Although critics have praised the performances in Savage House, the film itself has received a frosty reception.

Tim Robey in the Telegraph described its “putrid stylings” as making it “impossible to enjoy”, dismissing it as a “rancid” and “rotten” period drama. Yet this allegedly “lowbrow” film captures the spirit of 18th-century culture more effectively than many glossy period dramas. Savage House seems outrageous because we have forgotten how outrageous the 18th century could be.

Set during the Jacobite Rising of 1715 and a smallpox outbreak, the film follows Sir Chauncey Savage (Richard E. Grant), a former highwayman whose gambling addiction and taste for luxury have left his Yorkshire estate on the brink of ruin. When the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire announce a visit, the Savages see one final chance to restore their social standing.

What follows is a classic farce, structurally and thematically reminiscent of 18th-century plays like John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera (1728) or Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s School of Scandal (1777). As the visit approaches, disasters accumulate: disease spreads, affairs threaten exposure, Chauncey’s gout worsens, and panic grows over an impending eclipse. Along the way there is madness, mutilation, vomit, chamber pots and an astonishing amount of human excrement.

Far from being anachronistic, much of this owes a great deal to 18th-century literature and art. However, the modern imagination struggles to see this era as impolite, largely because Jane Austen’s literary vision of........

© The Conversation