As an avid follower of female directors and probably Demi Moore’s last remaining superfan, I knew I needed to watch Coralie Fargeat’s satirical thriller “The Substance” as soon as it hit theaters.
The plot centers around Elizabeth Sparkle, an aging celebrity aerobics instructor played by Moore who is informed on her 50th birthday that her television program will be taken over by a younger, prettier star. Amidst her distress, a lab technician introduces her to a mysterious black-market drug named The Substance that claims to instantly revert users back to their good-looking youth.
Of course, because things can never be that simple, when Elizabeth takes The Substance, her more attractive counterpart emerges from her spine in a bit of body horror I had to look away from. Named Sue and played by Margaret Qualley, this variant’s continued existence is dependent upon Elizabeth’s bodily fluids, and thus can only be active for a week at a time. Sue replaces Elizabeth on the aerobics program and is seemingly progressing towards stardom, but in her quest for fame, she ignores the weekly time limit with disastrous side effects.
The film contains brilliantly dynamic performances from its leading women, and I’d even venture to say that Demi Moore deserves an Oscar nomination for her nuanced portrayal of Elizabeth. Margaret Qualley, who I had only seen act on television until this point, serves as an excellent foil to Moore, and their scenes together are easily the most engaging part of the movie. Even Dennis Quaid, playing Sue and Elizabeth’s boss, expertly captures the energy of a smarmy, chauvinistic television executive. Whether this is a result of Quaid’s top-notch acting or simply an extension of his pre-existing abrasive personality, I’ll leave up for debate.
The movie had a two-hour-and-20-minute runtime, and I think that Fargeat utilized this time thoughtfully. Although the middle of the movie got a bit tedious, the thrilling and fast-paced third act definitely made up for it. As for the more technical aspects of the film, I found that the sound design significantly added to the discomfort Fargeat wanted her audience to feel while watching. The film’s special effects work and makeup struck me as particularly impressive, and the narrative would have lost a lot of its impact if the grotesque visuals could not back it up.
That being said, I did take issue with some elements of the film. I found the tone to be a bit inconsistent as scenes switched between ironic self-parody and visceral body horror. The abrupt tonal shifts left me feeling whiplash and occasionally undermined the seriousness of the subjects it is attempting to comment on. Narratively, I thought that in tackling the topics of misogyny and ageism, Fargeat placed an unwarranted amount of blame on the individual. Although she makes it evident that it is the restrictive social expectations and narrow beauty standards that motivate Elizabeth to continue using The Substance, her inability to strike a balance between the two versions of herself is framed as a personal failing, not an institutional fault.
“The Substance” earns four out of five stars in my book. Because Fargeat is still relatively new as a director (“The Substance” was only her sophomore film), I’m excited to see the trajectory her career will take and will be keeping an eye out for her future projects. On a personal note, I hope that Demi Moore’s stellar performance in this movie is enough to bring her back into the Hollywood spotlight. Mark my words: A Demi Moore resurgence is coming and I, as her last remaining superfan, will be at the head of it.
Leave a Reply