The Substance (Movie)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares158 Views

      in Movies

      Watch Demi Moore Transform in ‘The Substance’

      by

      The writer and director Coralie Fargeat narrates a sequence from her film, which is nominated for best picture.In “Anatomy of a Scene,” we ask directors to reveal the secrets that go into making key scenes in their movies. See new episodes in the series on Fridays. You can also watch our collection of more than 150 videos on YouTube and subscribe to our YouTube channel.A miracle drug starts to create some side effects in this scene from “The Substance.”Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore) has been taking a black-market drug that has created a younger version of herself, Sue (Margaret Qualley). Her time must be divided between the younger and older versions on a strict schedule, but in this sequence, Elisabeth finds out what happens if she doesn’t respect the balance of that time.She wakes up after Sue’s wild evening to a disheveled apartment and one aged appendage, the result of Sue taking more fluid from Elisabeth’s body to buy more time in her young body. Elisabeth notices that one of her fingers now looks dramatically older than the others.As she runs to the sink to try to wash the age away, the pace become faster and closer. Narrating the scene, the director Coralie Fargeat said, “The idea was all those close-ups that go more and more macro on the finger is to project Elisabeth’s fears and Elisabeth’s thoughts about what’s happening to her.”As Elisabeth calls the Substance company to discuss her “alteration,” she is taunted by a giant billboard out her window that shows her younger self. Fargeat said that she included a shot from above on Elisabeth to “film her discomfort, the fact that she’s now threatened.” This point of view is almost “a face-off with her double, and above her as if she was tiny and oppressed by the situation.”Read the “Substance” review.Sign up for the Movies Update newsletter and get a roundup of reviews, news, Critics’ Picks and more. More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      Golden Globes Snubs and Surprises: Jon M. Chu, Danielle Deadwyler, ‘The Substance’ and More

      by

      Female directors were well-represented, while “Dune: Part Two” and “Sing Sing” didn’t do as well as expected.The 82nd Golden Globes nominations were announced Monday morning and the unconventional musical “Emilia Pérez” had plenty to sing about: The Netflix film topped all movies with 10 nominations, followed by “The Brutalist” and “Conclave.” Here are some of the most notable takeaways from this year’s field.Ryan Reynolds rebuffedRyan Reynolds wasn’t nominated for “Deadpool & Wolverine.”20th Century Studios/MarvelBefore a series of recent scandals prompted the Golden Globes to diversify its voting membership, you could count on this show to favor celebrity over critical consensus: Every year, the list of nominees included A-list megastars who were recognized even when their projects were not up to par. The old Globes voters, for instance, would have been eager to nominate the “Deadpool & Wolverine” star Ryan Reynolds for best actor in a comedy or musical, if only to lure Reynolds and his wife, Blake Lively, to their red carpet. The new Globes voters proved more resistant to his charms, though they did find room for the Marvel blockbuster in their dubious box-office achievement category, added last year.A ‘Sing Sing’ setbackClarence Maclin, left, and Colman Domingo in “Sing Sing.”A24Just last week, the A24 prison drama “Sing Sing” had a strong night at the Gothams, picking up wins for lead performance (Colman Domingo) and supporting performance (Clarence Maclin). The Globes proved less enamored: Only Domingo scored a nomination, and both Maclin and the film were snubbed. After an acclaimed but quiet run in theaters earlier this summer, the “Sing Sing” awards-season relaunch just took its first notable hit.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      The ‘Wicked’ Practice of Taking Pictures of the Movie Screen

      by

      Why are so many people snapping photos and taking videos at the movies? Will this trend ever go away?During an opening weekend screening of the movie musical “Wicked,” a woman sitting in front of me reached for her phone during “The Wizard and I,” Cynthia Erivo’s first big number as the misunderstood green sorceress Elphaba. I watched while this person snapped several photos of Erivo as she belted.This behavior both bewildered me and, naturally, distracted me from the film. I became more focused on what exactly was being photographed — and why — than on Erivo’s performance. And yet this disruption is apparently not unusual if you have seen “Wicked” in a theater. Social media has been flooded with images that people have taken during the movie. One post actually prompted others to share their photos as if taking them was a badge of honor. (Even one of the movie’s stars, Ariana Grande, posted an Instagram Reel of her grandmother watching her sing “Popular.” That one we can let slide.)It’s not just “Wicked.” Taking photos and videos of the screen at movies has somehow become a common practice these days. For instance, major spoilers from “Deadpool & Wolverine” were plastered all over X and TikTok shortly after it hit theaters thanks to poor-quality shots from audience members. Blockbusters aren’t the only films getting this treatment: Look hard enough and you’ll find bootleg clips of just about any theatrical release, from the French body horror film “The Substance” to the pope drama “Conclave.”Demi Moore in “The Substance,” another movie at which audiences have been using their phones to snap photos of scenes in the theater.MubiThe problem with cellphones in theaters used to be mostly errant ringing or excessive texting. Now it’s people holding up their devices so they can get bits of the film and post to their accounts. For those of us who just want to watch in peace, letting ourselves be completely absorbed, it’s another way in which moviegoing etiquette has crumbled in the 21st century.But let’s back up: Why is this happening in the first place? While I don’t think I can ever fully understand the desire to participate in the trend, I have a good guess as to why it exists.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      11 New Movies Our Critics Are Talking About This Week

      by

      Whether you’re a casual moviegoer or an avid buff, our reviewers think these films are worth knowing about.Critic’s PickA double dose of dark comedy.Sebastian Stan in “A Different Man.”A24‘A Different Man’Edward (Sebastian Stan), a man with a condition that warps his facial features, discovers his problems are internal after he gets cosmetic surgery and meets another man, Oswald (Adam Pearson), who has the same condition in this dark comedy written and directed by Aaron Schimberg.From our review:Like many literary and cinematic fables before it — think of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” or “The Elephant Man” — “A Different Man” is really a morality play, of a kind. It’s just that the moral isn’t all that straightforward. It’s about a societal obsession with particular standards of beauty. The fact that conventionally attractive people, or people with certain features and skin colors, tend to encounter more success in life simply by dint of genetic luck is explicit throughout. But that fact is so obvious, and stated so blatantly outright, that it feels like a joke.In theaters. Read the full review.Like two cool cats who just swallowed the canary.Brad Pitt and George Clooney enter their Redford-Newman era in “Wolfs,” written and directed by Jon Watts.Apple TV‘Wolfs’George Clooney and Brad Pitt play underworld fixers — the people you call to make criminal evidence disappear — who begrudgingly team up for a job.From our review:It isn’t remotely tense or mysterious, and its modest thrills derive wholly from the spectacle of two beautifully aged, primped, pampered and expensive film stars going through the motions with winks and a degree of brittle charm. The movie is a trifle, and it knows it. Mostly, though, “Wolfs,” written and directed by Jon Watts, is an excuse for its two leads to riff on their own personas, which can be faintly amusing and certainly watchable but also insufferably smug. It’s insufferable a lot.In theaters. Read the full review.Critic’s PickGirls gone gory.Demi Moore in “The Substance.”Mubi‘The Substance’In this body horror stunner directed by Coralie Fargeat, Elisabeth (Demi Moore) is an aging starlet who tries a new drug that promises to create a younger, better version of herself (Sue, played by Margaret Qualley). It performs as advertised, but with disastrous and disgusting consequences.From our review:Be warned: This is a very gory and often bombastic movie. The logic is also not airtight, especially when it comes to whether, and how, Sue and Elisabeth share a consciousness. … It’s all metaphor, though, not in the least bit meant for a literal analysis. That’s an awkward thing to mix into a movie that turns every subtext into text, which means its constant hammering of its points starts to feel patronizing, as if we might not get it. But it’s also quite funny, and the worse things become for Elisabeth, the harder it is not to giggle with glee. By the end, things have become monstrous and mad.In theaters. Read the full review.Critic’s PickSisters, under the skin.Carrie Coon, Elizabeth Olsen and Natasha Lyonne in “His Three Daughters,” directed by Azazel Jacobs.NetflixWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      After ‘The Substance,’ Watch These Body Horror Movies

      by

      As “The Substance” hits theaters, here’s a look at eight other films in the goopy subgenre of body horror.In some scary movies, the sources of horror are closer than in your town or even in your house — they’re in your very own skin.These films belong to a subgenre called body horror: movies that depict various transformations, mutations and degradations of the human form. The terrifying changes often emphasize the futility of our efforts to control our horribly unpredictable bodies. We like to think of ourselves as a mind managing a body, but these movies remind us that we’re ultimately at the mercy of the meat sacks we walk around in.Coralie Fargeat’s newest film, “The Substance” (in theaters), starring Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley, participates in this robust tradition, depicting an aging starlet who uses an experimental new drug to create a younger, better version of herself. As you might guess, the treatment causes some unexpected and disgusting side effects, satirizing society’s (and particularly Hollywood’s) obsession with wanting women to stay stereotypically beautiful and youthful — at any cost.If you’re looking for a primer on the subgenre, here are eight films that will give you a crash course in the gutsy, the gory and the goopy.‘The Thing’ (1982)Stream it on Peacock.Kurt Russell in “The Thing.”Universal Pictures/AlamyWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Substance’ Review: An Indecent Disclosure

      by

      Demi Moore stars in an absurdly gory tale of an aging actress who discovers a deadly cure for obscurity.In Vladimir Nabokov’s 1930 novel “The Eye,” a sad-sack Russian tutor living in Berlin dies by suicide, and then spends the rest of the book skulking around the living — watching, obsessing over their lives. He eventually realizes something bleak: Most of us see ourselves only through the eyes of others, through the stories we think they make up about us from the glimpses they get of our lives. “I do not exist,” the narrator writes near the end of the book. “There exist but the thousands of mirrors that reflect me.”Something of “The Eye” lurks in “The Substance,” Coralie Fargeat’s mirror-haunted gory fable about fame, self-hatred and the terror that accompanies an identity constructed on the backs of other people’s stares. Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore), the aging star at the center of the narrative, is very much alive, but she might as well be dead when the story starts. A career spent in front of cameras — first as a celebrated actress, and then as a celebrity fitness instructor on a show called “Sparkle Your Life with Elisabeth”— abruptly ends when an executive (Dennis Quaid) decides she’s too old to be worthy of being seen. He gets to decide if anyone wants to look at her, and if he turns the cameras away, does she even exist?That executive is loud and disgusting and named Harvey, which should tell you a little about the subtlety of this movie, which is to say it has none, and doesn’t particularly want any. He, like most of the movie, is deliberately way, way over the top. “After 50, it stops,” he tells her, through mouthfuls of mayonnaise-coated shrimp, by way of explaining why she’s no longer attractive. Then he sputters when she asks what “it” is.There are mirrors everywhere in Elisabeth’s world: literal mirrors and polished doorknobs, but also pictures of her in the hallways at the studio and a giant portrait at her house, so that her younger body and face are always looking back at her. Everywhere she looks, there she is, or was — lithe, toned, smiling broadly. Elisabeth is still gorgeous by any sane person’s reckoning (and Moore is in her early 60s), but surrounded constantly by a version of herself with a little more collagen, she is being slowly driven mad.Relatable, really. We all see too much of ourselves. Ancient women had pools of water into which they could peer, but our ancestors didn’t have scads of selfies lurking in their pockets. They weren’t tagged in unflattering photos snapped by friends. They didn’t have to look at their own faces on Zoom all day.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      The Life of Chuck’ Wins Toronto Film Festival’s People’s Choice Award

      by

      This adaptation of a Stephen King novella stars Tom Hiddleston, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Mark Hamill. “The Substance” and a Tragically Hip documentary also won.“The Life of Chuck,” a cosmic story of accounting and life’s mysteries adapted from a Stephen King novella, won the People’s Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival on Sunday. Winners often go on to best picture nominations at the Oscars or even, as in the case of “Green Book” and “Nomadland,” to take the top Academy Award.Told in reverse chronological order and closer in tone to the King adaptation “Stand by Me,” “The Life of Chuck” opens as the world seems about to end. Amid phenomena like enormous sinkholes and television blackouts, ads thanking Charles Krantz (Tom Hiddleston) for his service are everywhere, puzzling denizens played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, Karen Gillan and Carl Lumbly. The film, which also stars Mark Hamill and features a much talked about dance sequence with Hiddleston, was written and directed by Mike Flanagan, who’s no stranger to King’s work: “Gerald’s Game” and “Doctor Sleep” are among his credits. “The Life of Chuck” doesn’t have a release date yet.The festival announced other People’s Choice winners on Sunday. In the Midnight Madness section, devoted to genre titles, the prize went to “The Substance,” written and directed by Coralie Fargeat. That horror film, which won best screenplay at Cannes, stars Demi Moore as an aging actress who takes the mysterious elixir of the title, giving birth to a youthful version of herself played by Margaret Qualley. “The Substance” is due in theaters on Sept. 20.In the documentary section, the People’s Choice award went to “The Tragically Hip: No Dress Rehearsal,” centered on the Canadian band’s final concert. The docuseries was directed by Mike Downie, brother of the band’s lead singer, Gord Downie, who died at 53 of brain cancer. The series is expected to be released on Amazon Prime Video later in the fall. More