The Substance: The Horrors of Beauty Standards

Coming to VOD on Oct 31st, this film is brutal, disgusting, and absolutely brilliant

A few weeks ago, I went to the cinema to see The Substance. I’d been eagerly awaiting this film’s release ever since hearing the buzz from Cannes, where it won Best Screenplay, was nominated for the Palme D’Or, and where Demi Moore received a 13-minute standing ovation. The trailer was a visceral, colourful spectacle that promised a satirical look at beauty standards by way of body horror. An updated, blended version of The Portrait Of Dorian Grey, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, or Death Becomes Her for the internet age.

I was so in.

(NOTE: I’m not a film critic, I don’t claim to be. But I haven’t stopped thinking about this film since I saw it and - as I often use this platform to talk about appearance, self-love, and beauty standards - I thought it would also be of interest to you. Mild spoilers below, so feel free to come back to read after viewing if you care about that sort of thing!)

The premise of the film is simple: Elisabeth Sparkles (Demi Moore) is an ageing Hollywood star. Once the jewel in the crown of her channel’s morning show, she’s now being forced to retire by her detestable boss (played brilliantly by Dennis Quaid). While at her lowest ebb, she discovers The Substance, a black market treatment. “It generates another you. A new, younger, more beautiful, more perfect you. And there’s only one rule: You share time. One week for you. One week for the new you. Seven days each. A perfect balance. Easy. Right? If you respect the balance… what could possibly go wrong?”

A warning up top: if you aren’t a fan of extreme gore, you need to avoid this film like the plague. It is not for the faint of heart. An incredible 70-80% of the effects in this film were practical effects (meaning no CGI). The ‘birth scene’ was entirely practical effects, apart from the close up of the eyeball. In a world of cinema fakery, that is just extraordinary. Every aspect of this film is turned up to 11: the soundtrack, the gaudy colours, the minimalist décor, the camera angles, the sound effects (I actually found the shrimp-eating scene more revolting than the gore). At every step, the film sets out to oppress and overwhelm your senses.

Demi Moore is incredible, perfectly embodying her character as angry, vengeful, vulnerable, and heart-wrenchingly sad. And Margaret Qualley is perfect as a faux-naïve, perma-perky starlet.

But we can’t talk about the casting of Demi Moore without acknowledging the way she looks in this film. Obviously, we all know that she’s a beautiful woman. Her body and face are portrayed unflinchingly in this film as she gazes in the mirror in complete disgust: clinical close ups of her naked bum with sagging skin, cellulite on her thighs, wrinkles on her face, and stretchmarks on her stomach. As we ricochet between the POVs of Elisabeth and Sue, their bodies are juxtaposed, forcing us to compare them. The shots of Sue gazing lustfully at her reflection and then when she’s performing her exercise show are so overtly male-gaze-coded they become comical. If Michael Bay directed porn, this is what it would look like. In comparison, Elisabeth is lit harshly and unflinchingly as she sucks in her stomach, pulls and scrubs at her face, aggressively applies make up, and dresses to hide the body parts that fall short of her vision.

It adds to the satire of this film that, even in this portrayal of her character, Demi Moore has a body that is out of reach for 99% of 61-year-olds. Even playing a character 11 years younger than her actual age, she is displayed as an example of a washed up, past-it woman who is fired the moment she turns 50. But millions of women would probably kill to look like her. She was blessed with incredible genetics to have that face and body to start with, but on top of that she has been Famous (with a capital F) for about 40 years which means she’s had access to the best doctors, aestheticians, dieticians, trainers, stylists. She will spend more money on her appearance in a year than most of us would ever dream of earning. In short, looking like that is her full-time job. A regular person cannot ever hope to achieve that level of ‘perfection’.

I’ve already seen countless articles praising Moore’s performance as ‘brave’, for appearing fully naked on screen in her (objectively youthful and attractive) 61-year-old body, for being willing to portray the breakdown of her face, body, and mind as the film progresses. In interviews she has talked about how much she identified with her character, hinting at her treatment by both Hollywood and the general public over the years (“…finishing the movie did feel like there’s a reason why I signed up to do this — like there was an itch I needed to scratch”).

But, in this film, she represents the ‘before’ picture. As the audience, we’re invited to see what she sees, to compare that vision to Sue, and ultimately understand Elisabeth’s choice to sacrifice her time, appearance, and life in order to become her. The film drags the audience into their objectification and makes us complicit in the ridiculous judgement of beauty and youth. We’re meant to look at Demi Moore and on one hand know that she’s a beautiful woman who should be happy with how she looks, and on the other hand understand that - to a woman known and valued only for her appearance - ageing is the most terrifying thing imaginable. To her, anything is worth the trade off.

There is a scene where Elisabeth has a momentary chance to course correct, a chance at love (or at least superficial adoration) with a ‘normal’ person. But her hatred at her appearance results in the time ticking ever-closer to their date, cutting from the clock to her obsessive outfit changes and make up reapplication shown as a form of self-flagellation. It’s heartbreaking and frustrating to watch in equal measures.

Interestingly, even Margaret Qualley – hired specifically to portray beauty, youth, and perfection – wasn’t quite perfect enough and wore breast prostheses to give her the necessary body parts. As I am a person who has talked for years about the futility of comparison to others, this felt particularly important to note. Even though I assume her exercise show is aimed at women, every part of Sue’s character is created to appeal solely to men. This intention becomes even more clear if you know that Monstro – the final form in the film – was designed to be a “Picasso of male expectations”, a phrase I love.

I loved the contrast between Elisabeth’s role and the role of her boorish boss, Harvey (yes he’s called Harvey: this film is many things but subtle isn’t one of them!) Dennis Quaid is a decade older than Demi Moore and he looks it in this film. That’s not an insult, he looks like what he is: an older man. He’s often filmed in extreme close up which emphasises his appearance in grotesque ways (nicotine-stained teeth, revoltingly loud and messy eating in public, a fish-eye lenses deployed to distort his features), but none of that matters to the plot. He is still a powerful, wealthy, white man who holds the careers of these women in the palm of his hand. In fact, his age is probably seen as a positive in his role.

This perfectly echoes the disparity of Hollywood acting roles and stories actors are allowed to tell. Older men are allowed to age and are - crucially - still considered sexy, believed to be the desirable leading man that women half their age fawn over. George Clooney has been sporting grey hair for as long as I can remember. Brad Pitt has brought out a luxury skincare line, even though he looks every one of his 60 years. I’m not saying this to shame him or shame his age. I’m saying it because would a famous 60-year-old woman be ‘allowed’ to release a skincare line if she looked her age? Would it sell?

Grey hair on men has a name: a silver fox. Is there a female equivalent?

How many films can you name where the female lead has a male love interest half her age? Is that age gap a plot point? Is it so common that it’s no longer commented on or even considered shocking?

We all know that the rules for women are different - this is hardly ground-breaking social commentary - but it’s something that fascinates me.

The Substance is not a subtle film. The themes are right there on its shiny pink surface: misogyny, our obsession with youth and beauty, ageism and relevance, the fickle and superficial world of celebrity, tweakments, perception drift, and addiction. It’s a film that’s as shallow as the very beauty standards it’s satirising.

It is unbelievably sad that Elisabeth’s character gets another chance at life, at youth, and makes the exact same mistakes she made the first time. It’s meant to be empowering that she takes her 50 years of experience and uses it to manipulative the stupidity and lust of her former boss, but ultimately who wins? Sue doesn’t use her fleeting power and platform to change anything, she doesn’t push back on the patriarchal bullshit that pushed her out of her previous life, she repeats the exact same pattern with even more sparkle and sex appeal. She objectifies herself for the male gaze without seeming to ever really enjoy the outcome.

The film comes out on VOD on October 31^st and if horror is your thing, I could not recommend this film more. It’s violent, grotesque, darkly funny, abrasive, and visually stunning, and if Demi Moore doesn’t win an Oscar for it I’ll eat my hat.

Further reading about The Substance in case you’re as invested as me:

• The set design

• The film’s use of colour

• References to other classic horror films

Catch up on my other writing:

Dunning-Kruger? I barely know 'er!

On Going Viral And Why It's Bloody Awful