Movies

gcowgill said:
Thanks for the feedback. I'm 52. I liked Heathers when it came out, but haven't revisited it since then. I like much of South Park and Arrested Development. Acerbic, dark satire is not a turn-off for me.

I don't intend to respond to this as a provocation or to "pick a fight," but I'll offer my point-by-point thoughts.

1- There certainly are some impressive cinematographic feats, but I find a great deal of the visual style more garish than impressive, assaultive to the senses more than engaging of them. It's probably technically accomplished for what I assume is a modest budget relative to its fellow nominees.
2- I struggle with who/what is being roasted. The beauty industry? The cult of personality/celebrity? The pursuit of some societally-determined physical ideal? I find the satire too scattershot and inconsistent to be effective. I also think the "world-building", for lack of a better term, is so underdeveloped as to be meaningless. Setting aside the sci-fi/horror of the substance itself, what world is this intended to be taking place in? It so little resembles contemporary reality, especially in relation to media, and it has no attempt to place it in a past era where some of the content would make more sense (the Jane Fonda-like exercise guru influential on, what, a broadcast TV morning show?). Why is it that Moore's character, acknowledged as incredibly famous, apparently knows absolutely no one apart from her employer and a maid she hardly interacts with? My biggest problem with the film is the utter phoniness of the environment in which it exists. Nothing adds up. I am not opposed to the surreal, off-kilter, or hyper-stylized, but if films are to embrace these qualities, I think they need some consistency of internal logic or construction.
3- Strongly disagree about the performances. Moore is fine, adequate but not exceptional, for much of it, but there is a sequence towards the end that calls for comedic skills she just may not have, and the result is embarrassing. Qualley is not much more than a cipher for most of it. Quaid is terrible, hammy with no redeeming verve or panache. But I don't think any character is conceived in any way that would make them resemble actual people. Sure, the film is non-realistic in conception, but even within a highly stylized genre film, I mark a performance's quality in part by its ability to meaningfully represent human experience.
4- I didn't find it either of these. Maybe I'm missing something more profound than what I apprehended, but I've yet to be convinced. I am open to an analysis that challenges my reaction, though.
5- Sure, well-done, but derivative beyond belief. If you've seen Videodrome, The Thing, and The Elephant Man, you've seen much of it already. Maybe this is homage, but this film doesn't belong in the company of its inspirations.
6- see #4
7- Could be. I don't really remember it.
Click to expand...
I think part of what locked me into the satirical version of the world being depicted was the idea that someone could have a successful decades-long career as a televised aerobics instructor, and that they'd be supplanted, not by a different fitness trend, but a younger, sexier aerobics instructor. With that in mind, the way the aerobics show is depicted (and the behavior of the camera in general around Sue) is very porny and very aligned with the male gaze. I haven't taken the time to dig further, but I feel the satire is broadly directed at our chauvinistic culture and our general obsession with youth and beauty. So when you ask what's being roasted, I'm like "kind all of it."
 
Bull Shannon said:
I think part of what locked me into the satirical version of the world being depicted was the idea that someone could have a successful decades-long career as a televised aerobics instructor, and that they'd be supplanted, not by a different fitness trend, but a younger, sexier aerobics instructor. With that in mind, the way the aerobics show is depicted (and the behavior of the camera in general around Sue) is very porny and very aligned with the male gaze. I haven't taken the time to dig further, but I feel the satire is broadly directed at our chauvinistic culture and our general obsession with youth and beauty. So when you ask what's being roasted, I'm like "kind all of it."
Click to expand...

I also feel like its very, very clear what's being roasted. Again, none of the film is subtle.

The demanding beauty standards of society, the ways in which Hollywood throws away older actresses, the pressure that people place on themselves to stay good looking, the way in which a person's perceived value within society is directly linked to their looks -- all in part because of the male gaze that permeates society.

The film strives to create an "era" that is hard to place specifically because these beauty standards have existed forever, but especially after the invention of the video camera.

I think the aspect of the film that spoke deeply to me though, is the ways in which our younger selves are constantly in search for immediate gratification even when we know it will likely come at our own expense later in life.

As to the acting-- there is a very specific tone that the film is crafting and the acting is carefully directed as to be a part of that. I feel like somebody saying Quaid was awful watched a different film that me. The shrimp feasting scene is perhaps the most disgusting scene in the whole movie and Denis is pitch perfect in it.
 
Bull Shannon said:
I think part of what locked me into the satirical version of the world being depicted was the idea that someone could have a successful decades-long career as a televised aerobics instructor, and that they'd be supplanted, not by a different fitness trend, but a younger, sexier aerobics instructor. With that in mind, the way the aerobics show is depicted (and the behavior of the camera in general around Sue) is very porny and very aligned with the male gaze. I haven't taken the time to dig further, but I feel the satire is broadly directed at our chauvinistic culture and our general obsession with youth and beauty. So when you ask what's being roasted, I'm like "kind all of it."
Click to expand...
As far as the "male gaze" aspect, I think this movie is trying to have its cake and eat it too. And not in a complex, profound way. Something seems oddly mired in the early 1980s, almost like the screenplay has been around for many decades and not revised to reflect contemporary culture. And even in the early '80s, a film like Star 80 much more meaningfully and challengingly addresses some of these issues.

I think "the satire is broadly directed" (to unfairly pull a quote out of context) is what's going on. I don't think it's sharp.
 
The thing with The Substance is that people think it's like 50% B movie, 50% biting satire/social commentary, when it's really like 80% B movie, and 20% biting satire/social commentary. It's exceptionally well made for what it is, and very entertaining, and Moore is really incredible, but I don't think it's built to stand up to the scrutiny that some people want to give it. That's not to say I don't think it's a great movie or void of intention completely, just that I think a lot of the conversation around it is misdirected and that it's often scrutinized for not being something it's not even really trying to be.
 
gcowgill said:
As far as the "male gaze" aspect, I think this movie is trying to have its cake and eat it too. And not in a complex, profound way. Something seems oddly mired in the early 1980s, almost like the screenplay has been around for many decades and not revised to reflect contemporary culture. And even in the early '80s, a film like Star 80 much more meaningfully and challengingly addresses some of these issues.

I think "the satire is broadly directed" (to unfairly pull a quote out of context) is what's going on. I don't think it's sharp.
Click to expand...
I can see why people might be more receptive to this movie than Star 80, though.

And yeah, it’s pretty blunt; it’s spraying the audience with commentary from a firehose. That was more feature than bug from my seat.
 
ayayrawn said:
The thing with The Substance is that people think it's like 50% B movie, 50% biting satire/social commentary, when it's really like 80% B movie, and 20% biting satire/social commentary. It's exceptionally well made for what it is, and very entertaining, and Moore is really incredible, but I don't think it's built to stand up to the scrutiny that some people want to give it. That's not to say I don't think it's a great movie or void of intention completely, just that I think a lot of the conversation around it is misdirected and that it's often scrutinized for not being something it's not even really trying to be.
Click to expand...

I don't think I agree with calling it a B movie at all unless we are going to label films like The Fly and Videodrome as such (which I would also deeply disagree with). It is, however, trying to be entertaining. Smart entertainment, but entertainment none the less. The director is very clearly invested in genre subversion. Her first film, Revenge (which I also love), is built off of the foundation of rape revenge films.

Also, I completely get your Dune critique. I think it's the common one. Suffice it to say that I don't feel the same way. I'd take either of his Dune films over any Star Wars ever made.

In another example of the entertainment vs intellectual stimulation equilibrium, I think Dune it far more interesting in how it handles it's themes. And Star Wars is borrowing heavily from Dune in the first place. (I haven't read the books).
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
The film strives to create an "era" that is hard to place specifically because these beauty standards have existed forever, but especially after the invention of the video camera.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting take, but I don't think there is enough emphasis on the recording of female bodies in the film (limited, if I remember correctly to the sequences of the exercise show, as emphatically objectifying as they may be) to suggest this is a deliberate idea. Sure, portraits and billboards are a prominent motif of public consumption of the female image, but the public is conspicuously absent. And we don't get anything like private (home video cameras/cellphones) image capturing, disseminating, or absorbing the female form. Food for thought, though.
 
gcowgill said:
That is an interesting take, but I don't think there is enough emphasis on the recording of female bodies in the film (limited, if I remember correctly to the sequences of the exercise show, as emphatically objectifying as they may be) to suggest this is a deliberate idea. Sure, portraits and billboards are a prominent motif of public consumption of the female image, but the public is conspicuously absent. And we don't get anything like private (home video cameras/cellphones) image capturing, disseminating, or absorbing the female form. Food for thought, though.
Click to expand...

It's a character study limited in the scope of its story. And it's most concerned with how that gaze is internalized by the women who are affected. It doesn't need to focus on the larger public because Quaid's character serves as the arbiter of content that helps create the outrageous beauty standards that then gets amplified to the public and internalized by everyone.

All you need to explore those themes are Demi and Margaret's characters / their escalating behavior and glimpses of the advertisements and media content that are foundational to the issue.
 
Last edited:
gaporter said:
I guess I'll have to finally break down and sign up for a free trial of Mubi so I can watch The Substance for myself and see what all the fuss is about. No theater within an hour and a half of me was playing it when it came out so I've just been watching everyone hype it up the past couple of months like this:
View attachment 224891
Click to expand...

Return to Seoul is probably on there. Not sure if it will be your speed but is probably top 10 of the decade for me personally.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I don't think I agree with calling it a B movie at all unless we are going to label films like The Fly and Videodrome as such (which I would also deeply disagree with). It is, however, trying to be entertaining. Smart entertainment, but entertainment none the less. The director is very clearly invested in genre subversion. Her first film, Revenge (which I also love), is built off of the foundation of rape revenge films.

Also, I completely get your Dune critique. I think it's the common one. Suffice it to say that I don't feel the same way. I'd take either of his Dune films over any Star Wars ever made.

In another example of the entertainment vs intellectual stimulation equilibrium, I think Dune it far more interesting in how it handles it's themes. And Star Wars is borrowing heavily from Dune in the first place. (I haven't read the books).
Click to expand...
I definitely think it's a B movie, or exploitation film if that's your preferred wording. I don't mean it in a negative either, but Fargaet is absolutely pulling heavily from that well of schlock that was big in the 70s and putting her own twist on it. Again, that's not to say it's not good, or smart, it's aware of how goofy and ridiculous it is.
 
Fleetwood-Matt said:
agree to disagree here. I found Wicked to be an absolute delight and a pretty magical experience. I’d much rather watch that again than any of the other BP noms
Click to expand...

I'm pretty allergic to musicals.
But I do love the Wizard of Oz.

I just found the directing to be subpar (color grading, lighting, soecial effects, choreography) and a lot of the films themes to be extremely spelled out in a "this was made for children" way that even most Pixar films avoid.

The lead actresses were excellent though and I'll leave it at that. I'd rather defend films I love than yuck somebody else's yum unless it's with something I feel very strongly about ala Emila Perez.
 
Last edited:
ayayrawn said:
I definitely think it's a B movie, or exploitation film if that's your preferred wording. I don't mean it in a negative either, but Fargaet is absolutely pulling heavily from that well of schlock that was big in the 70s and putting her own twist on it. Again, that's not to say it's not good, or smart, it's aware of how goofy and ridiculous it is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, perhaps we just have a different perception of what a B movie is. Death Proof is 100% influenced by B movies but I would never call it one.
 
gaporter said:
It just annoys me to no end how many things you have to be signed up for nowadays especially when one random app can hog the exclusive streaming rights to a movie. I miss video stores bad.
Click to expand...

Same. It's not healthy for the medium, nor for the crews.

I'm lucky. I have access to a vast Plex server. And I don't feel guilty about it because I see about 25 movies in theaters every year and probably buy that many 4ks every year as well.

Mubi started in bluray distribution for indies and foreign films though so I'll cut them some slack.
 
Last edited:
gcowgill said:
As far as the "male gaze" aspect, I think this movie is trying to have its cake and eat it too. And not in a complex, profound way. Something seems oddly mired in the early 1980s, almost like the screenplay has been around for many decades and not revised to reflect contemporary culture. And even in the early '80s, a film like Star 80 much more meaningfully and challengingly addresses some of these issues.

I think "the satire is broadly directed" (to unfairly pull a quote out of context) is what's going on. I don't think it's sharp.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen it but the premise seems more like an episode of Black Mirror than a feature length film. I am not big into gross-out body horror so I doubt I will ever go out of my way to watch it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top