The Substance has a great concept for a sci-fi/horror film, and an even better theme. Writer/director Coralie Fargeat depicts Hollywood’s obsession with women’s looks and youth, and the patriarchy’s obsession with the same through an aging actress and fitness-show star who learns about a cheat code to become a 20-year-old version of herself again – but only every other week. It is such a shame that Fargeat had no idea what to do with the story once she got the setup in place; the second half of this movie is a literal and figurative mess, so much so that it’s appalling that this profoundly stupid movie got Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay nominations. (You can rent it on iTunes, Amazon, etc., or watch it free on Mubi.)
Demi Moore plays the idiotically-named Elizabeth Sparkle, a Jane Fonda-ish figure who was once a huge star and now hosts a daily aerobics show, because I guess this movie is set in 1985 (although it never specifies when it’s set). On the day she turns 50, the show’s producer Harvey (as in Weinstein, because this film is just that subtle) fires her because she’s too old. (Harvey is played by Dennis Quaid, who hams it up as the role demands.) Elizabeth is so upset as she’s driving home that she gets into a car accident and ends up in the hospital, where somehow she doesn’t have any broken bones or internal bleeding or anything of the sort, but a creepy young nurse with ridiculously smooth skin slips her a flash drive that tips her off to a fountain-of-youth scheme called The Substance. She jumps through all kinds of hoops to get a hold of it – the film’s best sequences, really – and eventually tries it out: A second, younger version of herself (Margaret Qualley) emerges, literally, and takes over the lead spot on Elizabeth’s show. The hitch is that each week, Elizabeth and this new her, who takes the name Sue, must switch places: one goes into a sort of coma, and the other gets to run around and be alive and such. But when one of the two decides to take a little more than the allotted time, the center cannot hold and things fall apart – including the plot.
The whole setup is pretty brilliant, like something from a modern Philip K. Dick fable. (PKD did write at least once about “anti-gerasone,” a serum that reversed the effects of aging.) The attention to detail in the way the whole scheme works, right down to the packaging of the various parts of the Substance, would seem to presage a really thoughtful, smart conclusion, regardless of whether it works out for Elizabeth. There’s a wide range of points this story could have made about how society as a whole and the media industry in specific treats women as disposable assets with early expiration dates. It applies to women on screen in films and on TV, even news and sports anchors, but also applies to general societal attitudes towards women, even in what is supposed to be a more equitable and enlightened era. (Or was, I suppose.) Men who are Elizabeth’s age see her as old, then fawn over and leer at Sue, including, of course, Harvey.
Instead, we get a thoughtless, gross, and sloppy conclusion to all of that early promise. There’s an inexplicable rivalry between the two halves – which I interpreted as a commentary on women who step on or attack other women rather than standing together against the patriarchy – that leads each of them to try to sabotage the other during their waking weeks. And when one starts stealing time from the other, things go very awry, and it becomes clear that Fargeat never figured out the end of the story. The big concluding scene is a bloody mess, either way you want to interpret that phrase, and is also absolute nonsense: The hyperrealism that fills every part of the film outside of the use of the Substance is gone, and we’re no longer making or even pondering a point. We’re just covered in blood. There’s no further exploration of the entrenched misogyny across our society, or our obsession with youth and beauty. There’s no biting, satirical conclusion that takes down the Harveys of the world – or even the just normal, just innocent men who are probably contributing to the environment in all manner of little ways (and I’m not exempting myself here, either). Fargeat wrote herself into a corner, and instead of writing herself out of it, she just went for gore. I
Moore’s performance in The Substance earned her a Golden Globe Award and a SAG Award, as well as a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actress; I don’t think this was a close contest between her and Mikey Madison, who won the Oscar for her performance in Anora. Moore is very good, but there’s some sentiment in the plaudits; she’s not even in the movie as much as a typical lead performer. There’s some daring to the performance, certainly, and she also has to act out some pretty gross scenes that couldn’t have been easy. Qualley didn’t get anywhere near the same attention, but she’s excellent and essential to the movie – she has to play a sort of scheming ingenue, and in any of her scenes at the studio, especially anything with Harvey, she nails the look and demeanor of someone who knows how to manipulate the hell out of the idiot man in front of her. She’s not better than Moore in the film, but she could have gotten some supporting actress support.
This just isn’t a good movie by any definition I would use. It’s very smart and entertaining for about half its length, and then it falls apart. It’s not smart, or interesting, or even entertaining in the second half, beyond the tension because we’re watching Elizabeth-Sue heading for some kind of terrible crash. I’m almost offended that it got a screenplay nomination, because the writing is the whole problem here. The performances are good, the effects and makeup are fine, but the writing is just lazy. A big violent finish is the easiest and least thoughtful way to end a story. This story, and the women it’s ostensibly supporting, deserved better.
“There’s an inexplicable rivalry between the two halves – which I interpreted as a commentary on women who step on or attack other women rather than standing together against the patriarchy – that leads each of them to try to sabotage the other during their waking weeks.”
Interesting take – I took the “rivalry” as self-loathing. Look how Sue treats Liz when it’s her turn – she leaves Liz’s body on the ground, undignified, no cushions, just a heap of meat. She hates Liz, i.e., she hates that older version of herself. Whether that self-loathing was a result of patriarchy certainly can be debated, but I thought this was a movie about self-loathing and, to a lesser degree, addiction. In fact, the voice on the phone asks Liz whether she wants to keep going or end it now. Liz stands in for the audience – we know it’s bad for her (us) but we can’t stop. We want more. We are addicted.
I was trying not to spoil too much, but what Liz does when it’s her turn to ‘hurt’ Sue somehow was the part I couldn’t understand. Sue’s loathing for her older self, and what that represents, makes sense to me.
Co-sign every word of this
Addiction is a key theme, as much of the movie, stylistically & thematically, is an homage to Selby/Aronofsky’s Requiem for a Dream.
Never seen that film, so that was lost on me.
When I finally watched this a couple of weeks ago, I couldn’t really understand all the love for it. Granted, horror is not my preferred genre, but what I really can’t stand is gore for gore’s sake, and that’s what this movie delivered. I think it did bring up several good premises and then wasted most of them. Was the point that women are their own worst enemy? That they are so willing to destroy each other if it means staying on top? If so, isn’t the film much more critical of women than the leering men? It just doesn’t quite add up for me.
Your use of the word “ingenue” struck me because I read a review of the Oscars ceremony where the writer was bemoaning Mikey Madison beating Demi Moore by saying the Academy will always vote for the “ingenue” over the older actress. While there may be some truth to that (Gwyneth Paltrow’s win leaps to mind), I think it also ignored the fact that Madison was better (though I hate making those comparisons) and that Moore’s plaudits were probably based as much on her going for a “daring” role and a bit of a career win mentality, which I kinda hate. So I really had no problem with Madison winning.
Hi Keith,
I couldn’t agree more with you on this review. I also had trouble understanding Elizabeth’s motivation for using the substance when she was not able to even keep Sue’s memories when it was her turn to be alive. What benefit did she really gain from using the substance?
Demi did a great job with her role and I’m fine with her nomination, but Mikey deserved her Oscar and it wasn’t even close. They got it right!