The Substance: My 2024 WTF Movie

It’s been a while since I first ranted about The Substance, but with all the buzz around “My 2024 WTF Cinema Moment” on Peliplat, I couldn’t resist the urge to grab the mic again.

There are countless ways to tell a story about a woman and her two selves—they could team up to overthrow the toxic entertainment industry, or they could reconcile and heal each other. Hell, they could even go the way of Thelma & Louise (1991) and torch everything in their wake. But no, The Substance picks the absolute worst option: having them tear each other apart while turning their bodies into grotesque spectacles for all to ogle.

Let’s start with the obvious: The Substance is a body horror film through and through—decaying flesh, grotesquely mutated organs, squishy surgery scenes—all splattered across the screen in unrelenting detail. I’ve watched my share of gory horror and thought I had the stomach for it, but The Substance pushed me to my limit. I sat there clutching my armrest, trying to hold down my lunch (a chicken burger, which, in hindsight, was a poor choice of pre-film snack).

Image description

The gore itself isn’t the problem. The real issue is that these shocking visuals feel hollow; they seem to be screaming, “Look how daring we are!” without offering anything of substance. The spectacle dominates so completely that any deeper thematic exploration is buried under layers of gooey flesh and splattered blood.

Here’s where things truly make me shout WTF: the film claims to critique the male gaze but is in fact drowning in it. The camera lingers intensely on Margaret Qualley’s body that would make even the most exploitative directors blush. Shot after shot zooms in on her curves—her backside gets even more screen time than her dialogue.

The film wants us to believe this is satire, a clever “gotcha” aimed at the male-dominated industry. But come on—how is saturating the screen with male-gazey shots any different from pandering to that very gaze? It’s like claiming you’re protesting pollution by dumping oil into the ocean or robbing a bank to protest theft. The director has essentially created a self-defeating paradox: using exploitation itself to critique exploitation.

The result is frustratingly hypocritical. Instead of deconstructing the gaze, the film indulges in it, and only attempts to to wag its finger at it afterward. If the goal was to punish the gazer, turning the protagonist into a monstrous spectacle doesn’t do the job—it just reinforces the act. Instead of empowering the victim, it doubles down on her suffering for the audience's (onscreen and off) enjoyment.

Image description

Watching The Substance, I was reminded of how tough it is for female directors to create feminist cinema within the male-dominated industry. The shadow of patriarchal narratives looms so large that even attempts to subvert them can end up reinforcing the same oppressive tropes. Breaking away from old, oppressive narratives feels almost impossible, but using the same language of violence and objectification only perpetuates the problem.

That said, there was one scene that briefly makes up for its flaws. Elizabeth (played by Demi Moore), preparing for a date with her admirer Fred, repeatedly applies and removes her makeup, agonizing over her reflection in the mirror. She never makes it out the door. In this quiet, vulnerable moment, the film captures the suffocating self-loathing that so many women experience under the weight of impossible beauty standards—how they internalize the gaze, transform it into relentless self-criticism, and ultimately retreat from the world to escape judgment.

It’s a painful moment—one that resonates far more deeply than any of the film’s grotesque spectacles. If the filmmakers had built the film on the basis of this raw emotional core, they might have created something truly meaningful.

Image description

Ultimately, The Substance feels like yet another entry in the tiring genre of “female suffering as spectacle.” How many times have we seen stories of women sacrificing themselves for unattainable ideals, only to meet tragic ends? These narratives claim to be feminist but often veer into thinly veiled misogyny. More often than not, they claim to critique oppressive systems but end up merely depicting oppression once again without offering alternatives, resulting a kind of nihilistic loop: women suffer, men benefit, the end.

I’m not asking for sugarcoated optimism like Barbie (2023). But can we please stop leaning to either extremes? I’m tired of watching female characters be torn apart—literally or figuratively—while the industry pats itself on the back for being “bold.” I want to see stories that challenge old tropes without reinforcing them, that acknowledge pain without glamorizing it, and that offer more than just blood-soaked nihilism.

Until the vision is in horizental, The Substance will remain my WTF Movie. It is provocative, sure, but in all the wrong ways.

0 Light Points

Be the first to boost its visibility.

Comments 9
Hot
New
Alejandro Franco "Arlequin"
Alejandro Franco "Arlequin"
 · December 14, 2024
Ok, it's a different vision of the film. I admit that the last 15 minutes are a bit much, but I like everything beforehand. Women are victims of beauty culture, something created by men to please them. A lot of women with Stockholm syndrome, who believe in those dogmas that they did not create but continue with it, convinced that beauty is a value of real importance. Fargeat's super misogynistic shots, focusing on busts and butts when Sue takes over the show (which had a light vibe in the style of Jane Fonda videos from the 80s). The voracious, misogynistic producer, very much in the vein of Harvey Weinstein, a predator in luxury clothes. Perhaps the biggest drama is Demi Moore's character's inability to accept age, live with her millions, and retire properly. She is addicted to being seen as a sex symbol. And the film goes from being a version of Cronenberg's The Fly (using human bodies as teleportation chambers, where what comes out is different from what goes in) to one of Jekyll & Hyde, where they throw away the premise of "two bodies, one person" and they wage war by sabotaging each other.
2
Reply

View replies 1

eleni paras
eleni paras
 · December 15, 2024
This is such a great expression of what bothered me about this movie. There’s something to be said for a campy horror ending, but it fell flat for me because it just seemed like confirmation that the film couldn’t decide whether it wanted to make a point about misogyny or to linger on and gawk at what it considers grotesque, which kind of undermines the point of it all! Great article!
2
Reply

View replies 1

Jenn The Editor
Jenn The Editor
 · December 14, 2024
Nice article! I agree, it's ironic that a film called The Substance didn't really have any at all. It seemed like the director wanted to make some radical feminist statement, but it was quite shallow and on-the-nose.
2
Reply

View replies 1

FromsHerEyes
FromsHerEyes
 · January 9, 2025
Great Review! I agree with your point. The biggest impression this film left on me is that it's visually bold but hollow at its core. It doesn't even explore a possibility that would naturally arise in the film's preset scenario: could the two female protagonists share memories and feelings? If not, in what sense does their duality setup hold up? Just because they share the same genes and live in the same room? I can only guess that "The Substance" aims to turn female nudity into a horror imagery to deconstruct the gaze. But whether audiences will truly accept the film from this perspective, or continue to gaze at Sue's body following established viewing habits - I have no answer.
Reply
See collapsed comments