Talk:The Substance

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.

France: Paris Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Makeup Scene in Plot

I'm fully on board with the culls to the plot section for brevity, but I wonder if perhaps the scene where Elisabeth succumbs to insecurity while preparing for her date ought to be reincorporated. While I'm aware a noteworthy scene does not a plot point make, so many reviews single it out as the most emotionally visceral part of Moore's performance, that the average Wikipedia reader who hasn't seen the film might read the plot section to have it contextualized. Also, from a plot-relevance angle, it seems significant as the point-of-no-return for the character. I'm imagining something like "Sue's rising fame proves to be a point of jealousy for Elisabeth, who fails to make it to a date after a billboard featuring Sue triggers a spiral of insecurity wherein she spends the evening removing and reapplying her makeup with increasing frustration." (Or something like that. I said I'm on board with the brevity, not that I'm capable of it.) Cybr.punk.hckr.elf (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pictures

190.17.42.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 41.141.208.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have both restored the US as a producing country, citing the Cannes page which I have explained credits no American studios. The latter IP explained:

I'm sorry to say this but, this film was originally co-produced by US as well, and it's also filmed in Los Angeles, California, US, and this movie has American hollywood actors, and...it was originally going to produced by Universal Pictures a Hollywood studio, so it doesn't mean it was a FOREIGN MOVIE!

The first claim is unsourced, the second and third are both unrelated to financing, and the third is the same unsourced as the first.

More compellingly, Draco9904 you added the following footnote:

Although Universal Pictures dropped out of being the film's distributor, the film was still produced and financed under the studio and Universal is still credited as a copyright holder in the credits, making it a co-production with the United States.

As another editor already commented in their removal of the content, this is not supported by the linked Deadline source. Presumably, this is original research. However, it sounds more plausible. I thought I would bring the discussion here. Οἶδα (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Deadline source only stated that Universal and Working Title were making the film in the announcement, which is vague enough to interpret it as Universal being directly involved in producing (or at least financing) the film. I also did notice that Universal was listed as the copyright holder at the end of the credits, despite Mubi being the distributor and the copyright holder listed in marketing material, from a video of a Q&A at TIFF in which the film's credits were still playing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seyGZLvAauk). Still, I'm willing to concede until a verifiable source describes Universal's involvement or lack thereof. Perhaps this can be added as an invisible note. Draco9904 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and good find on the TIFF video! The only source I can find which named Universal alongside the other studios was Cineuropa, which in my experience is a distinctly more reliable source for accurate production details.

The Substance is produced by Working Title (UK) and A Good Story (France) together with Universal Studios, in co-production with French firm Blacksmith. The movie is sold worldwide by The Match Factory.

Οἶδα (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison

Parallels with 'The Picture of Dorian Grey'? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article from Reactor where an author compares the two, but it's not the strongest source. It might be worth adding under reception/theme if you can find more critics discussing it. Beckbucket (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this - and this 'and one or two others' (at present) are much the same. Possibly something along somewhat woolly lines - 'people have seen resemblances to the Oscar Wilde story...' and get a better reference lager. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are various references making the comparison already - depends upon which are considered 'good' as Wikipedia sources. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable sources doing this:

Stevens, Dana (2024-09-18). "The Substance Lacks Any". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
Shone, Tom (2024-09-21). "The Substance — Demi Moore and the dangers of eternal youth". The Times. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
Heching, Dan (2024-09-21). "'The Substance': What to know about Demi Moore's powerhouse new film". CNN. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
"The Substance review: 'Magnificently tasteless' horror comedy is Demi Moore's 'best big-screen role in decades'". www.bbc.com. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
Ide, Wendy (2024-09-22). "The Substance review – Demi Moore is fearless in visceral feminist body horror". the Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-09-30. and Horton, Adrian (2024-09-28). "Is The Substance brilliant feminist critique or a soulless mess?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
"The Substance". WCBE. 2024-09-22. Retrieved 2024-09-30. ภץאคгöร 15:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So 'Comparisons have been made to Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey.' with links would be appropriate? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but more like "Several critics have noted the film's similarities to Oscar Wilde's 1890 novel The Picture of Dorian Gray." ภץאคгöร 10:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Whatever suits.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Metamodern body horror' vs strictly 'satirical body horror'?

I don't know if this is a reach but I feel like calling this 'satirical body horror' is kind of implying it's more 'jokey' (or even black humorist) than it is -- it come across more metamodern (Metamodernism) to me, especially with how it incorporates referential imagery to Kubrick, Carpenter, Cronenberg, Lynch, (and most likely Haneke, but I apparently haven't seen any of his work). Sure, there is somewhat joke-like satirical aspects of the body horror, but that's pretty part-and-parcel for body horror in general. I know satirical isn't exactly a drop-in for 'jokey' but going off the metamodernism defined here: "[metamodernism acts like a] metaphor of a pendulum continually oscillating from the sincere seriousness of modernism to the ironic playfulness of postmodernism" seems to fit the movie better -- it does oscillate from a very serious, grim 'pursuit of beauty comes at a cost' tone to a more playful 'blood-spraying firehose' tone. Ziasquinn (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, secondary sources call it a satire.^[1]^[2]^[3] So we simply have to use that description. — hako9 (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Justification for including "French Filmmaker" in the notice

I don’t understand why the mention of Coralie Fargeat as a 'French filmmaker' was removed. I think it’s important to add this in the opening lines. The Substance was directed and produced by a French team, and mentioning this early helps give context, especially since the film is in English. It will help readers better understand its cultural background. Also since the English article is often the main source for other language versions, adding this detail will help keep things consistent, especially in countries where Fargeat doesn’t have a separate page).

I would appreciate it if the person who regularly removes this mention could explain why...--Portersonnom (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "'The Substance' Lets Demi Moore Rip Hollywood a New One". Rolling Stone.

[2] "The Substance review: 'Magnificently tasteless' horror comedy is Demi Moore's 'best big-screen role in decades'". BBC.

[3] "The Substance film review — Demi Moore turns on herself in lurid Hollywood satire". FT.

[1]

[2]

[3]