the work and culture of the working class. They will protect the ruling class from the working class, if it protects or grows their own meagre wealth.

I feel like the ones who don't see the class commentary of Saltburn can't see it because they don't recognise it in themselves.

The 12th century Danish chronicler Sven Aggesen told a story of how these men were selected. According to this tale, Cnut had attracted a large number of men and many had not had the opportunity to distinguish themselves in battle.[10] Consequently, he decided to select those that were the most prominent in origin or wealth[10] in order to form a royal bodyguard.[11] Therefore, he had a herald proclaim that only those who had especially valuable weapons would have the distinction of counting themselves among the king's housecarls.[11] After this proclamation, those who were less affluent retired while the successful warriors, who had gathered considerable amounts of spoils of war, used their wealth to embellish their weaponry with gold and silver.[11] He selected 3,000 men who were thenceforth the Thingmen.[11]