For the past few months, I’ve been quietly keeping predictions to myself, but now I’m breaking my silence as more evidence rolls in. When I say ’80s fashion, I know most of you think of something akin to neon leotards and leg warmers, but there’s so much more: bold silhouettes, sequins, color blocking, workwear, and yes – shoulder pads.

Where We’re Coming From

For the better part of the past decade, Americans have been inundated with fashion heavily inspired by the 1970s: long, flowy skirts, earthy naturals, platform mules/clogs, western boots and belts, and a revival of crochet and knitwear. The ’70s didn’t just influence our fashion; we’ve seen a ’70s revival in culture and media: think “Daisy Jones & the Six,” “The Holdovers” and “A Complete Unknown,” the new Bob Dylan biopic.

Where We’re Going

Rather than continuing with the ’70s trend, the Fall/Winter 2024-25 runways screamed what I’ve been whispering for months… the 1980s are back: bold browns, electric greens, dazzling purples, shimmering fabrics, brash blazers, and unapologetically chunky jewelry. The Spring 2025 shows doubled down with dramatic sleeves, ruffles galore, sheer and mesh fabrics, ostentatious florals, geometric motifs, polka dots and large collars.

What’s more, the cinematic world isn’t far behind. “The Substance” (2024) –– starring Margaret Qualley alongside ‘80s icons Demi Moore and Dennis Quaid –– channels the TV aerobics-craze pioneered by Jane Fonda and Richard Simmons. 

Why and What Will It Look Like?

Studies have indicated that fashion trends follow alongside economic ones: when the economy goes down, heels get higher, hair gets shorter, hemlines get longer, and overall, the pendulum swings back into a more conservative style. 

While the 1980s were characterized by a booming stock market which gave way for bold colors and big statements, it is unclear if everything from the ’80s will return this go around, given our current financial climate. After the peak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, former President Biden rebuilt parts of the American economy to the point of outperforming the rest of the world. Despite such, mainstream dialogue surrounding the everyday price of goods caused the economy to become the number one issue on voters’ minds this past election. Although President Trump will inherit the growing economy that Biden left behind, economists predict that Trump’s imposed tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada will significantly affect consumer prices. The “Hemline Index”, transitioning from micro-mini skirts of the past few years to the new high-low and midi-length revival, could indicate the environment of mass economic uncertainty. 

If you’re like me, the first thing I think of when I think of the ’80s is big hair, and the second is the corporate “9 to 5” culture where women flooded en masse into the workforce: riding the second wave of the 1970s, women were educated and for the first time ever, legally protected from employment discrimination. This new ability to obtain success, coupled with the desire to take up space in the office as men did, culminated in the legendary “power suit”. Vogue’s October 1985 editorial spread titled “Power Dressing” displays women hovering above men with text reading, “The women dressing to be noticed … and gain the upper hand. Men can fuel fantasy. But women set the direction … and the tone. You get the sense that things are changing.” 

Following suit (pun intended), designers like Claude Montana, Emanuel Ungaro, Theirry Mugler, Jean Paul Gaultier, and Yves Saint Laurent launched collections containing exaggerated boxy shapes, harsh angles, bright colors and peplums –– all of which blur the lines of traditional men’s workwear with women’s high fashion, letting the wearer declare her power via her wardrobe.

So now, with current and imminent threats

facing women’s autonomy, I find it the least bit surprising that blazers, shoulder pads, and double-breasted silhouettes have started to reappear.

Viva la power suit, viva la 80s.

Contact the editor responsible for this article: Ivy Buck 

Following Donald Trump’s return to the White House, many women online have begun promoting a variant of the 4B movement (or in English, the “4 No’s”) in the United States. This is in part due to the higher gender disparity among voters: according to exit polls, men preferred Trump 55% to 42% while women favored Harris 53% to 45%. This statistic reflects a sense of betrayal felt amongst many of the women and gender minorities who voted for Kamala Harris. Americans’ mimicking of the 4B movement can be seen as an act of protest not just against Trump voters, but also Trump himself, who has been found liable for sexual abuse, faced numerous allegations of sexual harassment and assault, and has consistently made sexist remarks throughout his life.

The implementation of a movement like 4B within Trump’s America is not without significance –– it would provide a means of control over one’s sexuality and personal relationships in the face of an administration seeking to restrict it.

However, the actual effectiveness of adopting the 4B movement from South Korea should be questioned. South Korea and the United States are both culturally distinct, and social movements must be understood within the context of their development. In South Korea, the movement’s gradual growth was primarily due to a mix of radical feminist forums and opposition to an influx of pro-natalist policies which do not currently exist to the same degree in the United States. In the United States, the reactionary discourse around the 4B movement quieted a week after the election in November.

Additionally, the 4B movement in South Korea has faced criticism for its transphobia and misandry. Given the current rise of trans-exclusionary radical feminism in the United States, including in state and national legislatures, the movement’s goals in the United States might accidentally serve to further attack and isolate transgender and nonbinary Americans (who, according to polling from the Human Rights Campaign, overwhelmingly voted for Harris). 

While it might seem tempting to advocate for a complete separation from men in terms of sex and romance, we must ask: does further alienating them actually help the cause? In placing both the fault and burden of punishment for the election results on men, it continues the greater gender rift within the United States which has fueled the political tensions that many Americans are trying to address.  

Contact the editors responsible for this article: Norah Catlin, Ivy Buck

Such talent was certainly visible at Thomas’s  sold-out concert  at Brighton Music Hall in Boston. The small space was packed with people squeezing close together, trying to get the best view of Thomas when he came out. Although the chosen venue was smaller than other concert halls in Boston, it was a smart choice to host the show in such an intimate space: the experience felt more personal, and the chance to share the music with other concertgoers in such a setting was one that can’t be duplicated. 

DJ Toney Handsome opened the show with a unique blend of music that left no dull moment for the crowd –– particularly when he chose to start the night with various theme songs from childhood TV shows, including the aforementioned “Victorious.”  Even if you weren’t a fan or didn’t know DJ Toney Handsome before attending the “MUTT” tour, it was easy to leave with a new favorite DJ. Toney Handsome has a one-of-a-kind ability to create music that doesn’t seem to go together, but makes perfect sense when blended. 

When Thomas came on stage, he hyped up the crowd with the first song on the “MUTT” album, “How Fast.” Thomas immediately followed “How Fast” not with the rest of the album, but with songs across his discography. He also showcased his range of talents –– including guitar-playing and percussion –– allowing the audience to see a range of his talents. That Thomas is a successful writer and producer in addition to his performance talents is no surprise;  his vast knowledge of music and instrumentation shines through  in everything he does. 

Thomas’s multifaceted qualities as an artist were on full display during his performance of “Blue Hundreds,” which was a shift away from Thomas’s usual R&B into Psychedelic Soul.  A combination of soul and rock that was popular in the 60s and 70s, Psychedelic Soul isn’t typically represented in the music industry today. Thomas’s choice to display it was bold and educational, and paid homage to the  genre that has roots in African American communities. 

As the concert ended and Thomas left the stage, the crowd yelled for an encore. A minute later, Thomas re-entered the stage with a “We got something else for y’all” and performed one final song. It was clear that Thomas cares for his fans, and he curated a brilliant experience for everyone in attendance.

Unfortunately, all of Thomas’s concert dates are currently sold out. However, “MUTT”  probably won’t be his last tour. If you get the chance to see Leon Thomas in the future, I would suggest taking it –– the night truly felt like a special experience.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Ivy Buck, Norah Catlin

 “SATURDAY NIGHT” depicts the 90 minutes before the first ever episode of “Saturday Night Live,” commonly referred to as “SNL,” which premiered on Oct. 11, 1975. It reveals the behind-the-scenes challenges faced by the cast and crew that have remained largely unknown to the public –– until now.

 The film’s pacing, set design and casting relay the sensation of “a night in New York City” — as said by Lorne Michaels, the Showrunner and Creator of SNL, portrayed in “SATURDAY NIGHT” by Gabriel LaBelle. The cast is packed with big hitters and each performer captures their counterpart with immense accuracy, in terms of both physical resemblance and minute mannerisms. It’s hard to pick out performances that stand out above others, but among the top performances are Cory Michael Smith, Lamorne Morris and Ella Hunt. The similarities between Smith and Chevy Chase, who went on to iconize ‘weekend update,’ were uncanny, down to his voice, tone, the way he walked and his uniquely egotistical attitude. Hunt as Gilda Radner, who helped to form the comedy and tone SNL itself with her quirks, pulled on my heartstrings with her love for nostalgia and kid-sister-ness. Morris as Garrett Morris, another original cast member,(no relation) could’ve fooled me with the identical singing voice and mannerisms. It was as if the modern cast was possessed by the very icons who revolutionized American television. 

The film’s fast pacing and scene splicing in moments of tension brought a shared anxiety to the theater. Near the end of the movie, I felt like I WAS Michaels – unsure if the show would go on. LaBelle (Michaels) centers the movie, which is not an easy feat considering the chaos in every scene and performance. 

Watching “SATURDAY NIGHT,” I found myself transported to Oct 11, 1975 in New York City, begging Belushi to sign his contract, breaking up fights, putting out fires, worrying about my impact on a new television show and trying to create a home for lost, disregarded comedians and personalities alike. This movie at its core feels incredibly authentic to “Saturday Night Live.” Some jokes fall flat and some hit you right in the stomach with giggles –– similar to the current state of the show, at least according to its younger audience. If anything, “SATURDAY NIGHT” strives to bring modern relevance to SNL and remind folks at home of its original intention – a group of people brought together to make an audience laugh.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Ivy Buck, Norah Catlin

“Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story” follows the first of the creators’ true-crime anthology series on Jeffrey Dahmer. With the high-profile case of the Menendez brothers, who are awaiting a new judge’s decision to free them from their life sentence in prison, the accuracy of their Netflix portrayal could prove incredibly consequential.

In 1989, news broke that brothers Lyle and Erik Menendez were arrested after killing their parents with fourteen shotgun blows in their Beverly Hills mansion. In their 1993 trial, the brothers testified with gruesome accounts of their years being sexually and emotionally abused by their parents, but were ultimately sentenced to life without parole in 1995. 

Released on Sept. 21, “Monster”’s newest season stars Nicholas Alexander Chavez and Cooper Koch as Lyle and Erik Menendez, respectively. Nearly thirty years after their trial, the Menendez brothers –– still sitting in jail –– have regained public focus, this time with new outlooks on the possible motivation behind the murders. 

After three decades, there appears to be a wider acceptance of the brothers’ reports of their sexual abuse than there was in the 90s. Although “Monsters” has generated more support for the brothers and increased public demand for their release, there are still aspects of the show that reflect poorly on Lyle Menendez and Erik Menendez, and that the brothers themselves feel are inaccurate to their true story. 

Murphy and Brennan’s Netflix show establishes a deep connection between the brothers early on, showcasing their bond and support of each other throughout their abusive relationship with their parents, and after the murder. However, in spite of the brothers testifying that there has never been a sexual relationship between them, Murphy and Brennan took a substantial bit of creative liberty, portraying them as incestuous with a kissing scene in the second episode, and a nude showering scene in the sixth. Furthermore, actor Chavez displayed countless fits of rage throughout the season while portraying Lyle Menendez, despite a real-life testimony from the extended Menendez family that Lyle never so much as raised his voice.

Erik Menendez reportedly felt the show is detrimentally inaccurate and represents the brothers, and male sexual abuse victims, in a negative light. Erik claims that there are “blatant lies rampant in the show,” and that the portrayal of him and his brother are “disheartening slander.” In response to Erik’s statement, Murphy claimed in an interview with “Entertainment Tonight” that 60 to 65% of the show “very carefully” centers “around the abuse and what [Erik and Lyle Menendez] claimed happened to them.” Murphy also stated that the release of the show is “the best thing that has happened to the Menendez brothers in 30 years in prison.” 

During their time in prison, the Menendez brothers have spent time proving themselves to be far from their “monstrous” portrayals. In 2018, the brothers founded “The Green Space Project,” a prison reform initiative to improve the living quality of inmates. Additionally, Lyle Mendendez received his bachelor’s degree in Sociology from UC Irvine in June 2024, and runs a support group for fellow inmates who have experienced sexual abuse. Public supporters of the brothers, namely Koch, Kim Kardashian and over a dozen members of the Menendez family, are calling for the brothers’ sentences to be shortened, and for them to be released from prison. Lyle Menendez and Erik Menendez both currently await a new decision regarding their sentence, and will attend a hearing in downtown Los Angeles on Nov. 26.

While the Netflix series was riveting and certainly grabbed hold of the internet’s attention for weeks on end, it’s crucial to consider the extensive creative liberties Murphy and Brennan took with the Menendez brothers’ story. Had the show been an original concept rather than an inaccurate narration, exploiting the trauma of real victims, I might have enjoyed it more. If you’re considering watching the show, I implore you to take it with a grain of salt and approach with caution.

Contact the editors responsible for this article: Anabelle Meyers, Ivy Buck

Charli XCX’s album, “Brat” sparked a viral trend of “brat green” and “brat summer.” Together with Troye Sivan with his long-awaited full album “Something to Give Each Other,” the artist Charli greeted fans across the world with her latest “Sweat” tour. 

In Boston’s TD Garden, singer and DJ Shygirl opened the show with an energetic set, featuring songs like  “4eva,” “FREAK,” “thicc” and more. Unfortunately for her diehard fans, she did not play “Coochie (a bedtime story).” 

At exactly 8:30 p.m., Troye Sivan greeted us with his first song of the night, “Got Me Started,” which prompted an explosion of screams and excitement from the sold-out venue. 

After Troye’s three-song solo set,  he handed off the stage to Charli, who emerged from behind a four-walled, three-story “Brat” green curtain. She launched into  “365,” followed by an unreleased remix featuring Shygirl. Charli’s “Brat and it’s completely different but it’s still brat” remix album, coming out Oct. 11, will include this Shygirl collaboration. The “Sweat” tour has a unique advantage; by having two separate artists switch back and forth throughout the show, there were ultimately no breaks in between songs, which kept the audience on its feet, screaming out lyrics for the entire night. Stunning, close-up camera work followed Charli, Sivan and their dancers around and off the stage. Large TV screens on both sides ensured that each audience member had a clear view of the artists.

At the end of the concert, Charli and Sivan returned to perform their encore songs: “I Love it,” “Track 10,” “Honey” and Sivan’s hit song that dominated parties lately – “Rush.” The duo closed the night with Charli’s “Talk Talk” remix featuring Troye Sivan, a preview of her upcoming Brat remix album.

If the “Sweat” tour is coming to your city and you don’t have a ticket, I highly suggest that you enter your local radio station’s contest. You never know – you might win the opportunity to have a brat fall.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Ivy Buck, Norah Catlin

A casual glance at recent headlines describes the current conversation – “The sad, painful death of Saturday Night Live,” writes Spiked; “The Internet Isn’t Dead. It’s Saturday Night Live,” according to Wired; “Is It Finally Time to Put ‘Saturday Night Live’ to Bed,” writes The Wrap. When SNL was on break due to the recent writer’s strike, a 2023 poll curated by Newsweek revealed that 50% of American adults said they do not miss SNL at all. The show is also losing the interest of younger audiences, namely Gen Z, as comedy moves away from sketch comedy and towards platforms like TikTok and YouTube. Declining ratings confirm this verdict: Season 47, airing in 2021, saw a 35% drop in ratings from the previous year.

Despite the “death of SNL” allegations, the show is preparing for its 50th season next year, in 2025. Clips of sketches still garner millions of views on Youtube and X. Just this season, SNL reclaimed some social cred by inviting in-demand celebrities to host, such as Bad Bunny, Jacob Elordi and Ayo Edebiri. Recent musical guests on the show, like boygenius and Olivia Rodrigo, also demonstrate SNL’s attempt to attract viewers from the younger generation. In a determined effort to remain relevant, an Oct. 2022 sketch portrayed Miles Teller and Mikey Day as bank robbers in the middle of a heist when the hostages’ BeReal notifications go off. Teller is convinced to download the app (“It’s the only honest social media,” claims Bowen Yang’s hostage character) and to take a selfie of his robbery, incriminating himself. 

SNL’s endeavors to grow its audience fall short of addressing the main critique of the show – it’s just not funny anymore. After the departure of some of its bigger breakout stars in the past few years, such as Pete Davidson, Kate McKinnon and Cecily Strong, SNL has failed to produce a new generation of talent to guide the show into its next era. This problem stems from an over reliance on big-name cast members to guarantee views, which worked when said cast members were still employed at SNL but proved tricky when they all departed. Most of my favorite sketches are from such past seasons, including “The Californians” and “The Shooting AKA Dear Sister,” played by legendary cast members “at the peak” of their comedy career. 

 Personally, I believe that SNL is just in a transition phase. Recent additions to the cast, specifically Devon Walker and Chloe Troast, seem promising. Troast, who was just named one of Just for Laugh’s New Faces of Comedy, made headlines with her breakout sketch, “Little Orphan Cassidy,” where she plays an orphan wondering why nobody will adopt her. “Is it ’cause of my hair? Is it ’cause of my laugh? … Is it ’cause I’m 26 years old?” Troast delivers. “Wait, what?” the Moon, played by Timothée Chalamet, responds. 

It should seem obvious that there are peaks and valleys to SNL’s sketches. While many viewers reminisce about departed cast members and complain about the comedic talent of the current cast, there are certainly still good moments. For example, Scarlett Johanson’s recent parody of Alabama Senator Katie Britt’s response to the 2024 State of the Union Address was praised by audiences and received 5.7 million views on YouTube. 

Though SNL may not always strike comedy gold, it’s been considered as a pillar of American comedy and social commentary for almost fifty years, which should be taken into account before completely trashing it. If SNL wants to hold on to its audience, though, the show needs to invest in the growth of its newer cast and discover what younger generations deem to be funny.

Before I go into my favorites, as always, let’s first get into what you should know of this year’s Academy Awards. The most nominated films rank with “Oppenheimer” leading with 13 nominations, followed by “Poor Things” with 11, “Killers of the Flower Moon” with 10 and “Barbie” with eight. 

Amongst impressive records, there were several notable nominees. Steven Spielberg extended his record for most Best Picture nominations to 13 for “Maestro.” John Williams beat his own record again of most Oscar-nominated person alive (with 54 nominations) for Best Original Score for “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” Martin Scorsese became the most Best Director-nominated alive, surpassing Spielberg with his 11th nomination for “Killers of the Flower Moon.” “Godzilla Minus One” became the first Godzilla movie from its long franchise to be nominated for an Academy Award (and by God, I hope it wins; it was a phenomenal film) for Best Visual Effects.

Of the acting nominees, three are openly-LGBT+ actors: Colman Domingo, Jodie Foster and Lily Gladstone. Lily Gladstone also became the first Native American to be nominated for Best Actress for her incredible work in “Killers of the Flower Moon.” Similarly, Scott George is the first member of the Osage Nation to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Song for “Wazhazhe (A Song for My People)” from “Killers of the Flower Moon.” 

The 96th Academy Awards is the first time the Academy has enforced diversity rules for the Best Picture category, designed to encourage an “equitable representation on and off screen to better reflect the diverse global population.” On top of this, nobody pulled a “Riseborough,” with no surprising nomination coming out of the blue, which the Academy had discouraged last year. For the first time since 2001, the Academy announced a new category for Best Casting, which is set to be included by 2026. However, they were criticized yet again for not recognizing stunt performers and performances as their own category at the awards, considering it’s one of the film industry’s oldest art forms. 

Amongst the controversial, Greta Gerwig was snubbed of a Best Director nomination for her film “Barbie,” resulting in massive uproar among film fans. Even more surprising, Margot Robbie was not nominated for Best Lead Actress for “Barbie,” despite her co-stars Ryan Gosling and America Ferrera having garnered ones. Likewise, Leonardo DiCaprio was snubbed from an expected nomination for Best Lead Actor for “Killers of the Flower Moon”. 

There are several personal favorites I believe were snubbed from this year’s awards. There were no nominations for Pedro Almodóvar’s western short film, “Strange Way of Life,” Charles Melton for his role in “May December,” Dominic Sessa for his role in “The Holdovers” and Celine Song and Greta Lee, respectively, for Best Director and Best Lead Actress for “Past Lives.”

Now onto my top picks for who I’d like to see win this year’s Oscars! For Best Original Screenplay, David Hemingson’s “The Holdovers” deserves to win as one of my personal favorite films to have come out recently. The premise of a strict teacher (notably played by the incredible Paul Giamatti) forced to chaperone students who’ve got nowhere to go on Christmas break really sold me as a concept and a film, regardless of the predictions pointing towards Celine Song’s “Past Lives.” 

While predictions also point toward Da’Vine Joy Randolph for Best Supporting Actress for her work in “The Holdovers,” I personally favor Danielle Brooks for her fantastic role as Sofia in “The Color Purple.” As the only Academy nomination the movie received, and all other snubs accounted for, it would be remarkable if Brooks won, considering she previously played the role on Broadway. She has been one of my favorite actresses in recent years, coming from incredibly comedic roles in “Orange is the New Black” and “Peacemaker.” My pick for Best Supporting Actor is, unsurprisingly, Robert Downey Jr. for his role as Lewis Strauss in the brilliant biopic, “Oppenheimer,” whom other predictions point to as well for greatest contender. 

Against popular opinion and what my friends know about me, my top pick for Best Leading Actor isn’t Cillian Murphy for his role in “Oppenheimer.” While I am a big fan of Murphy, especially in “28 Days Later,” “Batman Begins” and “Breakfast on Pluto,” my heart and pick goes out to Colman Domingo for his role as the gay civil rights activist, Bayard Rustin, in “Rustin.” Domingo, a prominent gay Afro-Latino actor, has been one of my favorite actors ever since I first watched him in “Fear the Walking Dead.” If he were to win, he would make incredible breakthrough records as the first Afro-Latino as well as first openly-LGBT actor to play an LGBT role.  

Similarly, my top pick for Best Leading Actress is, of course, Lily Gladstone for their role as Mollie Kyle in “Killers of the Flower Moon.” While overall predictions are split between Gladstone and Emma Stone for her role in “Poor Things,” when comparing the two films, I just absolutely fell in love with Gladstone and their performance. If they were to win, they’d achieve an accomplishment most of us merely dream of: fulfilling her high school superlative of “Most likely to win an Oscar.” I can’t wait to see her star in more films to come after such an incredible film debut. 

Of the Best Animated Film category, I believe each one deserves the award. However, if I were to choose one above all, it would have to be ND Stevenson’s “Nimona.” Adapted from the graphic novel, the film has an impressive take on different types of love as well as gender identity. Mixed with a fantasy fairytale storyline, stunning vocal performances from Riz Ahmed, Chloë Grace Moretz and Eugene Lee Yang and a one-of-a-kind animated style, it makes it my top pick of the season. I have no idea who might truly win considering the popular predicted nominees are Hayao Miyazaki’s “The Boy and the Heron” and Phil Lord and Christopher Miller’s “Spider-Man: Across the Spiderverse,” but “Nimona” has my full support. 

Now, like how all Academy Awards end, here’s my top pick for Best Picture. In a not-so-surprising manner, I have to agree with what everyone else believes will be the winner, Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer.” As a huge fan of Nolan’s work, “Oppenheimer” is one of his most awe-inspiring, with an enormous, star-studded cast. As someone who also had a huge hyperfixation on the history of the atom bomb when they were 12, I am astounded that there is now a movie dedicated to it, and that people now know about J. Robert Oppenheimer and the horrors he helped contribute. With its 11 nominations, as well as the number of other accolades the film has received, “Oppenheimer” is a total shoo-in. 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and predictions. That being said, I do declare my top picks are better than everyone else’s. The 96th Academy Awards is set to air on March 10, 2024, and I encourage everyone to tune in. If you’re unable to, I highly recommend watching all the nominees I detailed as my favorites. You should give them all the love and attention they deserve.

The film centers around Oliver Quick (Barry Keoghan) as he tries to navigate the awkwardness of his freshman year at Oxford. His social life seems to be a series of awkward missteps. He brings on his own social demise when he suggests that his tutorial partner, Farleigh (Archie Madekwe), is lazy, and we can’t help but feel some class tensions as the wealthy Farliegh neglects his work and breezes through university. However, Oliver’s luck turns around when he befriends hotshot Felix Catton (Jacob Elordi), Farleigh’s cousin, through a chance encounter. Felix takes friendly pity on Oliver and invites him to spend the summer at his family’s palatial estate, Saltburn. 

Tensions build as Oliver comes to realize that Felix sees him as his play-thing charity case, and Oliver develops an unhealthy attachment to Felix and the lavish lifestyle he represents. The lines between envy, hatred and sexual attraction blur in a creep-fest of turns and strange behavior, and as the film wears on, we get the sense that Oliver is not all who he says he is. 

“No spoilers” is basically the hippocratic oath of movie reviewers, but I must say, some major twists occur, and these twists are what seem to have the film community divided on the merits of “Saltburn.” From the beginning, the film takes on a sort of psychological feel. The emotional close ups of faces and hands, Oliver and Felix’s little secrets, and the Oxford setting all contribute to this intellectual and intimate feel, and we think the whole film is going to be about understanding the psychology of these characters. But when the twist comes, some people, namely my CAMS major friends and an Airplane Mode blog I read, feel that all the character building has been undone and their time has been wasted.

While I definitely was at first jarred by certain revelations, I was able to appreciate that feeling as something intentionally conjured by the director. From the beginning, it’s hard to tell who to root for. Oliver is framed as the scrappy underdog, but we also get a sense that his social ostracization may have more to do with his self-loathing than his socioeconomic status. Felix naturally has the villainous qualities of being rich, popular and out-of-touch, but otherwise, he is quite affable and generous. The turns in the film prevent the story from being a simple allegory on class struggle of the virtuous poor vs the fat cats, but instead captures how capitalism and greed create an amoral landscape that pull every class stratum into its web. This move away from a direct allegory also seems to show significant development in Emerald Fennell’s directing — her best known film, “Promising Young Woman” being an excessively on-the-nose-piece about a woman taking revenge on sexual-predators. 

While I will defend the twists themselves, I can see how some viewers felt they dampened the experience. The sense of an impending twist can take us out of the film if carried on too long, but foreshadowing and discomfort are important techniques in a film. Critical opinion of “Saltburn” is likely linked to our underlying ideas about pretension and “artsy” films. Oftentimes films touted as artsy feel like they were made to intentionally confuse us or throw in twists to give the illusion of artistry, relying on shock value to hide flaws. Critics of “Saltburn” likely feel the film is one of those pieces, going through the motions of an artsy film, but not really delivering. But I feel that its twists deepened meaning in the film, the false characterizations of the first half setting up exciting revelations in the second. In all, it’s a film with flaws, but enjoyable and worth the watch — especially if you like graves. 

Some films, such as Andrew Dominik’s “Blonde” (2022), have raised questions about the ethics of the biopic film. How do we make these films in a manner that is tasteful, truthful, and respectful to the film’s subject and story? Others, such as “I, Tonya” (2017), have been the target of both acclaim and criticism as a result of their chosen subjects. Who deserves for their story to be told and should we be further platforming figures as controversial as Tonya Harding? Hollywood still seems to be figuring out the answers to these questions.

But in honor of the upcoming biopics focused on Ronnie Spector, Bob Dylan and Madonna, here are six biopics we think Hollywood should make:

John Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands:

Frequent collaborators throughout the course of their 35-year marriage, actress Gena Rowlands and actor/director John Cassavetes created some of the most influential works of independent American cinema during the latter half of the 20th century. In a similar vein as Steven Spielberg’s semi-autobiographical “The Fabelmans,” a biopic focused on this pair could present an opportunity to explore their dynamic style of filmmaking in parallel to their personal stories. 

Gordon Parks: 

Another eminent artist of the 20th century, Gordon Parks’ journey from his childhood in segregated Kansas to his life as an established artist in New York City is a story that demonstrates the radical changes which occurred in the worlds of photography and Hollywood throughout his lifetime, many of which he brought about himself. 

Parks’ self-taught photography, which could serve as a unique medium to accompany a biographical film, depicted everything from the reality of a segregated American society to the opulence of mid-20th century fashion. It would be especially fascinating to focus on the making of Parks’ film “Shaft,” which cemented him as one of the co-creators of the blaxploitation genre. 

Joan Didion:

With Joan Didion lies a unique chance to hone in on one of her numerous essays (or books). Cradle to grave approaches to a biographical film can certainly be effective, but by working off of Didion’s own journalistic work, filmmakers could juxtapose Didion’s own subjective view with the — still, subjective — perspective of their own. “Slouching Towards Bethlehem,” Didion’s first book and collection of essays, documents the countercultures of 1960s America in addition to her own developments as an individual, could be a great framework for a brief yet impactful film.

Cass Elliot:

Cass Elliot made quite an impact on the music industry in her short life. But the industry she loved and gave so much of herself to didn’t love her back. 

During her time in the music industry, Elliot was subjected to constant fatphobia from the media. Elliot had tried to lose weight many times throughout her life, and she decided to try again towards the end of her life. When she began pursuing a solo career in music, she was on a dangerously unhealthy diet. The extreme diet she was on put extra stress on her heart, which ultimately caused her death. Despite the facts, however, the media spread around a vile rumor that Elliot died from choking on a ham sandwich,  a fatphobic urban-legend that implies that Elliot’s diet and love for food was so robust and uncontrollable that it killed her. 

Cass Elliot was a star whose legacy is still defined by the fatphobia she faced during her life. Her story is yet another case of women not being given autonomy over their identities and their bodies. But her story could be redefined to represent the identity of a talented musician that Elliot wanted for herself if adapted by the right filmmaker.

Abby Lee Miller:

Abby Lee Miller started her dance company at just fourteen years old and eventually trained dancers who made it big on Broadway and as commercial dancers in the entertainment industry. But nothing compared to the success she gained when Lifetime decided to air “Dance Moms”, a reality television series about her dance studio. 

The idea of the original Dance Moms was nothing short of genius storytelling about an American subculture so niche that it was almost ethnographic. There are some pretty notable moments and elements of the show — such as Miller’s cruelty towards her dancers, her hostile relationship with the dancers’ mothers, and even physical altercations between Miller and some of the other cast members. The show’s growing popularity enabled Miller’s behavior and her original team began dropping like flies, some of the girls even filing lawsuits against Miller for emotional distress. At her peak, it seemed like nothing could bring Miller down from the shiny throne she sat on. But in 2015, the Department of Justice indicted Miller for fraud, revealing her hiding up to $755k in income and ultimately leading to her serving a year in prison. 

A biopic that tracks Miller’s rise and fall from grace could be an interesting chance to show greed’s ability to cloud one’s ability to act in an ethical manner. It would also be a chance to explore what led to Abby Lee Miller’s harsh and abusive behaviors — a question that still has yet to be answered.

Toni Morrison:

The growing effort of American conservatives trying to erase stories that offer diverse perspectives also presents a side effect of erasing the important voices behind those perspectives. Lawmakers have introduced hundreds of new laws with the intention of censoring certain topics like race and sexuality. This has made it even more important to protect the voices behind those stories. One of the voices we need to protect and preserve for future generations is Toni Morrison. 

The Ohio native was raised in a family that deeply valued Black literature and culture. Storytelling, folklore, and singing were extremely important to her upbringing. Morrison attended both Howard University and Cornell University. She eventually went on to teach at several institutions including Princeton University and her alma mater Howard University. During her life, Morrison wrote some of the most important pieces of literature to the Black community, including The Bluest Eye (1970), Song of Solomon (1977), and Beloved (1987). But unfortunately, state lawmakers today seek to ban Morrison’s works from school libraries, robbing an entire generation of the opportunity to access one of the most important writers of our time– widening the gap that already exists in American literature. 

A biopic centered around Morrison’s growth into the gifted storyteller she was — and how she brought her ideas to life — would further immortalize both Morrison and her works.

Honorable mentions: 

• Anna-Nicole Smith
• Shirley Chisholm
• Sidney Poitier
• Grace Kelly
• Brittany Murphy
• Patti Smith and Robert Mapplethorpe 
• David Bowie