You make an interesting point about the lack of conversation, but I took this as a stylistic choice to reflect how isolated Elisabeth has become while taking the substance - she is so infatuated with the possibility of youth she has lost her grasp on reality.
I also saw the housekeeper as a key element to that scene - I figured it was the directors way of suggesting that Elisabeth, despite being in a position of wealth and status, unlike other women in her every day life, is still subject to the constraints of workplace power imbalances / sexism, and despite all her money and fame still lacks self-esteem to such a large level.
Also I’ve watched several interviews with the director and her intent was not to write a feminist satire but to write her own very real / personal experience about aging as a woman working in the film industry and her ‘violent’ feelings towards societies criticisms of older women. The film is supposed to be a commentary of female rage more than anything else and she says so herself. I highly recommend watching an interview with her.
Thank you so much for reading, and for your thoughtful comment! It could very well be a stylistic choice. I think that’s a fair read, it just didn’t land for me. And the background characters definitely established a “hierarchy of women” with Elisabeth at the top, which is an interesting device. But those characters were all so flat that I feel the commentary lost its edge.
I’d be interested to watch an interview with the director. What you’re saying is consistent with what I’ve heard about her statements, that Fargeat herself isn’t claiming it to be a feminist film. But a lot of the discourse around The Substance (both professionally and casually) seems to want to frame it as a feminist piece. Which IMO it isn’t!
Overall I’m glad filmmakers are out here swinging for the fences and taking risks, which The Substance definitely did.
I finally watched The Substance, so now I can respond to this. :) I agree with a lot of what you've said, especially the part about ableism. I enjoyed watching (most) of the movie, mostly because I loved the absurd surrealism of the premise (and the acting was great), but I was struck by this idea that the conclusion seemed to say that it was Elisabeth/Sue who was at fault, not the entire industry/patriarchal beauty standards/misogyny/etc., if that makes sense.
Also, I spent most of the movie wondering, why are you not leaving notes for each other?? Or communicating at all?
I think it’s interesting to see how the wealthy and famous actively participate in the system, but I think that aspect of the film just… lacked perspective. Like I guess it’s meant to be fatalistic to present the beauty industry standard as inescapable and unquestioned. But given that Elisabeth doesn’t resist at all, and no other women in the film are portrayed as actual people, the commentary fell flat for me.
And yes why would you not talk to each other?? Like I get leaving a gross mess for the other person is “sending a message” but still.
Completely agree. I was so sad and disappointed at the new year’s scene. The whole theatre I was in was laughing at Elisabeth, as if she wasn’t trying her best to be perfect, and the film itself seemed to laugh at her too. Look at this ridiculous monster spitting blood everywhere!!! So so sad. You can’t make fun of a woman for trying to adhere to misogynistic standards and call it feminism.
Very true. I understand approaching Elisabeth’s story from an unsympathetic lens but they lacked the critical framing to really pull it off. Also idk if it’s a little too sjw of me to think the final act with “Monster Elisasue” was ableist but I just think it was in extremely poor taste!
She was picked up like trash at the end… everything she did for beauty and love brought her to literal desintegration. That is punishment. If Elisabeth had accepted her artificially old body and became a grandma with a cooking show, maybe that would have been a victory for her. But death? She felt relieved at best, to me :/
I guess in short I just see the movie as saying multiple things simultaneously, because there isn’t any contradiction between the triumphant relief of finally freeing yourself from the harm that was inflicted upon you, and the fact it very often will kill you in the end anyhow. I think we can laugh ruefully at ourselves for the way we are often complicit in the harm inflicted upon us.
I related to the movie a lot as an addict. She’s free, but the damage is done. It’s relieving. Hopefully, we are able to look at the monsters we once were and laugh. If you’ve quit smoking but are still dying of lung cancer, or come to forgive and love yourself after destructive cosmetic surgery, I can think of much healthier ends than to say to yourself, “Man, I was a real piece of trash back then,” and laugh.
Oh no I don’t think so at all! She’s ridiculed on stage and then scraped off the sidewalk. That’s a different take. I’m curious, what part read as triumphant for you?
It’s grim, no doubt. There’s no escape at that point other than death. But we don’t laugh at Elizabeth with the theater. Or at least, I didn’t. They’re acting over-the-top cruel and they are paid for it by being doused in gore, at which point I laugh.
It’s probably being a man, but I didn’t just see the movie as good for critiquing beauty culture - if that’s all it was I’d agree it’s ham handed (tho satire nonetheless). I saw a lot of myself as a person who has struggled w/ depression, substance abuse, and making myself smaller for others, represented in the main character. I thought her psychology was very familiar.
I hear a lot of people who are very old say they finally feel free of society’s expectations (and ofc, many people only escape addiction after it’s too late). It’s not glamorous to finally feel relief just before death, but it is triumphant.
I can see what you’re saying about death being a release. I just don’t think Elisabeth ever had an epiphany moment. She dies being a true believer. She’s reduced to mush and still crawls her way to her star on the walk of fame. At best it might be cathartic to see her tormentors punished with gore, but I don’t think there’s liberation or release for Elisabeth at any point, even in death.
I think Demi Moore gave a fantastic performance with the material she was given. Her prowess is probably what gave the depression/substance abuse angle some bite, thinking of the scene where she can’t bring herself to go on a date. But at the end of the day I still think the Hollywood / female beauty standards aspect of the film fell totally flat.
I think the one thing I'll say (which I wanna distinguish from "you should expect horror schlock to be bad" - I think it's good!) is that I expect a ... let's say truncated plot structure, to accommodate the spectacle the film is built around, and a lot of playing fast and loose with metaphors. Call it impressionistic. I think this gives the genre an incredible amount of creative freedom, but it also limits it. I can't argue with someone who walks away saying the exploration of [insert film subject matter] was jumbled or shallow, because it often is!
I look it up after commenting, and the director has talked about this being her interpretation, so at least I'm not just projecting. But the fact that I reacted to something intentionally placed in the movie doesn't mean it's necessarily well done or resonated with everyone!
I don’t think the film is laughing at her, it takes great pains to show her getting ready with her “monster form”. I read it as society not accepting someone who looks different even if they accept themselves. Yes, it’s grotesque and a bit Troma-inspired at the end (I love Troma so I was down) but it doesn’t take away from that theme, in my opinion.
That’s a generous read! I’d like to believe that, but the film really languishes in grossing out the audience in the final act. The more “human” moments, like Elisasue getting ready, read to me more as comic relief to set up the punch line (she still wants to be onstage). But again the B-movie gross-out slashers are not my thing!
Ah, yeah, I’m a huge fan of body horror, B-movies, and gore! If you haven’t seen it, you might like Seconds (1966), it’s a more “tasteful” take on this same theme (tho from the perspective of a man).
Hello! This is so interesting; I wrote an essay about The Substance and I felt completely the opposite about the satire, the body horror and the cleverness of the whole thing. (Feel free to drop by my profile to read and let me know what you think!) I think this is what I love most about art - as opposed to think pieces on Substack about the same topic. It’s about the obscure nature of it all, how it makes you FEEL - and everyone always takes away something completely different. And no one is wrong or right.
Hi, thanks for reading! I read your piece, and the point you made about men and women having fundamentally different relationships to blood was an interesting angle I hadn't thought of before. The Substance is definitely a divisive film, and a lot of the critique (mine included!) does come down to taste. I'm just glad we're all talking!
I appreciate your essay here, and there’s a lot I agree with. I was not a huge fan of The Substance — it is far from a perfect film, and I don’t think it is a completely successful satire; there are certainly choices in the film that undercut its potential in that regard. As you write, it’s clunky, repetitive, and seemingly vacuous at times.
But I do believe one aspect of the film that you point out—that it “seems to forget that women exist when they’re not being looked at”—is one thing that, in my opinion, contributes to the film’s success as a critique of the social expectations of women as objects. The film (and we) can’t stop looking at these women, their bodies. The camera refuses to let us. It shows us every angle, every crevice, all the viscera — multiple times over. Its unsubtlety is nauseating. So why can’t we look away? I don’t think it’s as simple as Fargeat is simply doing to these women what she claims to satirize in a feedback loop.
Sue’s/Elisabeth’s isolation from other women, lack of internal character, and the eventual nightmarish consequences they endure all serve to highlight how siloed off a woman becomes when she is viewed only as an object. In its spectacle, The Substance implicates the audience in contributing to the structures it critiques. We watch the carnival grotesquerie and laugh, or cringe, or avert our eyes — when our watching, and the pressure of our scrutinizing gaze, is what made the women into those monsters.
In a comment you pointed out that “The spectacle of violence against a body doesn’t in itself subvert the system that enables the violence,” which is another great point. I don’t think that what Fargeat accomplishes (in what I wrote above) is her subverting the system. At best, she’s calling our attention to the system and creating an interesting dynamic with the audience, which is not quite enough to be considered satire, but I do still think it’s a commentary worth unpacking.
Thanks so much for reading! I really appreciate your perspective here. I do agree that the way the female body is filmed/ objectified is actually quite effective. The way Sue is scrutinized by the camera, celebrated and demeaned at the same time, heightens the overall feeling of absurdism. And I really like what you’re saying about the film implicating the audience. As you said, even if it falls short of satire, it’s calling attention to the system.
I suppose where my uneasiness is coming from is the absence of other women, or rather, their presence in the background as set dressing. I imagine it may have been intentional, but it made the story a spectacle of self-obsession, without really highlighting or questioning it. I agree there are lots of effective pieces at play in the film. I was just disappointed that it fell short of feminism, and fell short of satire.
Completely with you there on the lack of other women as characters themselves, and when there are other women present they are just as objectified. It totally is a spectacle of self-obsession which adds to how sad Elisabeth’s/Sue’s story is— if they felt like they could turn to other women in community, maybe they could have avoided falling into the trap of self-obsession? I wonder if the film is asking us to consider how a failure to foster feminist community is what leads women into perpetuating the cycles that harm them, or if that’s too generous of a reading.
bold comparison here but a lot of black movies follow a similar trend of overusing violent scenes involving black bodies as slaves/activist that sometimes detract from the individual message.
That is a very interesting comparison! The spectacle of violence against a body doesn’t in itself subvert the system that enables the violence. I read an essay by one of the journalists targeted in GamerGate talking about how dead female bodies are often used as set dressing to establish a “gritty” world. Feels gross to see violence porn about slaves get high praise and awards over and over.
Great reaction to this film. I had been trying to wrap my head around it, appreciating the attempted critique of Hollywood and frustrated by the ridiculous final segment. There was a perfect moment to end - when she first sees herself in the mirror as the monster. Anything after that was superfluous.
Putting aside the stretch of one human body climbing out the back of another, I was annoyed that the two beings didn’t share the memories and experiences. Was that an intentional risk in taking the substance or a plot hole? If not sharing experiences is a known factor, why would anyone bother to do it?
I agree, if the film had ended with the "monster" in the mirror I would have disliked it less! The final third just felt gratuitous.
I know a lot of people take issue with the lack of shared consciousness, because it really leaves a large gap in the premise. My more generous reading would be that it's meant to feel like a fable, or a nightmare, and that it's not supposed to make logical sense. But it could also just be a flaw! In either case, the themes and commentary weren't enough to keep me engaged.
Right on. I would’ve argued this is intentional, but more women talking with lives to contrast and foil against Elizabeth’s isolation might’ve added some depth.
Glad you liked the article! Great question. When it comes to feminist satire horror, it’s hard to find a film that checks all 3 boxes. I think the best example would be The Stepford Wives (1975).
Beyond horror, some feminist satire films I’d recommend: Poor Things, Ingrid Goes West, and Heathers.
I think All We Imagine as Light is a far better feminist film dealing with more pressing issues plaguing women not just in America but across the globe
think this analysis of the movie is desperately looking to over complicate the simplicity of the message. The gore, and its absurdity, is- as you mention but dismiss- the heart of the story. The statement is very simple; chasing youth, beauty and the validation of others will always destroy you. It’s fable-like, and its campness- and lack of logic, as you call it- are part of the telling of the fable. The simplicity, I think, is what allowed it to be such a success!
I really didn’t understand the inclusion of the bechdel test here, either. This film is about a battle between two halves of a woman’s psyche; and the fact that they don’t directly communicate is imo essential to the message- these two sides of ourselves; the real, ugly, lusting parts vs. The segments of ourselves we show, or wish we were- they can’t be in communication. They can’t acknowledge one another directly at all because of the instability of self being explored in the film.
Is this the most complex feminist film ever made? No. (Again, i’d argue, to its credit) But to say it doesn’t operate within feminism is simply not true.
Finally, I disagree wholeheartedly that it was condescending. I think that its brazenness is an expression of the brazenness of Hollywood, plastic surgery, hyperfemininity, our dreams and desires, the way culture views sex etc etc.
I felt far less condescended to by the substance, which trusts me as a woman to see gore and connect that, (with humour!) to the disgust we turn on ourselves and spew out all over everyone else. Unlike something like Barbie, which throws a load of feminism 101 buzzwords at me but doesn’t give them any thematic backing- or really trust me to do any interpreting of my own at all.
Interesting to read this perspective! Thanks for sharing :)
Hello! Strong opening lol :) I do think the idea of The Substance being a fable is a useful framing. However, for my own personal taste, "beauty standards are gross" is not an interesting enough premise on its own without having something insightful to go with it. I wouldn't expect a film like The Substance to present solutions, that would be too trite. But I did expect some sort of cutting insight on the violence of beauty. To me, the film didn't seem to have anything new to say. Maybe I could have forgiven that if the film were more enjoyable, but it wasn't even fun to watch! Maybe gore-heads got a thrill from it, but IMO if you're gonna be that gross, with something as volatile as self-harm, you better have something insightful to go with it. The Substance was too surface-level.
I don't think all film needs to pass the Bechdel Test, it's just something I noticed that seemed out of place given The Substance's framing. A generous read, as I mentioned in my piece, would be that this is an intentional choice made to heighten Elisabeth's isolation. However, I'm not sure it was intentional, and either way it detracted from the film's critique of its subject. It's a film that seems to celebrate individualism, to the point of self-obsession.
The part that I refer to as condescending is the hand-holdiness of basic plot points, specifically the clunky flashbacks with her high school acquaintance and her producer. This stylization of plot is what's condescending, not necessarily the film as a whole. I know a lot of people hated Barbie, but I didn't mind the "feminism 101" stuff because it was all done within the context of the story. America Ferrera is not breaking the 4th wall to speak to the audience with her monologue, she's speaking to an otherworldly entity who comes from a magical world where patriarchy doesn't exist. Speaking about a pervasive truth in it's most basic/elementary terms makes it sound ridiculous, because it is. Also Barbie was a huge blockbuster for all ages, not tailor made for online leftists lol so I understand why a lot of leftists didn't like it but I personally didn't mind!
At the end of the day, I'm glad The Substance took a lot of creative risks, I'm just disappointed that it's commentary was more shallow that I was expecting.
Totally! I won’t keep debating too much bc all of this is subjective.
I will say tho I dont think the message is that “beauty standards are gross”, I think the gore etc is an expression of the raw feelings created by the standards and the over-scrutinising of the self. I don’t mean that in a pedantic way, I just think it’s different. I related to this expression, you and others wouldn’t. Which is interesting.
And I think we’re reading the things you find condescending very differently. Also interesting.
I think a lot of feminist ideas are treated with the expectation that women feel broadly the same about how they want their issues treated, and clearly that isn’t the case. Barbie worked for tens (hundreds?) of thousands of women, so I can’t say it’s not a feminist text. Do I like it, absolutely not. Which I assume is your issue with the substance.
Yes you’re right this is all subjective! And it’s interesting to see what devices work for some people vs don’t work for others. Glad you liked the film. And thanks again for reading!
Hi, I had a slightly different take on this movie! I also didn’t think it was a feminist film but do think it was full of commentary on the internalization and pressures of the male gaze, and the commodification of beauty. I wrote a piece about this too and kinda go on and on about its commentary on how the landscape of beauty standards has evolved so intensely it’s disgusting. I definitely think you were supposed to walk away from the movie feeling disgusted.
Hi, thanks for reading! I read your piece on The Substance as well. I think it was interesting how you paired it with the rise of social media, and how commodification of your own image is something that’s within reach (and aggressively pushed) to everyone nowadays, not just Hollywood stars.
The Substance definitely is making a statement that the Hollywood beauty standard is disgusting. Unfortunately, that’s where the commentary ends. I was hoping it would go deeper! I thought it was a given that the pursuit of beauty with risky procedures was damaging to women, but I suppose it bears repeating. I was let down by the film, but I’m glad you enjoyed it!
The director has mentioned she’s not a fan of dialogue & prefers to communicate things in other ways so I think that accounts for the lack of talking between the 2 mains & no development of ancilliary characters (I also read it as intentional b/c it’s a movie about hyper-vanity so everyone would be seen through a shallow lens). I think that comes down to a very personal, artistic preference rather than being some kind of self-sexism own. The isolation is part of the point. I think the film works on many levels as just a fun b-movie or a screed on the insane expectations we place on women. But I am also more than happy to view it as pure anger & rage like others have pointed out. I do think it’s violence is a banshee scream more than anything else.
The shallowness of character development could very well be an artistic choice, it’s just a choice that didn’t work for me. The feeling of otherworldliness, of fable, was cool. I like the analogy of a banshee scream. But I wouldn’t describe the work as “self-sexist” (if that’s what you mean?) but rather that it fell short of being a feminist satire due to its lack of depth. It feels like a shallow exploration of female rage. It substitutes gore for cutting insight.
I think self harm deserves more than just “a fun b-movie,” but even so I just didn’t find it fun! I know some people really enjoy gross-out slashers and spraying viscera, part of it is personal taste. Ultimately I had high expectations of this film and it fell short. And it had so much potential to be great! That’s what makes me more mad than if the movie were just plain bad. It was almost-good.
You make an interesting point about the lack of conversation, but I took this as a stylistic choice to reflect how isolated Elisabeth has become while taking the substance - she is so infatuated with the possibility of youth she has lost her grasp on reality.
I also saw the housekeeper as a key element to that scene - I figured it was the directors way of suggesting that Elisabeth, despite being in a position of wealth and status, unlike other women in her every day life, is still subject to the constraints of workplace power imbalances / sexism, and despite all her money and fame still lacks self-esteem to such a large level.
Also I’ve watched several interviews with the director and her intent was not to write a feminist satire but to write her own very real / personal experience about aging as a woman working in the film industry and her ‘violent’ feelings towards societies criticisms of older women. The film is supposed to be a commentary of female rage more than anything else and she says so herself. I highly recommend watching an interview with her.
Thank you so much for reading, and for your thoughtful comment! It could very well be a stylistic choice. I think that’s a fair read, it just didn’t land for me. And the background characters definitely established a “hierarchy of women” with Elisabeth at the top, which is an interesting device. But those characters were all so flat that I feel the commentary lost its edge.
I’d be interested to watch an interview with the director. What you’re saying is consistent with what I’ve heard about her statements, that Fargeat herself isn’t claiming it to be a feminist film. But a lot of the discourse around The Substance (both professionally and casually) seems to want to frame it as a feminist piece. Which IMO it isn’t!
Overall I’m glad filmmakers are out here swinging for the fences and taking risks, which The Substance definitely did.
Either way I enjoyed the article!
I finally watched The Substance, so now I can respond to this. :) I agree with a lot of what you've said, especially the part about ableism. I enjoyed watching (most) of the movie, mostly because I loved the absurd surrealism of the premise (and the acting was great), but I was struck by this idea that the conclusion seemed to say that it was Elisabeth/Sue who was at fault, not the entire industry/patriarchal beauty standards/misogyny/etc., if that makes sense.
Also, I spent most of the movie wondering, why are you not leaving notes for each other?? Or communicating at all?
I think it’s interesting to see how the wealthy and famous actively participate in the system, but I think that aspect of the film just… lacked perspective. Like I guess it’s meant to be fatalistic to present the beauty industry standard as inescapable and unquestioned. But given that Elisabeth doesn’t resist at all, and no other women in the film are portrayed as actual people, the commentary fell flat for me.
And yes why would you not talk to each other?? Like I get leaving a gross mess for the other person is “sending a message” but still.
Completely agree. I was so sad and disappointed at the new year’s scene. The whole theatre I was in was laughing at Elisabeth, as if she wasn’t trying her best to be perfect, and the film itself seemed to laugh at her too. Look at this ridiculous monster spitting blood everywhere!!! So so sad. You can’t make fun of a woman for trying to adhere to misogynistic standards and call it feminism.
Very true. I understand approaching Elisabeth’s story from an unsympathetic lens but they lacked the critical framing to really pull it off. Also idk if it’s a little too sjw of me to think the final act with “Monster Elisasue” was ableist but I just think it was in extremely poor taste!
I thought the end was a triumph for Elisabeth. Interesting to see how completely peoples’ take on this movie diverge.
She was picked up like trash at the end… everything she did for beauty and love brought her to literal desintegration. That is punishment. If Elisabeth had accepted her artificially old body and became a grandma with a cooking show, maybe that would have been a victory for her. But death? She felt relieved at best, to me :/
I guess in short I just see the movie as saying multiple things simultaneously, because there isn’t any contradiction between the triumphant relief of finally freeing yourself from the harm that was inflicted upon you, and the fact it very often will kill you in the end anyhow. I think we can laugh ruefully at ourselves for the way we are often complicit in the harm inflicted upon us.
I related to the movie a lot as an addict. She’s free, but the damage is done. It’s relieving. Hopefully, we are able to look at the monsters we once were and laugh. If you’ve quit smoking but are still dying of lung cancer, or come to forgive and love yourself after destructive cosmetic surgery, I can think of much healthier ends than to say to yourself, “Man, I was a real piece of trash back then,” and laugh.
Oh no I don’t think so at all! She’s ridiculed on stage and then scraped off the sidewalk. That’s a different take. I’m curious, what part read as triumphant for you?
It’s grim, no doubt. There’s no escape at that point other than death. But we don’t laugh at Elizabeth with the theater. Or at least, I didn’t. They’re acting over-the-top cruel and they are paid for it by being doused in gore, at which point I laugh.
It’s probably being a man, but I didn’t just see the movie as good for critiquing beauty culture - if that’s all it was I’d agree it’s ham handed (tho satire nonetheless). I saw a lot of myself as a person who has struggled w/ depression, substance abuse, and making myself smaller for others, represented in the main character. I thought her psychology was very familiar.
I hear a lot of people who are very old say they finally feel free of society’s expectations (and ofc, many people only escape addiction after it’s too late). It’s not glamorous to finally feel relief just before death, but it is triumphant.
I can see what you’re saying about death being a release. I just don’t think Elisabeth ever had an epiphany moment. She dies being a true believer. She’s reduced to mush and still crawls her way to her star on the walk of fame. At best it might be cathartic to see her tormentors punished with gore, but I don’t think there’s liberation or release for Elisabeth at any point, even in death.
I think Demi Moore gave a fantastic performance with the material she was given. Her prowess is probably what gave the depression/substance abuse angle some bite, thinking of the scene where she can’t bring herself to go on a date. But at the end of the day I still think the Hollywood / female beauty standards aspect of the film fell totally flat.
Agreed Moore absolutely killed it.
I think the one thing I'll say (which I wanna distinguish from "you should expect horror schlock to be bad" - I think it's good!) is that I expect a ... let's say truncated plot structure, to accommodate the spectacle the film is built around, and a lot of playing fast and loose with metaphors. Call it impressionistic. I think this gives the genre an incredible amount of creative freedom, but it also limits it. I can't argue with someone who walks away saying the exploration of [insert film subject matter] was jumbled or shallow, because it often is!
I look it up after commenting, and the director has talked about this being her interpretation, so at least I'm not just projecting. But the fact that I reacted to something intentionally placed in the movie doesn't mean it's necessarily well done or resonated with everyone!
I don’t think the film is laughing at her, it takes great pains to show her getting ready with her “monster form”. I read it as society not accepting someone who looks different even if they accept themselves. Yes, it’s grotesque and a bit Troma-inspired at the end (I love Troma so I was down) but it doesn’t take away from that theme, in my opinion.
That’s a generous read! I’d like to believe that, but the film really languishes in grossing out the audience in the final act. The more “human” moments, like Elisasue getting ready, read to me more as comic relief to set up the punch line (she still wants to be onstage). But again the B-movie gross-out slashers are not my thing!
Ah, yeah, I’m a huge fan of body horror, B-movies, and gore! If you haven’t seen it, you might like Seconds (1966), it’s a more “tasteful” take on this same theme (tho from the perspective of a man).
Hello! This is so interesting; I wrote an essay about The Substance and I felt completely the opposite about the satire, the body horror and the cleverness of the whole thing. (Feel free to drop by my profile to read and let me know what you think!) I think this is what I love most about art - as opposed to think pieces on Substack about the same topic. It’s about the obscure nature of it all, how it makes you FEEL - and everyone always takes away something completely different. And no one is wrong or right.
Hi, thanks for reading! I read your piece, and the point you made about men and women having fundamentally different relationships to blood was an interesting angle I hadn't thought of before. The Substance is definitely a divisive film, and a lot of the critique (mine included!) does come down to taste. I'm just glad we're all talking!
I appreciate your essay here, and there’s a lot I agree with. I was not a huge fan of The Substance — it is far from a perfect film, and I don’t think it is a completely successful satire; there are certainly choices in the film that undercut its potential in that regard. As you write, it’s clunky, repetitive, and seemingly vacuous at times.
But I do believe one aspect of the film that you point out—that it “seems to forget that women exist when they’re not being looked at”—is one thing that, in my opinion, contributes to the film’s success as a critique of the social expectations of women as objects. The film (and we) can’t stop looking at these women, their bodies. The camera refuses to let us. It shows us every angle, every crevice, all the viscera — multiple times over. Its unsubtlety is nauseating. So why can’t we look away? I don’t think it’s as simple as Fargeat is simply doing to these women what she claims to satirize in a feedback loop.
Sue’s/Elisabeth’s isolation from other women, lack of internal character, and the eventual nightmarish consequences they endure all serve to highlight how siloed off a woman becomes when she is viewed only as an object. In its spectacle, The Substance implicates the audience in contributing to the structures it critiques. We watch the carnival grotesquerie and laugh, or cringe, or avert our eyes — when our watching, and the pressure of our scrutinizing gaze, is what made the women into those monsters.
In a comment you pointed out that “The spectacle of violence against a body doesn’t in itself subvert the system that enables the violence,” which is another great point. I don’t think that what Fargeat accomplishes (in what I wrote above) is her subverting the system. At best, she’s calling our attention to the system and creating an interesting dynamic with the audience, which is not quite enough to be considered satire, but I do still think it’s a commentary worth unpacking.
Thanks so much for reading! I really appreciate your perspective here. I do agree that the way the female body is filmed/ objectified is actually quite effective. The way Sue is scrutinized by the camera, celebrated and demeaned at the same time, heightens the overall feeling of absurdism. And I really like what you’re saying about the film implicating the audience. As you said, even if it falls short of satire, it’s calling attention to the system.
I suppose where my uneasiness is coming from is the absence of other women, or rather, their presence in the background as set dressing. I imagine it may have been intentional, but it made the story a spectacle of self-obsession, without really highlighting or questioning it. I agree there are lots of effective pieces at play in the film. I was just disappointed that it fell short of feminism, and fell short of satire.
Completely with you there on the lack of other women as characters themselves, and when there are other women present they are just as objectified. It totally is a spectacle of self-obsession which adds to how sad Elisabeth’s/Sue’s story is— if they felt like they could turn to other women in community, maybe they could have avoided falling into the trap of self-obsession? I wonder if the film is asking us to consider how a failure to foster feminist community is what leads women into perpetuating the cycles that harm them, or if that’s too generous of a reading.
bold comparison here but a lot of black movies follow a similar trend of overusing violent scenes involving black bodies as slaves/activist that sometimes detract from the individual message.
That is a very interesting comparison! The spectacle of violence against a body doesn’t in itself subvert the system that enables the violence. I read an essay by one of the journalists targeted in GamerGate talking about how dead female bodies are often used as set dressing to establish a “gritty” world. Feels gross to see violence porn about slaves get high praise and awards over and over.
exactly! desensitizing seems to be the result rather than exposure
Great reaction to this film. I had been trying to wrap my head around it, appreciating the attempted critique of Hollywood and frustrated by the ridiculous final segment. There was a perfect moment to end - when she first sees herself in the mirror as the monster. Anything after that was superfluous.
Putting aside the stretch of one human body climbing out the back of another, I was annoyed that the two beings didn’t share the memories and experiences. Was that an intentional risk in taking the substance or a plot hole? If not sharing experiences is a known factor, why would anyone bother to do it?
I agree, if the film had ended with the "monster" in the mirror I would have disliked it less! The final third just felt gratuitous.
I know a lot of people take issue with the lack of shared consciousness, because it really leaves a large gap in the premise. My more generous reading would be that it's meant to feel like a fable, or a nightmare, and that it's not supposed to make logical sense. But it could also just be a flaw! In either case, the themes and commentary weren't enough to keep me engaged.
My thoughts too. Obviously
Right on. I would’ve argued this is intentional, but more women talking with lives to contrast and foil against Elizabeth’s isolation might’ve added some depth.
Hi Lora, nice work on the thoughtful article. What is a good example of feminist satire? I thought this movie fit the bill but you made good points.
Glad you liked the article! Great question. When it comes to feminist satire horror, it’s hard to find a film that checks all 3 boxes. I think the best example would be The Stepford Wives (1975).
Beyond horror, some feminist satire films I’d recommend: Poor Things, Ingrid Goes West, and Heathers.
To me, the film felt like bourgeois feminism
Yes, exactly!! That’s a great way to put it.
I think All We Imagine as Light is a far better feminist film dealing with more pressing issues plaguing women not just in America but across the globe
I haven’t seen that one but it looks gorgeous
It’s really great, you should check out my review
Thank you for the review. Not something my wife and I would like to watch. Off the top of my head, The Haunting, is a horror movie I liked.
Glad I could save you and your wife some time!
Hey! Coming in hot here, all w love :)
think this analysis of the movie is desperately looking to over complicate the simplicity of the message. The gore, and its absurdity, is- as you mention but dismiss- the heart of the story. The statement is very simple; chasing youth, beauty and the validation of others will always destroy you. It’s fable-like, and its campness- and lack of logic, as you call it- are part of the telling of the fable. The simplicity, I think, is what allowed it to be such a success!
I really didn’t understand the inclusion of the bechdel test here, either. This film is about a battle between two halves of a woman’s psyche; and the fact that they don’t directly communicate is imo essential to the message- these two sides of ourselves; the real, ugly, lusting parts vs. The segments of ourselves we show, or wish we were- they can’t be in communication. They can’t acknowledge one another directly at all because of the instability of self being explored in the film.
Is this the most complex feminist film ever made? No. (Again, i’d argue, to its credit) But to say it doesn’t operate within feminism is simply not true.
Finally, I disagree wholeheartedly that it was condescending. I think that its brazenness is an expression of the brazenness of Hollywood, plastic surgery, hyperfemininity, our dreams and desires, the way culture views sex etc etc.
I felt far less condescended to by the substance, which trusts me as a woman to see gore and connect that, (with humour!) to the disgust we turn on ourselves and spew out all over everyone else. Unlike something like Barbie, which throws a load of feminism 101 buzzwords at me but doesn’t give them any thematic backing- or really trust me to do any interpreting of my own at all.
Interesting to read this perspective! Thanks for sharing :)
Hello! Strong opening lol :) I do think the idea of The Substance being a fable is a useful framing. However, for my own personal taste, "beauty standards are gross" is not an interesting enough premise on its own without having something insightful to go with it. I wouldn't expect a film like The Substance to present solutions, that would be too trite. But I did expect some sort of cutting insight on the violence of beauty. To me, the film didn't seem to have anything new to say. Maybe I could have forgiven that if the film were more enjoyable, but it wasn't even fun to watch! Maybe gore-heads got a thrill from it, but IMO if you're gonna be that gross, with something as volatile as self-harm, you better have something insightful to go with it. The Substance was too surface-level.
I don't think all film needs to pass the Bechdel Test, it's just something I noticed that seemed out of place given The Substance's framing. A generous read, as I mentioned in my piece, would be that this is an intentional choice made to heighten Elisabeth's isolation. However, I'm not sure it was intentional, and either way it detracted from the film's critique of its subject. It's a film that seems to celebrate individualism, to the point of self-obsession.
The part that I refer to as condescending is the hand-holdiness of basic plot points, specifically the clunky flashbacks with her high school acquaintance and her producer. This stylization of plot is what's condescending, not necessarily the film as a whole. I know a lot of people hated Barbie, but I didn't mind the "feminism 101" stuff because it was all done within the context of the story. America Ferrera is not breaking the 4th wall to speak to the audience with her monologue, she's speaking to an otherworldly entity who comes from a magical world where patriarchy doesn't exist. Speaking about a pervasive truth in it's most basic/elementary terms makes it sound ridiculous, because it is. Also Barbie was a huge blockbuster for all ages, not tailor made for online leftists lol so I understand why a lot of leftists didn't like it but I personally didn't mind!
At the end of the day, I'm glad The Substance took a lot of creative risks, I'm just disappointed that it's commentary was more shallow that I was expecting.
Totally! I won’t keep debating too much bc all of this is subjective.
I will say tho I dont think the message is that “beauty standards are gross”, I think the gore etc is an expression of the raw feelings created by the standards and the over-scrutinising of the self. I don’t mean that in a pedantic way, I just think it’s different. I related to this expression, you and others wouldn’t. Which is interesting.
And I think we’re reading the things you find condescending very differently. Also interesting.
I think a lot of feminist ideas are treated with the expectation that women feel broadly the same about how they want their issues treated, and clearly that isn’t the case. Barbie worked for tens (hundreds?) of thousands of women, so I can’t say it’s not a feminist text. Do I like it, absolutely not. Which I assume is your issue with the substance.
Yes you’re right this is all subjective! And it’s interesting to see what devices work for some people vs don’t work for others. Glad you liked the film. And thanks again for reading!
Hi, I had a slightly different take on this movie! I also didn’t think it was a feminist film but do think it was full of commentary on the internalization and pressures of the male gaze, and the commodification of beauty. I wrote a piece about this too and kinda go on and on about its commentary on how the landscape of beauty standards has evolved so intensely it’s disgusting. I definitely think you were supposed to walk away from the movie feeling disgusted.
Hi, thanks for reading! I read your piece on The Substance as well. I think it was interesting how you paired it with the rise of social media, and how commodification of your own image is something that’s within reach (and aggressively pushed) to everyone nowadays, not just Hollywood stars.
The Substance definitely is making a statement that the Hollywood beauty standard is disgusting. Unfortunately, that’s where the commentary ends. I was hoping it would go deeper! I thought it was a given that the pursuit of beauty with risky procedures was damaging to women, but I suppose it bears repeating. I was let down by the film, but I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Weminismne
The director has mentioned she’s not a fan of dialogue & prefers to communicate things in other ways so I think that accounts for the lack of talking between the 2 mains & no development of ancilliary characters (I also read it as intentional b/c it’s a movie about hyper-vanity so everyone would be seen through a shallow lens). I think that comes down to a very personal, artistic preference rather than being some kind of self-sexism own. The isolation is part of the point. I think the film works on many levels as just a fun b-movie or a screed on the insane expectations we place on women. But I am also more than happy to view it as pure anger & rage like others have pointed out. I do think it’s violence is a banshee scream more than anything else.
The shallowness of character development could very well be an artistic choice, it’s just a choice that didn’t work for me. The feeling of otherworldliness, of fable, was cool. I like the analogy of a banshee scream. But I wouldn’t describe the work as “self-sexist” (if that’s what you mean?) but rather that it fell short of being a feminist satire due to its lack of depth. It feels like a shallow exploration of female rage. It substitutes gore for cutting insight.
I think self harm deserves more than just “a fun b-movie,” but even so I just didn’t find it fun! I know some people really enjoy gross-out slashers and spraying viscera, part of it is personal taste. Ultimately I had high expectations of this film and it fell short. And it had so much potential to be great! That’s what makes me more mad than if the movie were just plain bad. It was almost-good.