It’s awards season, which means we’re working our way through the Best Picture nominees. When we got to The Substance, I was hopeful and half-excited—partly because the trailers were well done, but mostly because there was so much buzz around Demi Moore’s performance. I hadn’t heard her name in years, yet she had already picked up an award for the role.
What I didn’t expect was for The Substance to be, without question, the grossest thing I’ve ever seen. I have never felt more unsettled by a movie in my life, and honestly, I wish I hadn’t watched it.
And that brings me to my main point: awards-season narratives can seriously misrepresent what a film actually feels like to watch.
Expectations vs. Reality
Before I get into the heart of my issue, let me address the gap between what I expected and what I got—because this is usually where things go off the rails.
Going into The Substance, I anticipated a bold, feminist film that used body horror in a meaningful way—something provocative but ultimately serving a larger message.
What I didn’t expect was just how extreme and, at times, revolting the imagery would be. And sure, I understand that this was intentional. The film was designed to push boundaries. But I felt completely unprepared for the experience, largely because of how it had been framed in discussion.
So, who’s responsible for this disconnect? The critics and commentators I follow? Myself, for not doing more research? The film’s marketing, for not being explicit enough? The Academy, for thinking this is a good movie?
How much of a film should I have to spoil for myself just to know what I’m walking into? A successful derailment of thought, no?
The Intent
I get it—The Substance isn’t supposed to be an easy watch. It’s meant to unsettle, to challenge, to provoke. But that’s exactly why I wish there had been more conversation about how far it goes, instead of it being discussed primarily as an awards-worthy work of art.
To Be Clear
I don’t have an issue with shocking or grotesque films. I respect the right of filmmakers to push boundaries. What frustrates me is when conversations around these films downplay or outright ignore the extremity of their content, leaving audiences blindsided. If I had known what I was in for, I wouldn’t have watched The Substance—not because I think it shouldn’t exist, but because I would have made an informed choice to opt out.
But also, Demi Moore wasn’t that good in The Substance? She had maybe three facial expressions despite the dozens of emotions the story demanded from her character. We can’t just pretend there’s some good acting going on under all the Botox; I gotta actually see it.
this makes me question why I so often find myself saying this about films that are deemed worthy of these prestigious awards.
The Big Picture
This isn’t just about The Substance, really—it’s about the way films are sold to audiences during awards season. The focus tends to be on performances, themes, and social relevance, while the actual experience of watching the film is sometimes overlooked. And that’s a real gap in film discourse.
Another example would be Emilia Pérez. it’s another title on the list of bests picture nominations, but I’ve yet to finish that one. I value what little career I can claim from my writing, so I won’t get too into it, but I haven’t seen a single good review of the straight-to-Netflix film that’s being considered as the best movie of the year.
A movie can be well-made, even important, and still be something I regret seeing. That’s a nuance that deserves more attention in the way we talk about films.
