The Substance has been one of the most talked about films of 2024. And with Demi Moore recently winning a much deserved Golden Globe for her performance, I felt compelled to share my thoughts on the film after just watching it.
Directed by Coralie Fargeat, The Substance is a body horror film that delves into themes of aging, identity, and the relentless pursuit of youth within the entertainment industry. Moore plays Elisabeth Sparkle, an aging celebrity desperate to keep her job so she uses to a mysterious elixir (The Substance) to create a younger version of herself, Sue, played by Margaret Qualley, who also plays the shit out of this role. This transformation, however, comes with unforeseen and grotesque consequences. This is only Fargeat's second film, her first being 2017s “Revenge”, and it's an impressive sophomore effort. But in the end all it really succeeded in doing for me was several audible “WTFs" and left me wondering what was Fargeat's ultimate goal here: to send a message or to be shocking for the sake of being shocking? To me it feels like the latter. In no way am I saying this a bad film, and ageism is an important message, but the film doesn't do anything new or original in expressing said message. The entire film is derivative of far more superior films. But before you protest and call me an unwoke women hating garbage monster let's take a dive deeper into what I'm rambling about.
Imagery and Visual Style
Fargeat employs an overly familiar visual language that repeatedly slams you over the head with the message of the film: ageism is a problem in Hollywood, and in life in general. But I wonder if she really thinks she's that clever with her overused homages to classics like “The Fly”, “The Shining” or “The Thing”. To me a homage should be just that: a subtle nod to the film's that inspired it. But these aren't homages, these are blatant rips from the aforementioned masterpieces, right down to exact camera angles, creature and set design. It could be the fact that I've seen The Fly and The Thing a million times, but it was distracting to my ADHD brain that was constantly saying “that's from The Thing, that's from The Fly…” and so on. There isn't one original shot in the entire 2 hr and 20 minute film. But as the saying goes: “If you're going to steal, steal from the best.”
The film utilizes sharp color contrasts to reflect the dichotomy between Elisabeth's reality and her desires. Her blindingly bright yellow coat symbolizes her lingering desire for attention and glamour, even as she navigates the seedy underbelly of the city, with the vivid reds representing the fragmentation a person inflicts upon themselves in the pursuit of perfection. The fish-eyed close-ups of Dennis Quaid's wrinkled, smiling oily face, stuffing shrimp into his mouth represented the face of men, who are all disgusting pigs according to this film, though that does fit the (narrow) narrative. But does a film about empowering women really need to go for such low hanging fruit to make their point? I don't disagree that men are pigs, I am one myself (a man not a pig :P), but it doesn't help with the message. Why do you have to tear one side down just to lift up the other?
Body Horror Overdose
The film does not shy away from the graphic depictions of Elisabeth's transformation. The excellent use of prosthetic makeup and practical effects vividly portrays the physical toll of her metamorphosis, with scenes that include up-close needle punctures, torn-out teeth, culminating in a blood-soaked finale. But like the rest of the film, there's nothing subtle about any of it. By the third act the film devolves into B-movie levels of ridiculousness with a fully mutated Elisabeth-Sue monster soaking an audience with barrels of blood spraying from her severed arm.
One perfect example of “borrowing” that kept popping into my brain is the comparisons to the king of body horror David Cronenberg's magnum opus: The Fly. From the grotesque metamorphosis involving ears and finger nails falling off, to the literal caterpillar to “butterfly” scene of a new body emerging from the shell of it's former self, the similarities are TOO apparent to ignore. Even the scene where Sue peels off her fingernail is framed the same way, and is just as gross.
Cinematic “Homages”
As mentioned before, Fargeat draws inspiration from classics like, among others, “The Fly" “The Thing”, and “The Shining” incorporating visual cues that enhance the film's unsettling atmosphere. But the connection to Kubrick's classic specifically is lost on me and feels forced. Thematically they're two completely different films. The long red hallway is a constant image, complete with an almost exact replica of the famous carpet design. But why? This felt very out of place to me and just another example of Fargeat shoe-horning imagery into the film just because she wants to. Everything in the film felt like that to me, it was more about having it there rather than it serving the story. “Story is everything, everything is story” is my personal screenwriting mantra. If it doesn't serve the story then take it out. Fargeat showed zero restraint, made glaringly apparent with the almost 2 and a half hour runtime.
These references ultimately serve to situate "The Substance" within a overly broad horror tradition while contributing to its unique aesthetic. The multiple references to other films only added to what is my main issue with the film: tonally it is all over the place. The last act is so drastically different and becomes so downright bizarre it detracted from the rest of the film. The film closes on the image of Elizabeth's face, attached to her last piece of living skin that slithered over to her star on the walk of fame, staring up at the sun as she dies smiling. Subtle Coralie, real subtle.
Critical Reception
"The Substance" has been lauded for its feminist perspective, particularly in its exploration of societal pressures on women's bodies and the obsession with youth in Hollywood. Critics have noted the film's commentary on self-destruction and unachievable standards perpetuated by social constructs. The film's slow pacing and unnecessarily long sequences reflect its thematic concerns, emphasizing the excesses and artificiality of the entertainment industry.
The acting is the highlight of the entire film, and like Moore, Margaret Qualley is fantastically brilliant as the younger Elisabeth, Sue. Her equally brutal transformation in her desperately escalating pursuit of staying young, results in her resorting to horrific measures to remain the alive version, as the main crux of the Substance as that each version of Elisabeth can only exist for seven days at a time. Her performance perfectly mirrors the journey of Moore, with the inevitable overlap of their two worlds colliding in the insanely bloody final act.
And Demi Moore definitely deserves all the praise and the very recent Golden Globe win. This just might be the best performance of her career, and after barely being in the limelight in the last 20 years. She was due for a comeback, and I hope she continues to win awards for her brave and brutal performance. Hopefully we'll see some love from the Academy with the fast approaching Oscars.
Conclusion
"The Substance" employs striking imagery and a visceral visual style to explore themes related to aging, identity, and societal expectations. Through its unsubtle, deliberate use of color, set design, and body horror elements, the film offers a compelling critique of the entertainment industry's fixation on youth and beauty. It's just a shame Coralie Fargeat didn't take a more original approach instead of piggy backing off her inspirations that executed it far more masterfully. That being said, I respect her bold approach to filmmaking and look forward to seeing what she'll do next.
Final Rating: 6/10
Keep writing,
Tim
aucoinink.com
View replies 2
View replies 0
View replies 0