Savage House (2026), written and directed by Peter Glanz, meets at the intersection of earlier films such as The Favourite (2018), Barry Lyndon (1975), and ironically, Pride & Prejudice (2005). Starring Richard E. Grant and Claire Foy as Lord and Lady Savage, impoverished nobility who receive word that the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire have chosen them to accommodate them in their yearly tour of Yorkshire, quickly descend into every poor choice imaginable in order to impress their betters. The supporting cast features familiar faces such as Pip Torrens and Vicki Pepperdine in a darkly funny comedy of manners set against the Jacobite Rebellion in 1715.
Director Glanz was allegedly inspired by the January 6, 2021, riot in Washington, D.C., but just taking that information at face value doesn’t actually give you any idea of how the plot of the film could correspond to today’s bullshit. The gist of it is that the Savages are so dug into maintaining their status that they are willing to tolerate conspiracists (their annoying neighbors, the Bennetts), fascists (Mr. Black, played by Pip Torrens), the billionaire class’ fuckery (the flighty Duke and Duchess of Devonshire), debt (the insane cost of having to host the Devonshires) and disease (the explosion of the highly contagious pox that precedes the Devonshires’ need to decamp to Savage House) for the slimmest chance of elevating their status by a tiny bit. It’s definitely an inditement of a class war that doesn’t know it’s in the middle of a class war. I don’t know if we will look back at this film in a decade or two and write screeds about how, even though it was set in 1715, it’s more about the 2020s than not, but I can’t let this opportunity to pass without at least pointing out that it’s trying to hold a mirror up to the contemporary world we live in.
The costumes were designed by Alex Bovaird, who has designed several of my favorite TV shows in the last decade or so (Widow’s Bay, the most recent season of White Lotus, and the final season of True Detective), but none of them were historical. For her first foray into period film, I give it a solid 8/10. The early 1700s silhouettes are solid, the costumes meet every expectation, and there’s nothing that will annoy the staunchest of accuracy snobs too badly. Yes, the fabric choices could have been less obviously modern, but we’re not talking egregiously out of period decisions here.
Ultimately, Richard E. Grant and Claire Foy carry this film through sheer force of their combined charisma and that is more than enough. So, let’s take a look at the costumes, shall we?
Have you seen Savage House (2026)? Tell us your thoughts in the comments!
Find this frock flick at:
The gouty foot in the first picture was a nice touch.
As for the historical jewelry, BOO HISS. #1 and #2 looked fine. #3 looks Edwardian, with that ribbon-like metal. There are also way too many colorless stones emulating round brilliant diamonds, a cut that didn’t exist until 1919.
Why yes, I do have a gemology degree. My last article on Foundations Revealed was about matching jewelry styles to your outfit, to avoid dissonance like the Edwardian necklace in a Baroque movie.
You should do a guest post or something!
I second (or third) that! I am always on the hunt for good period jewelry, and unfortunately many of the museum reproductions substitute a nice cabochon for a sparkly facet cut diamond. Grrrrr
I knew there was a reason I liked you, lol.
And we are ALWAYS down for guest writers who want to geek out/rant about their niche interest in historical films! We’ve had someone write about historically inaccurate horses, for instance! Please consider it! I’m just a hobbyist when it comes to jewelry, but I love learning about it!
I’d love to, but don’t know where to start. If you or the others suggest a few Frock Flicks for me to check out, I’ll be happy to write.
With Pip Torrens and Jack Farthing in the film, it looks like a Poldark villains reunion. I have not seen this, but it is sounding like BBC Vanity Fair territory, so I may just have to give this a watch. Claire Foy is great in everything that she does, and with his sneer, every time I see Richard Grant I can’t help but think he just sniffed something extremely unpleasant. Will have to find the film now…
I love Pip Torrens and ultimately, he was WAY underutilized in this film. Then again, I can’t figure out how you could use him more and not have him become the whole plot, lol. Still, more Pip is always a good thing.
As a staunch accuracy snob, nothing really bothered me. With a film set in the 18th century, I was hoping to be dazzled visually. I was disappointed. There aren’t many costumes, and they’re repetitive. The castle is so dimly lit that you can barely see the sets. But I can’t really hold that against the film. It’s a small production, and the characters are broke. That’s not where the film’s interest lies. The problem is that it doesn’t lie anywhere else either. It’s a small, rather uninteresting story, and you can guess the ending very quickly. There are tired jokes and clichés about the 18th century. And the social commentary is neither particularly clever nor particularly funny. It’s not unpleasant to watch but I was bored.
Yeah, everything you said echoes my own feelings the longer I process the film in my head (I wrote the post right after viewing it, which is always a little fraught bec I don’t always come to a conclusion about how I really feel about it until a couple days later). The sets were great, but dark and cluttered, and as huge as the home was, it felt claustrophobic — which worked well as it showed the family reducing themselves to a few rooms in the giant home to save costs. Gave a real “walls closing in” feeling, which worked well for the size of the story. But I still felt like it was trying to be as big and expansive as The Favourite (I keep coming back to this comparison, lol), which I guess makes sense. The Savages aspire to be on that level of society but can’t quite pull it off.
Would I watch it again? Maybe, if it were free on streaming. I don’t think it was a wasted 2 hours because I love Richard E. Grant and Claire Foy in everything they do, but it was a weird little film that left me somewhere between “meh” and “unsettled”, which is a weird place to be, lol.
What is it with modern films that are so dark you can’t really see the costumes and sets? I literally max out the brightness on my computer just to see it all better.
I was so looking forward to this movie because when you put Richard E. Grant, Claire Foy, and Jack Farthing plus a prodigy house in what is billed as a comedy of manners, what can go wrong? Sadly, I was bored to sobs. The actors were good but they really didn’t have much to do. The only reason I kept watching was because I had paid 12 dollars to stream it.
The more I sit with the film (I wrote this post right after watching it), the more I think about how it had the ambition of The Favourite but just couldn’t quite get to that level. Still, it was a fun little diversion and Richard E. Grant ALWAYS is worth watching, no matter what; he and Foy had great chemistry. I wouldn’t rent it for more than $5, lol.
I never heard of a peer forcing another member of the upper-class to house him/her and family at the latter’s home. That’s unheard of. Did the two protagonists offer accommodations to the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire? Or did the latter couple made the decision to stay at Savage House?
It was often done very often between nobility and even the monarchy. They would bring their own servants and go hunting together. Often it was done to arrange political or marital alliances. Most houses belonging to the nobility have an extra bedroom for important guests who were staying. Not normally forced, but there is societal pressure.
This was very common. Queen Elizabeth I went on annual summer tours called royal progresses partly to shift the immense cost of housing and feeding her court onto her wealthy subjects.