Saltburn as Adaptation?

Saltburn, written and directed by Emerald Fennell and released in 2023, follows the story of Oliver Quick as he befriends Felix Catton, a fellow student at Oxford who is at the top of the food chain. Oliver is quiet and has no friends at Oxford. Felix comes from a wealthy family and lives in a manor called Saltburn. Because of their growing friendship and Oliver facing the hardships of life, Felix invites him to spend the Summer with him at Saltburn. Oliver quickly becomes a part of the Catton family and integrates into the luxurious lifestyle that comes with residence at Saltburn. His goal of befriending Felix seem to be clear throughout the film, until Felix uncovers the fact that Oliver has been lying to him about his past. The next day, Felix is found dead under mysterious circumstances. After this tragedy, the family faces more death. It is later revealed that Oliver was behind it all—not only that, but when Elspeth, the matriarch of Saltburn, passes, she bequeaths the home to him, making it clear that his goal the whole time was to take Saltburn as his own.

The Talented Mr. Ripley, directed by Anthony Minghella and released in 1999, is based on Patricia Highsmith’s novel of the same name, which was published in 1955. On the surface, the film adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley shares several similarities with Saltburn. The film follows Tom Ripley, who is mistaken as a Princeton graduate by Herbert Greenleaf. Greenleaf tells Tom that his son, Dickie, also graduated from Princeton. When Tom pretends to know him, Herbert hires Tom to bring his son, who has run off to Italy and is engaged to Marge Sherwood, home. In Italy, Tom becomes infatuated with Dickie’s life to the point of obsession. This culminates in Tom murdering Dickie and taking over his life, impersonating him and thus making it seem to Dickie’s father that Dickie is still alive. When other characters grow to become suspicious of Tom’s involvement in Dickie’s disappearance, he kills them off as well. The film ends with Tom successfully getting away with all this, but completely alone. 

Saltburn has received some criticism regarding the similarities between the film and The Talented Mr. Ripley. In his review of the film in Variety, titled “‘Saltburn’ Review: A Vicious ‘Talented Mr. Ripley’ Knockoff From Director of ‘Promising Young Woman,’” film critic Peter Debruge comes to the conclusion that “”Saltburn” certainly has attitude, but nothing new to say.” 1  Writing for Medium, Nasir-Allah Simmons terms the film a “Rip-Off,” with the spelling of “Rip” a play on The Talented Mr. Ripley. 2  Such comparisons led interviewers like Patrick Cremona of Radio Times to ask Fennell if Saltburn was inspired by the older film. In that same interview she states in response, “Do you know what? It actually wasn’t really . . . I was sort of looking more at that British Country House tradition of the go-between.” 3  This statement by Fennell puts to rest the idea of The Talented Mr. Ripley having any role in the creation of Saltburn. It raises an interesting question, though, given all of the comparisons between the two films: if the director of a film explicitly states that their product is not an adaptation of an existing text, can it nevertheless still be viewed as an adaptation of that text?

In A Theory of Adaptation, Linda Hutcheon defines adaptation by looking at the reception of adaptations from critics and audiences, aspects of adaptations, and how adaptations engage with their audiences. Hutcheon lands on two separate definitions of adaptation. The first is adaptation as a product which focuses on the act of translation, with the adaptation the end result  of “translating” a story from one medium to another and/or from one culture, time period, character perspective, or narrative context to another. The second definition she offers is adaptation as a process. This is a look at adaptation through the act of adapting. It focuses on the steps it takes to transform the source text. 4

Building on the idea of adaptation as a process of transforming an existing text, Phyllis Frus suggest that, “a transformation is a text that reworks an older story or stories, making a transformation very much like an adaptation . . . But in the vast range of texts that can be called adaptations, there are some that move beyond mere adaptation and transform the source text into something new that works independently of its source.” 5  Using both of these theories of adaptation as a framework, in this article I want to place Saltburn in conversation with Minghella’s 1999 film version of The Talented Mr. Ripley in order to examine the question of what counts as an adaptation. Although Highsmith’s novel is the acknowledged source text for at least one of these films, I want to note that this is a medium-specific analysis that only considers the “standing relationships” between Saltburn and the 1999 film version of The Talented Mr. Ripley. To do this, I now turn to the textual elements that Hutcheon identifies as key sites of transposition and transformation in the process of adaptation: story, themes, characters, and imagery. 6

The Story

According to Hutcheon, story is the main core of adaptations, the through-line between various textual iterations and transformations. 7  This is why I want to begin by examining this aspect of each of the two films in considering whether or not Saltburn can be viewed (in all senses of that term) as an adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley—even if Fennell did not intend it to be or create it as such.  Stripping away the names of the characters and respective settings and time periods, there are striking similarities between the stories of both films.

In one (The Talented Mr. Ripley), we watch as a boy travels to an unfamiliar place in order to befriend and bring another boy home. The first boy is able to find the second, but quickly becomes engrossed with his lavish lifestyle. He finds himself growing obsessed with his new friend, making sure to keep close to him at all times. The second boy welcomes him with open arms, but eventually closes himself off because he finds out the first boy has been lying about who he truly is. Because of the discovery of the lies, the first boy murders the second. Following that murder, the first boy completely takes over the second boy’s life in order to avoid detection of the murder and/or prosecution for it. If someone grows suspicious of him, he kills them off. The film ends with the first boy getting away with murder, but completely alone.

In the other film (Saltburn), we watch as a boy goes to a new place in order to maintain a friendship with another boy. When brought to the new place, the first boy becomes obsessed with the lifestyle of the second boy, as well as with the second boy himself. The second boy is very welcoming, but later discovers that the first boy has been lying about his past. Because of this discovery, the first boy murders the second boy in order to ensure that the second boy does not expose his lies. When people begin to question the details surrounding the first boy’s death, or the second boy’s continued relationship with his family, he kills them off as well. The film ends with the first boy getting away with murder, but completely alone.

When looking at each film like this, it’s hard to know which one is which. The cores of the movies are extremely similar. It is not until we bring in the defining aspects of each film that we can see the differences. For instance, although both protagonists were invited to their new settings, in The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tom is hired to go to Italy and his new friend is unaware of this, but also of who Tom really is. In Saltburn, Oliver is invited to spend the summer at Saltburn as a guest after he tells Felix about the passing of his father and his reluctance to return home to spend the school vacation with just his mother given her history of substance abuse (one of several traumatic aspects of his childhood and his home life that Oliver confides to Felix over the first half of the film). Even in this difference in plot details, though, there is a similarity, in that Felix and Dickie each have no idea who they are befriending. 

Likewise, there is a difference between the two texts in terms of how Tom behaves in the aftermath of  his murder of Dickie and how Oliver behaves in the aftermath of his murder of Felix. Tom tries to completely take over Dickie’s life by pretending to be him, in the process also misleading everyone to believe that Dickie is still alive. Oliver does not cover up the fact that Felix is dead, just the circumstances of his death, leading everyone to believe that it is the result of an accidental overdose. Again, though, there are similarities despite these differences. Both Oliver and Tom take over their victims' lives in one way or another. Tom literally assumes Dickie’s identity while Oliver insinuates himself into the Catton family, eventually assuming Felix’s place as a kind of surrogate son.

Finally, in both films, the protagonists end up completely alone. At the end of The Talented Mr. Ripley, we listen as Tom kills his (implied) lover, Peter. This is his final act of protecting himself from discovery, but one that leaves him completely alone. In the final scene, Tom is shown sitting on his bed in his cabin staring off into space, the voice of Peter playing over the scene. Tom is clearly heartbroken and distraught over of his actions, forever haunted by what he has done. The ending of the film is thus imbued with a somber tone. Saltburn ends in a similar way in terms of Oliver ending up completely alone—after having murdered Felix’s mother, the last remaining member of the Catton family whom he had seduced to get close to—but, tonally, the ending of Saltburn is very different. Oliver may be alone, but that is exactly what he wants. He is ecstatic to be alone in Saltburn and to have full possession of it, as well as to no longer have to deal with the family he once resided with and was secretly resentful of.

The final scene in the film starts with a few shots of Saltburn’s grounds as “Murder on the Dancefloor” starts to play from inside the house. Then a naked Oliver appears. He dances throughout the house, finishing in the first room the audience sees him in when he first arrives at Saltburn earlier in the film. He approaches a puppet box that is also shown in the beginning of the film. Its contents are four puppets, each one representing a member of the family. Above each puppet, Oliver has placed the stones that were thrown into the river upon each of their deaths, a memorial ritual of the Catton family that Felix tells Oliver about on the night that Oliver’s father supposedly died (a lie Oliver tells to further ingratiate himself with Felix). The film ends with a satisfied Oliver installed as the new “monarch” of Saltburn. This epilogue shows audiences that Oliver achieved the goal he had throughout the whole film: Saltburn is his. He is now able to live a luxurious life without anyone standing in his way.

Themes

Themes are another aspect of adaptation that Hutcheon highlights. She contends that, “themes are the easiest story elements to see as adaptable across media and even genres or framing contexts.” 8  She also goes on to say that, “themes must always serve the story action and ‘reinforce or dimensionalize’ it.” 9  There are three themes that I want to focus on in this analysis: class, identity, and obsession. These three themes, I feel, are the most prominent in both films and they are what underpin the story action.

Class plays an important role in both Saltburn and The Talented Mr. Ripley. From what Oliver first tells Felix, he has come from a broken home with two addict parents. He has watched them struggle with their mental health and has grown up faster than any child should. By the end of the movie, we know this was a lie. His parents were never addicts, his home was never broken, and he came from love and warmth. But did he come from money? No. To say he is poor wouldn’t be true, but the wealth of his middle-class family cannot compare to the wealth of Felix’s old money, upper-class family, and he makes that very clear throughout the film. 

Felix finds out the truth of Oliver’s homelife when the two make a trip to Oliver’s childhood home on Oliver’s birthday. When they arrive at Oliver’s house, it is clear that Felix is a bit skeptical due to the welcoming nature of the home. It does not fit the descriptions that Oliver has given him in the past. When Oliver’s mother, Paula, opens the door, Felix is surprised because she clearly is not a drug user. The shock only grows when Paula tells Oliver that his father is in the garden—the same father that Oliver said passed away. As the visit continues, Oliver's lies come out. Not only has he been lying to Felix, but he has been lying to his parents. He has told them that he is the top scholar at Oxford, that he has been a part of plays, that he’s in a union, and on the rowing team. Felix does not confront Oliver at the family home, but he does so on the way home, breaking ties with Oliver in no uncertain terms.

With Tom, we see in the beginning of the film that he is working multiple jobs to make ends meet. When Herbert offers Tom $1,000 to bring back his son, the sum seems very large to Tom. This is really the only glimpse of his true life we get to see in the film. But when compared to Dickie, who is able to move to Italy without a care in the world, it is clear they are in different tax brackets. When we see Dickie in Italy, he is lounging by the coast, sailing, frequenting jazz clubs, but never working. He is able to sail through life on his father’s dime. And, as with Oliver’s jealously of Felix, Tom’s relationships with Dickie is likewise a mix of envy of Dickie and a desire to be accepted by him.

Identity is also a driving force within both films, and it is tied, in many ways to issues of class via the desires of Tom and Oliver respectively to have the lives of wealth and privilege of the men that they befriend and whose lives they eventually assume. With Felix and Dickie, it is clear that they are comfortable with their own identities. They do not need to change, and won’t change, for someone else. They are undeniably themselves. But with Tom and Oliver, they are constantly evolving to fit in with the others around them. Tom quite literally hops from identity to identity. At first he plays a Princeton graduate, but after committing Dickie’s murder he has to completely transform into him. 

Oliver’s identity change is not as obvious as Tom’s. On the surface level, he seems to remain the same soft-spoken Oliver he has always been. When we first see Oliver in Saltburn, he is very soft-spoken and tends to keep to himself. We only see him spend time with one other boy, Michael, while watching Felix from afar. As he and Felix become closer friends, Oliver becomes more talkative. But throughout his stay at Saltburn, the quiet-boy-act is what we mainly see. Of course, the facade slips when left alone with characters whose approval he is unconcerned with like Farleigh and Venetia. In fact, Oliver’s sexual encounter with Venetia is the first time Oliver shows his true colors and his manipulation tactics are made clear to the audience. Overall, he seems to maintain the soft-spoken mask in order to protect himself from discovery. And, in this sense, Oliver’s true identity change actually comes with this act that he puts on for Felix and his parents. He creates a totally new identity in order to keep their friendship alive, just like Tom does with Dickie.

Obsession is the theme that derives from the two others in both Saltburn and The Talented Mr. Ripley. The class status and identities of Felix and Dickie are what drive Oliver and Tom respectively into obsession. They both become obsessed with the lives they find themselves living once they befriend Felix and Dickie, and, with that, they become obsessed with Felix and Dickie. The extravagant lives of the upper class draw them in, like Venetia says in Saltburn, “like a moth to a shiny thing.” Felix and Dickie are exactly who Oliver and Tom want to be. Their obsessions are also what drive them both to murder. Because they have grown so protective of their new lifestyles, they’ll do anything to keep them intact, even if that means killing the person they find themselves obsessed with. 

Characters

When Hutcheon talks about characters being an adaptable aspect of stories, she cites Murray Smith’s argument that “characters are crucial to the rhetorical and aesthetic effects of both narrative and performance texts because they engage receivers’ imaginations through what [Smith] calls recognition, alignment, and allegiance.” 10  To put it simply, characters are an important element of adaptation because of how audiences engage with them—and, through them, with the story. With both Saltburn and The Talented Mr. Ripley, we as the audience are able to gain our own perspectives on each of ther protagonists. Indeed, whether Saltburn can be considered an indirect adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley largely depends on how audiences perceive these two characters intertextually, in relationship to one another and across the two films. 

Dickie and Felix share a lot of the same character traits. For one, they are both charming. This is what causes people to gravitate towards them and what makes their characters so appealing. They are also both very privileged and take that privilege for granted. They do not understand what it’s like to not have money. Felix is used to being able to lounge around the house all day and Dickie enjoys traveling to his heart’s content. Another similarity is how both characters grow easily bored, especially with people. We see both Felix and Dickie flirt with women (despite the fact that Dickie is in a relationship with Marge) and grow tired of them. We even see them grow tired of their new friends, which ultimately leads to both of their downfalls.

We are unaware that Felix has a habit of bringing less-fortunate friends back to Saltburn for the Summer until Venetia brings it to Oliver’s attention. After an interaction between Venetia and Oliver on his first night at the family home, Venetia tells him, “I think I like you more than last year’s one.” That’s the last time we hear about a possible other friend until Felix tells Oliver that he doesn’t want another Eddie situation. He further explains that Eddie was his best friend who came to stay with them, but Eddie developed “a thing” for Venetia, and it ruined their friendship. Although we aren’t sure if this is the truth, or a blurred retelling, we now see how Felix doesn’t hold onto friendships very well. 

Through all of these similarities between Dickie and Felix though, there are also differences. Dickie is manipulative and aware of his wealth, whereas Felix is naive and seems to not understand that there are people who are less fortunate than him. When it comes to Felix’s view of his own wealth, it’s not that he is ignorant of the amount of money he has, but rather he is ignorant of the fact that other people do not have the opportunities that he might have because of it. This is clear in a scene between Oliver and Felix while the two are still at school. Oliver starts to clean up the mess in Felix’s room, aggravating Felix, but Oliver explains that “only rich people can afford to be this filthy.” Although it is a small factor, this brief line of dialogue shows the class differences between them (even if Oliver isn’t as poor as he makes himself seem) and how it reflects in each of these characters. 

At the same time, one of the character traits that both Oliver and Tom share across the two texts is their adaptiveness. Both are thrown into completely new situations and are able to find their footing quickly. When it comes to their true identities being discovered, they both know what to do in order to keep from being exposed. As stated before, both are also obsessive and envious, and both characters fixate on their new lives and friends to the point of completely taking over the lives of those friends. As with with Dickie and Felix, though, there are some differences between Oliver and Tom. Tom is clearly capable of guilt whereas Oliver is not. At the end of The Talented Mr. Ripley, we see Tom sitting in his room, ridden with guilt about killing Peter. At the end of Saltburn, Oliver is literally dancing with happiness. He feels no guilt for what he has done and believes that the Catton family deserved everything that he did to them.

We especially see Oliver’s lack of empathy in the last scene between him and a comatose Elspeth. This scene occurs after Elspeth invites Oliver back to Saltburn  following the deaths of the rest of her family. It is revealed that throughout the intervening months Elspeth “fell ill”—likely at the hands of her returning guest—and Oliver has become her primary caretaker as her health has failed. This scene includes a montage sequence, which I will cover in more detail below, made up of shots of Oliver inching towards Elspeth’s body. It ends with him ripping out her breathing tube, holding the device up like a trophy. This scene shows Oliver’s lack of empathy in stark relief; it’s the first time we see him actually murdering another character onscreen. But we also know that Elspeth was always the kindest to Oliver throughout his stay at Saltburn. The other characters that Oliver had killed, from his perspective, had wronged him in some way. In this case, Elspeth was the last person standing in between him and becoming the owner of the mansion.

Another difference between the two is how calculated they are. Tom seems to be getting himself into some situations by accident and acts in response to circumstance. He didn’t go out of his way to find Dickie, he was asked to. This is unlike Oliver, who planned out each and every little thing in order to meet and become friends with Felix. To drive this point home, we get a montage sequence at the end of Saltburn that replays the chance occurrences that have happened throughout the film and reveal them to have been manufactured by Oliver. For example, it is revealed that when Oliver finds Felix struggling with his bike earlier in the film, leading to their first conversation, it  had actually been Oliver who had previously put the nail in his tire that punctured it. Likewise, when Felix covered for him in the scene in the bar when Oliver did not have enough money to pay his tab, it turns out that Oliver actually did have the money to do so. The final scenes in the montage are Oliver spiking the drink he handed Felix on the night that Felix died, throwing the bottle into the pond, and making himself throw up so he doesn’t also get poisoned alongside Felix. Up until this point, audiences are not certain whether or not Oliver was actually responsible for Felix’s death; this scene confirms that Oliver murdered Felix, just as it confirms that he also murdered Venetia. Before this sequence, viewers already had some idea of how calculated Oliver is, but not the extent to which everything that happens in the film had been strategically mapped out by Oliver.

Imagery

Hutcheon’s discussion of story presentation in relation to the process of adaptation focuses exclusively on how narrative texts address audiences and how audiences engage with the stories that those texts tell (telling, showing, or interacting). 11  Given that Saltburn and The Talented Mr. Ripley are both films that operationalize Hutcheon’s “showing” mode of storytelling through aspects of mise-en-scène and various cinematography and editing techniques, I want to extend this analysis of Saltburn as a possible adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley to also consider set design and visual iconography in both films. It is notable that they stand out visually, taking a step away from the “doom and gloom” aesthetic that typical thriller movies employ. In such films, we are often met with a color palette of greys and blues and dark setting that are intended to invoke anxiety or unease. But in The Talented Mr. Ripley and Saltburn we see bright colors and lavish, welcoming settings. This juxtaposition may potentially add to the appeal of both movies, at least for some viewers, in that with such dark stories we are met with lighter visuals, but also with lovely, visually-stunning sets and shot compositions. Given how unusual this is for most cinematic thrillers, it is also another thing shared between the two films that I want to suggest makes it possible to view Saltburn as an adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley. 

The Talented Mr. Ripley is set in a fictional town in Italy called Mongibello. In actuality, it was shot on location in Positano, Salerno, and Campania. 12  All three of these areas are filled with picturesque buildings in a variety of bright colors, adding to the striking visuals of the movie. We first meet Dickie on a beautiful white sand beach with crystal blue water. As Tom and Dickie venture through Mongibello, we see cobblestone streets that are active with people. The whole town, down to the walls of its buildings, feels alive. When coupled with the actual story, the location and what happens in the film completely contradict each other—at least in terms of tone. The same can be said about Saltburn.

Saltburn is set in England, but more specifically in Oxford and Northamptonshire. The grounds of Saltburn are actually the Drayton House in Northamptonshire, a heritage site “with 127 rooms that dates back to around 1300, and sits within a sprawling, 200-acre estate dotted with feature pools and formal gardens.” 13  It is extremely opulent, initially promising a luxurious and laid-back summer for Oliver.  Even when the film opens at Oxford, what could have been a glum and boring location, we see a colorful library and lively dorm halls. The well-groomed gardens of the campus arguably add to the liveliness and visual beauty of the setting. Viewed alongside The Talented Mr. Ripley, it is difficult not to notice the similarities in production design and aesthetic between the two films, despite the differences in location. It is also striking that both films feature several shots in which the camera lingers on details of the sets, décor, and/or props.

Likewise, the set designs of both films play a key role in contributing to their stories as well as their visual aesthetic. In The Talented Mr. Ripley one of the major locations of the plot action is Dickie’s Italian apartment. He tells Tom that there is a room for him upstairs, so we are made aware that the apartment is very spacious. The design of it is also open and bright. There are paintings on the walls and what we can only assume is expensive décor everywhere. Dickie is likewise surrounded by the books that populate this space, which is decorated with a nautical theme. Dickie’s apartment is a projection of what he wants to be. Although his wealth may not be obviously plastered on the walls, it surrounds him. 

The same is true of Felix and his family home of Satltburn, which is an important enough element of the film’s story that it is also its title. From the outside looking in, Saltburn is a glorious mansion. The grounds are well-kept and stunning. There are intricate moldings on the outside of the home that exude wealth. The same can be said when we see the interior of Saltburn, as highlighted when Felix gives Oliver a tour upon his arrival. On the tour, Felix brings Oliver through the many rooms of the house. If you put the film on mute, you are able to see how beautiful and grand everything is, but when Felix is talking about each space during this tour he points out the quirks—showing Oliver historical relics, a place where he had a sexual encounter with a cousin, family heirlooms. The tour itself shows how Felix is used to the luxuries of his life. The grand house and its many rooms do not faze him, as this is his normal. Oliver, in contrast, is obviously overwhelmed by the size of the house and the class differences between them are an undercurrent in this scene, just as it arguably is in the scenes that take place in Dickie’s apartment in The Talented Mr. Ripley.

As mentioned previously, although we don’t see much of Tom’s home life in The Talented Mr. Ripley, and we know that Oliver is not honest about where he comes from in Saltburn, the settings of each film are central to both their stories and their themes. Tom and Oliver are both engulfed by the wealthy and luxurious way of living that they are introduced to by Dickie and Felix respectively, and they are both desperate to get to live this way too. In this context, I want to suggest that the set designs in both films equally add to what might be termed the “bourgeois-ification” of the upper class in their stories. We see it in the opulent lifestyles both Felix and Dickie lead, as well as the way that both abuse their beautiful homes by creating messes that their staff are left to clean up. We also see it in Saltburn in terms of the elaborate parties thrown by the Catton family. 

Does Any of This Qualify Saltburn  as Adaptation?

As I hope this analysis has made clear, given all of these similarities between the two films, I think it is possible to view Saltburn as an Adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley. Is it a faithful adaptation? Absolutely not. Did Emerald Fennell directed this movie with the intention of it being an adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley? Absolutely not from what she has said on this subject. But when looking at the story, themes, and characters, there are resonances between the two films that go beyond mere similarity in terms of premise. All of this raises the question of whether a film can be an adaptation without the intention of being an adaption. I think this is possible, and I think Saltburn illustrates this possibility, whether one may want to classify the film as an “allusion,” “homage,” or “narrative echo” of The Talented Mr. Ripley. 

In discussing adaptation as both a product and a process, Hutcheon argues that “to deal with adaptations as adaptations is to think of them as, to use Scottish poet and scholar Michael Alexander’s great term . . . inherently ‘palimpsestous’ works, haunted at all times by their adapted texts.” 14  Following that line of thinking, I’d like to suggest that if we accept her contention that—for their audiences and when it comes specifically to audience reception—adaptations carry traces not only of their source text, but also of other, previous adaptations of that same source text, 15  then it is also possible that audiences may experience Saltburn as an adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley if they are familiar with both texts and make note of the parallels between their respective stories, characters, themes, and production design when viewing the film. In other words, audiences familiar with both texts may experience Saltburn as an adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley even if the film’s writer/director did not intend it as such because the parallels they draw between the two films invest Saltburn with a similar form of “palimpsestous” traces of The Talented Mr. Ripley regardless of whether or not they were placed there by the film’s creator and/or production team.

Frus makes a similar argument in terms of Jane Campion’s film The Piano and the ways in which it incorporates elements of the “Bluebeard” fairy tale into its narrative, noting that “the film refers to a variety of literary, historical, and folk texts; these create a complex web of allusions, making the film highly suitable to treat as a retelling of other stories.” 16  It is in this same sense that I am arguing that it is possible for Saltburn to be received by audiences as a “retelling” of The Talented Mr. Ripley. Familiarity with The Talented Mr. Ripley informs the way that we receive—and perceive—the story that Saltburn tells, rendering it an adaptation because of what we know of the other film and the story that it tells. In this sense, Saltburn may be an accidental, unfaithful adaption of The Talented Mr.Ripley, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an adaptation. Instead, it arguably opens up different ways of thinking of adaptation as both a product and a process—albeit a process of textual reception in this case rather than, as Hutcheon discusses, a process of creation. This, in turn, presents both a challenge and a potential opportunity for adaptation studies when it comes to how texts like Saltburn—the status of which as adaptations is contested—are or can be analyzed. 

Footnotes

• 1

  Peter Debrurge, “‘Saltburn’ Review: A Vicious ‘Talented Mr. Ripley’ Knockoff from the Director of ‘Promising Young Woman,’” Variety, September 8, 2023. https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/saltburn-review-emerald-fennell-barry-keoghan- 1235705894/.

• 2

  Nasir-Allah Simmons, “Saltburn- or as I Call It (Affectionately), the Talented Mr. Rip- Off.” Medium, March 28, 2024. https://medium.com/@nasirsmuwci/saltburn-or-as-i-call- it-affectionately-the-talented-mr-rip-off-b700861ace71.

• 3

   “Emerald Fennell Plays down Saltburn’s Talented Mr Ripley Comparisons,” Radio Times, November 17, 2023.

  https://www.radiotimes.com/movies/emerald-fennell-saltburn-talented-mr-ripley-exclusive-newsupdate/

• 4

  Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, Second Edition (New York: Routledge, 2013).

• 5

  Phyllis Frus, “Introduction: Making the Case for Transformation.” in Beyond Adaptation: Essays on Radical Transformations of Original Works, eds. Phyllis Frus and Christy Williams (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co., 2010), 3. 

• 6

  Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 10.

• 7

  Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 10.

• 8

  Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 10. 

• 9

  Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 11.

• 10

   Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 11.

• 11

  Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 22.

• 12

  “The Talented Mr. Ripley.” IMDb. Accessed May 6, 2025. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134119/locations/.

• 13

  Clara Strunk, “Inside Saltburn: the real-life location of the cult film,” Harper’s Bazar, February 27, 2024. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a46419760/saltburn-real-house/.

• 14

  Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 6, italics in original.

• 15

  Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 21.

• 16

  Phyllis Frus, “Borrowing a Melody: Jane Campion’s The Piano and Intertextuality” in Beyond Adaptation: Essays on Radical Transformations of Original Works, eds. Phyllis Frus and Christy Williams (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co., 2010), 21.