This is a spoiler-free review.

Every generation or so, a new director with a groundbreaking vision appears in the artistic scene of cinema. Sometimes it is two or three. Lean and Kurosawa, Fellini and Kubrick, Spielberg and Lucas, Lynch and Scorsese, and most recently, Nolan, Anderson and Aronofsky. All of them pioneered in one or many ways the art of visual storytelling. While watching The Substance this past weekend, I kept wondering if Coralie Fargeat is the embodiment of this generation’s new groundbreaking vision for movie-making.

Take Nolan for example: most people will immediately associate his name with The Dark Knight trilogy, Interstellar, or  -most recently- Oppenheimer, with a minority being familiar with Memento or Insomnia. Take David Lynch: well-known thanks to Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet, but not so much for Eraserhead or The elephant man. Or take Aronofsky for Black Swan and The Wrestler, but not so much for Pi or Requiem for a dream, the latter of which I will reference in this review given the amount of similarities it share with The Substance.

With a daring combination of driving inspiration from Kubrick, Fargeat does not eschew on either visual or narrative story telling, instead relying heavily on both special effects and properly executed exaggerated dialogue to appeal to different types of audiences, from those who appreciate the poignant emotion of an ambition tale turned into madness, to those who will enjoy the absurdity of overacting adequately used for comedic effect.

However as I previously stated, it is Requiem for a Dream the true framework that was used for The Substance. If you have seen Requiem and watch the Substance, you will immediately relate to my thesis; if you have not seen Requiem, but you have seen The Substance, and watch Requiem next, you will join me as a proponent of their undeniable connection. I truly liked The Substance, though I am not prepared to say it is great or brilliant movie. The plot was good, creative, and even though the premise is simple, it brings a surprising emotional depth I have not seen in a while. Who could not relate to the thought of being able to live the life of a zenith version of yourself? How far would you go to live that life? How willing would you be to sacrifice part of your well-being to see a better version of yourself triumph in aspects you would not be able to? Alas hope can lead to bad decisions.

I have always thought Demi Moore is a good actress. She had great roles in the late eighties and early nineties with Ghost, A few good men and Nothing but trouble, until she let her ability to capitalize on her name blind herself from selecting good scripts, with a fall from grace that began with Striptease, and kept sinking to new lows with G.I. Jane and Charlie’s Angels. Other than a few glimpses of her glory days shown in Margin call, this is the first time since the early nineties I witnessed her fully utilizing her talents and living up to her potential. In The Substance, she marvelously delivers a heartbreaking yet realistic performance of a huge star past her prime who looks to relive her glory years. You can almost feel that she is not playing the part, but in reality living it. Thanks to Fargeat’s direction, the end product is a film filled with images that leave an permanent imprint on your mind, and a voice that resonates as an hymn to how selfishness leads to self-destruction.

Margaret Qualley also delivers a solid performance, but is not as good as Demi’s. You would expect her character Sue to be a pusillanimous contrast to Demi’s Elisabeth, or at least the single character with a conscience, but I guess it is part of the film’s message: that once you become part of the system, there is no way out. Yet even though Qualley does her best, he is greatly aided by Fargeat’s direction. Going back to the comparison with Requiem, I could not resist to see the paralelisms with Qualley and Jennifer Connelly, and with Demi and Ellen Burstyn (Connelly being far superior than Qualley, and Demi coming close to Burstyn’s performance, but not that close). Since there is no counterpart character for Jared Leto or Marlon Wayans, The Substance stands out as a more multi-faceted individual character study, than Requiem with its hard-hitting theme shared by all four protagonists. When measured against Requiem, The Substance needed the Kronos quartet (it also needed Keith David). The Substance might have better box-office numbers and reach out to a wider audience, but Requiem will always be the better between the two.

Regardless of how unappreciated the early works of great directors are, or how Aronofsky’s Requiem impact in filmmaking might be overlooked and undermined by The Substance’s, Fargeat excels at bringing a fresh perspective to brand new audiences unfamiliar with means and methods pioneered twenty years ago, by paying homage to many shoulders of the greats she stands upon: Kubrick’s framing and cinematography, Aronofsky’s visual techniques, and Waters’ unpredictability. There is also some David Cronenberg in it.

In the end The Substance is one of those films where rating will come down to tastes. Some audiences may find it boring, others interesting, others puzzling, and others too simplistic. I will rate The Substance 7 out of 10. It would have been a solid 8 / 10 had it ended twenty minutes before it did. Unfortunately, its third act tried to outdo The Fly’s, and it ended up slightly resembling Malignant’s, where the audience are left to wonder whether the film’s message was intended for the viewer or the establishment… or both.

A very watchable film I recommend to anyone. Then again, so is Requiem for a Dream.

HR