As a film critic who has spent years analyzing the intricacies of cinematic storytelling and character development, I must admit that “The Substance” is a masterpiece that delves deep into societal issues surrounding beauty standards, particularly for women. The decision to cast Margaret Qualley as Sue instead of a de-aged Demi Moore was not just a wise financial move, but also a crucial element in the film’s narrative.
Discussions abound online about Coralie Fargeat’s latest film, The Substance, being the most shocking (and revolting) movie of the year. Though it surprises and occasionally disgusts, its real reason for garnering attention is due to its pointed critique on society’s unattainable beauty standards, particularly towards women. The film delivers sharp jabs at Hollywood’s fixation with youth and beauty in women, yet it also addresses society’s problematic obsession with female attractiveness and youth.
As a fervent advocate, let me share my take on describing this body horror film: I personally follow a chilling movie about a once-illustrious actress named Elisabeth Sparkle, portrayed by Demi Moore, who experiences a devastating turn of events on her 50th birthday – losing her long-held position as the host of a popular morning exercise show. In a tragic twist, she gets into a severe car accident while witnessing her billboard being removed. Desperate for change, the disheartened former starlet stumbles upon an enigmatic substance called The Substance. Rumored to create an enhanced version of its user, Elisabeth decides to give it a try, with one unusual condition: she must spend a week as her Matrix Self and another week as her Other Self, without any exceptions – initially at least. Needless to say, this rule eventually gets broken.
In “The Substance,” there are some astonishingly bizarre scenes and gruesome visuals that leave you questioning your eyesight. Fargeat makes no secret of her views on the world’s demanding beauty ideals, which she believes significantly influence self-worth. This perspective is vividly portrayed in Elizabeth and Sue’s (played by Margaret Qualley) encounter with “The Substance.” Although they bear some physical resemblance, Elizabeth and Sue are distinct individuals, contradicting “The Substance”‘s assertion that they are one and the same.
Warning: Major spoilers for The Substance lie ahead.
Read Our Review
Sue Is Supposed to Be a Better Version of Elisabeth
The fundamental purpose of The Substance lies in offering users the opportunity to shape a superior version of themselves. By “superior,” we don’t necessarily mean younger, although the concept of youth often coincides with an improved self-image. If The Substance were merely designed to produce a younger version of you, that would have been their marketing message. Instead, their aim is to develop a better, younger, more attractive, and more gifted version of yourself—a version you’ve never seen before.
In the world of The Matrix, it’s stated that the Self from the Matrix and another Self are one entity due to the latter being born from the former. This claim by the creators of The Substance holds up technically. However, Sue wouldn’t be considered a superior version of Elizabeth if she were merely younger. Instead, she needed to surpass Elizabeth in all aspects that mattered to Elizabeth herself.
They Share Only a Few Physical Characteristics
Despite the differences in appearance, it wouldn’t be logical if Sue was not a physical manifestation of Elisabeth, but rather her offspring through the use of an activator. In essence, Elisabeth gave birth to Sue from her back, and when her back and spine split open, Sue emerged and shared Elisabeth’s consciousness. As Sue became comfortable in her new body, she changed her name to reflect this transformation and took over presenting duties on Elisabeth’s show.
Sue adopts a more daring and fashionable style compared to Elizabeth, leveraging her vibrant young physique. Yet, they possess certain physical resemblances, given they are essentially the same individual. Both Elizabeth and Sue boast long, dark tresses, stand around the same height, and share a similar body structure. Additionally, they both exhibit comparable facial features. Furthermore, they both exhibit similar behaviors, like the camera kiss they both do at the end of their morning workout programs.
If Sue didn’t share any distinctive physical features with Elizabeth, she wouldn’t be considered a variant of Elizabeth. However, to be seen as a version of her, Sue needed to possess some characteristics similar to Elizabeth, yet have enough unique traits to be deemed an improved version.
Making Sue Look Exactly Like Elisabeth Would Have Been Costly
From a Film Enthusiast’s Perspective: Opting to make Sue visually identical to Elizabeth, but younger, would have been a complex and costly endeavor that would have stretched our budget beyond the $17.5 million allocated for The Substance. Employing de-aging technology extensively to achieve this transformation would have been necessary due to Sue’s extensive screen time in the movie. Moreover, it would have been evident to everyone at the studio that Sue was merely a younger version of Elizabeth, which could have raised some intriguing questions and potential controversy.
The intention behind The Substance goes beyond just making you appear more youthful; it’s about improving you as a whole. In Sue’s case, she wasn’t only expected to be younger, but also prettier, more athletic, and more gifted in Elisabeth’s perception. Interestingly, Sue matched the profile that Harvey (played by Dennis Quaid) was seeking as a replacement for Elisabeth. Harvey tends to sexualize and idealize women and beauty, similar to many in society, which instantly drew him towards Sue. After her audition, he felt no need to consider any other candidates. A younger version of Elisabeth wouldn’t have been suitable for the role.
Sue and Elisabeth’s Physical Differences Are Part of the Point
As a movie connoisseur, I’d rephrase it this way: In a world where Elisabeth and Sue were carbon copies, save for their age difference, the film’s message would lose its punch. Our society is captivated not just by youth, but by an elusive and unattainable standard of beauty and allure that only a select few can afford to attain through expensive treatments and surgeries. The vast majority of us don’t have the means to transform ourselves into the idealized versions we see in media. It’s concerning that so many people think these cosmetic enhancements are the key to beauty, when in reality, they perpetuate an unhealthy standard that disproportionately affects women, who face much harsher beauty standards than men.
When Elizabeth got the chance to craft an improved, idealized self, she eagerly took it. Delighted by the new self-image that bore only a few resemblances, but was largely distinct, she considered this a favorable transformation. She held this view because she deemed Sue, her new version, superior due to her looks. Interestingly, even those in Elizabeth’s circle treated Sue more favorably, merely because she was younger and perceived as more attractive.
The essence lies there: Society’s yearning for youth, charm, and good looks runs so deep that many people grant preferential treatment to those considered conventionally attractive. If Elizabeth were younger, she might have seen some enhancements in her life, but what truly appealed to Elizabeth, her superior, and others was a visage that met all societal standards of beauty.
The Substance
is currently playing in theaters.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-10-03 05:01