
Society (1990)
Directed by Brian Yuzna
Partly — Society is somewhat woke, scoring 54 out of 100 on our wokeness meter.
Brian Yuzna's 1989 directorial debut arrives with a premise that reads, on paper, like a slogan for a very expensive dinner party.
Consciousness Markers
The entire premise is a literal 'eat the rich' inversion: the Beverly Hills social elite are a separate species that physically consumes the lower classes, a savage satire of upper-class predation.
The class critique is delivered through surreal gore spectacle rather than preaching; the message is present but shown, not lectured.
The cast is uniformly white, a standard 1989 Beverly Hills horror ensemble with no diverse or commented-upon casting choices.
No LGBTQ+ characters or themes appear; the orgy imagery is heterosexual and framed as monstrous rather than queer.
The film is male-centric, with Clarissa functioning as a love-interest who betrays the cult for Bill; no feminist critique is present.
The satire targets class and wealth, not race; the 'other species' elite is an economic metaphor with no racial dimension.
No environmental or climate themes whatsoever.
This is body horror in its most grotesque form; bodies are deformed, melded, and turned inside out as objects of revulsion, the antithesis of body positivity.
Bill sees a psychiatrist, but this is a plot device for the conspiracy, not a depiction of neurodivergence.
No historical events or figures are reinterpreted; the film is a contemporary satirical fantasy.
Why it received this score
Brian Yuzna's 1989 directorial debut arrives with a premise that reads, on paper, like a slogan for a very expensive dinner party. Bill Whitney, a Beverly Hills teenager, suspects his wealthy family is not like him. He is correct. They are, in fact, a different species, and their social calendar includes the ritual consumption of the less fortunate. The film treats upper-class predation as biology, which is a tidy way of saying the rich are monsters and always have been. Subtlety is not on the menu.
The class warfare here is literal and wet. Where a lesser film might have staged a seminar on wealth inequality, Yuzna stages an orgy of melting flesh in which the elite feed on a human sacrifice. The message is present, but it is shown, not spoken, which spares us the lecture and leaves us the spectacle. The famous shunting sequence, all merged bodies and Salvador Dali grotesquerie, works as both punchline and thesis. It is a joke told in viscera, and it lands.
The film does not broaden its grievances. The cast is a uniformly white Beverly Hills ensemble, and the screenplay has no interest in race, queerness, or the environment. The women exist to be admired or to defect for love. The body is not celebrated here but turned inside out, which makes this the opposite of any contemporary wellness sensibility. Bill's therapist is a plot device, not a portrait of a mind. We are left with a single sharply honed blade: a savage indictment of the wealthy, delivered through the most disgusting finale of its decade. The rest of the arsenal was never unpacked.
Analysis generated by our Consciousness Algorithm
Synopsis
Bill Whitney is worried that he is different to his sister and parents. They mix with other upper-class people while Bill is more down to earth. Even his girlfriend seems a bit odd. All is revealed when Bill returns home to find a party in full swing.
Questions about Society
Is Society woke?
Partly — Society is somewhat woke, scoring 54 out of 100 on our wokeness meter. That earns it a verdict of Woke-Adjacent.
What makes Society woke?
1 of the 10 markers register at 30 or above, led by Eat the Rich (75). On Eat the Rich: The entire premise is a literal 'eat the rich' inversion: the Beverly Hills social elite are a separate species that physically consumes the lower classes, a savage satire of upper-class predation.
How does Society compare to other 1990 movies?
It ranks #2 of the 68 films from 1990 we've scored; their average is 9. The wokest is Nightbreed (60).
How is the Woke Score calculated?
An AI-assisted process researches the film and its reception, scores it 0–100 on ten markers, then combines those into one 0–100 Woke Score. It measures a specific set of 2020s cultural themes, not film quality.