MONSTRO ELISASUE
in defense of the substance
This newsletter contains spoilers.
Last month, I turned 32. I don’t feel old, and based on a recent experience with a TSA agent who asked me if I was “over 12,” I can’t say I look old, either. To be completely honest, I love getting older. It sounds cliche, but I really do feel that I become more myself with each passing year, even if my fertility began its plunge into nothingness about seven years ago, according to Dennis Quaid’s character in today’s film. I have loved the perspective and the wisdom and the way that the fucks I have left to give have dwindled. I’m on track to empty that tank by 35. In any case, if looking older means I will no longer be mistaken for a minor, sign me up.
2024’s The Substance depicts one woman’s commitment to staying relevant in the youth-obsessed industry of show business. In this age-old (pun intended) tale of the horrors of getting older, Elisabeth Sparkle (played by Demi Moore) dabbles in an experimental anti-aging trial in an attempt to hold tight to her beauty and, in turn, her fame. Though at first deemed a wild success, Elisabeth soon experiences…let’s say, the strange ‘side effects’ of the substance, and begs for a procedure reversal. Unfortunately, what is done cannot be undone, and Elisabeth grows to resent the younger, hotter, more lovable version of herself she’s brought into existence and named Sue. Despite her resentment, and despite her ‘side effects,’ Elisabeth struggles to find the strength to discontinue the trial, ultimately succumbing to her vanity at a cost worse than irrelevance - death itself.
It would be disingenuous to claim that this movie was a bust. Nominated for Best Picture, as of today, The Substance boasts an impressive 89% on Rotten Tomatoes. Demi Moore was nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role for her performance as Elisabeth, and took home the win at the Golden Globe, Critic’s Choice, and SAG awards. And yet - AND YET - the internet critics are at it again, pissing me off. One Forbes headline reads: “The Substance Review: A Genuinely Bad Horror Movie That Makes Absolutely No Sense” - written by a man, as you can imagine. Even some of my favorite female horror writers and podcasters have expressed criticism that I have found to be eye-rolly at best. So here I am, with no option but to come to the defense of this satirical, hilarious, disgusting film. It is my duty, and I will not shy away.
“Heavy-Handed”
One of the less-infuriating (but still silly) criticisms of The Substance is that it is too on-the-nose. Many have complained that it lacks subtlety - that it insults the audience’s intelligence with its obvious message. To that I say, you got me! It’s overt! There is no question what director Coralie Fargeat is trying to say with this one: ‘older’ women in the industry are discriminated against, and are sold the idea that a product will solve their problems. This film is not trying to communicate any subliminal messages, but I fail to see why that makes it bad.
Maybe these critics mean that it isn’t a fresh idea, and to that, I also say, you got me! But isn’t it interesting that this story, as overdone as it is, retains its relevance? To me, this makes the film MORE effective. We have progressed so little (or regressed so much) that we scream a ‘stale’ message, a ‘tired’ plea from the rooftop, and STILL nothing changes - that’s horror. Maybe it’s our sexist culture that is overdone and needs reworking. Maybe the reason Fargeat is hitting us over the head with her narrative is because, clearly, we fucking need it. Talk to us like we’re toddlers, Coralie. If there was intelligence to insult, I imagine we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
“Anti-Feminist”
This one stuck me as particularly stupid. Now, I can fully appreciate and understand that there is often a fine line between satirizing and reproducing. Male comics making “I hate my wife” jokes and pawning them off as parody, for example, is harmful. Male directors utilizing the male gaze to dehumanize female characters and, thus, women in the world, is harmful. Punching down for the sake of laughs and hiding behind the word “satire” (say it with me) IS HARMFUL. But for a female director to so intentionally and egregiously employ stylistic choices that highlight the very real objectification of women in the industry to make a (some say OBVIOUS or HEAVY HANDED) point - now that’s satire.
YES we linger on Sue’s (Margaret Qualley’s) ass while she performs on Pump It Up. YES, her dances are hilariously sexualized and, some might argue, objectifying. That’s the point. My interpretation is that we are seeing Sue (and Elisabeth, for that matter) through the eyes of the corporate executives who are profiting off of her, all of whom are white, grey-haired, heterosexual men. Dennis Quaid’s character is named Harvey, for crying out loud. They ogle her, they worship her, but in many ways, they own her. There is little agency afforded to Sue, just as there is little agency afforded to women of all ages in show business.
Even one of my favorite podcasters (who will go unnamed here) was frustrated by the fact that “the movie offers few alternatives for how to be a women in the industry.” Yeah girl, that’s the point. This movie does not owe us a solution to the structural problems in Hollywood; instead, it offers us a mirror. Let’s gaze into it, shall we?
“Ageist”
Talk about missing the point! Many of the same critics saying this movie is sexist because it portrays a woman being objectified claim that it is also ageist for portraying older women being discriminated against. They argue that it is harmful to depict aging as monstrous, to show these women fighting against signs of aging. A favorite writer of mine literally said “I like the story, but why couldn’t we make something ELSE the monster?”
Re: satire. Re: relevance. Re: mirror. Re: missing the point. Take a look at the comment sections on Pamela Anderson’s instagram page if you need a reminder of how much this world HATES older women for aging. I see why someone may feel frustrated by Elisabeth’s own horror at her aging body, but I don’t believe she is truly horrified by her aging flesh as mush as she is horrified by what this means for her. I’d like to share an excerpt from the Forbes article linked above to demonstrate just how relevant and timely Fargeat’s commentary on ageism in the industry is:
“Let me be blunt: The film’s premise is absurd. It doesn’t make sense. Basically, Moore’s Elisabeth Sparkle is a washed out celebrity still doing, of all things, workout videos a la “Buns of Steel”. Is it reasonable to employ a 62-year-old hosting an aerobics morning show? This would have worked better if the role was in some kind of drama or even a soap opera where ageism might be a little less, well, practical.”
To claim that an older woman (who is 50 years-old in the film, not 62, to be clear), hosting an aerobics show is “absurd” and “doesn’t make sense” tells us everything we need to know. If we still live in a world where agism can be considered ‘practical’ in any industry, we really do need filmmakers to hit us over the head with this shit. Might I remind you, Demi Moore lost the Oscar to 25-year-old Mickey Madison for her (well-deserved, I’m sure) performance in Anora (2024). I rest my case.
“Insubstantial”
Finally, the dumbest critique of them all. Many critics have called this movie, including the script, the characters, and the set design, “shallow.” That’s right folks. The critics are up in arms because a satirical film called The Substance lacks…substance. Many argue that the movie prioritizes style and shock value over a deep exploration of its themes or characters. To that I say, once again, you got me, and boy did you miss the point.
Notice that these critics do not demean the industry itself for being shallow, nor do they argue that the industry is somehow NOT this shallow. Instead, they criticize a celebrated female director for showing the industry as it really is - looks-obsessed and superficial and white, male-dominated - and accuses HER of being the perpetrator. I can’t believe how wrong they are.
Some even take issue with the design of the substance itself, saying it looks cheap - like, who would ACTUALLY inject themselves with that shit, right? But despite this film being satire (FULLY, VERY OBVIOUSLY SATIRE), the substance really isn’t that different from the real-life strategies sold to women (and men) to fight aging. See: diamondglow dermabrasion. See: vampire facials. If I wanted my own platelets extracted from my body and injected back into my facial skin, I wouldn’t need to go to the dark web, though maybe they SHOULD be outlawed such that I’m forced to crawl through a dark alley to access them.
Is this a perfect movie? No. It is a fresh story? No. Does it deserve these criticisms? No.
As my good friend, Kam, said upon reading the online commentary on this film, “We are the only true movie understanders.”
Loved this piece so much! I was too scared to watch the movie, but reading this helps me feel like I was there with you & now I'm extra angry at all the haters! Be a movie understander, people!
Love angry Karissa. Get 'em!