Random amusements and feeling grateful..
Jan. 24th, 2025 09:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatPrior to taking off for the doctor's appointment (it's at 11:10, and I got to be there 30 minutes early apparently - so leaving around 10 am) - I've been reading correspondence list, and reviews of the Substance.
Random quote via correspondence list that amused me greatly this morning:
"He's a Heeler Dog, and this breed's job is herding. And I think he's trying to herd the cats."
LOL!
I can't decide who I feel for in this equation. The cats, the dog , or the owner. But I'm grateful I don't own or take care of any of the above - be difficult - I'm in a one bedroom apartment, full time job (not remote), in New York City, and allergic.
The Substance Reviews are also entertaining. I have no intention on seeing it - so I can read spoilery reviews - to squash my curiosity. (I can't watch gory body horror films. I've tried. I end spending 98% of the time with my eyes shut or peeking through fingers or fast-forwarding.) And per the reviews - this is a very gory and bombastic movie - that lacks subtly.
The Cut's Review however - clearly missed the point of the movie. I haven't even seen the movie and I could tell they missed the point. So I read the comments - out of curiosity - and oh dear, they ripped her critique apart, making it very clear that she had missed the entire point of the film. And had done it again, with another review.
Reviewer:
"The problem is that, while watching Demi Moore as Elisabeth roughly rub more and more concealer and blush into her preternaturally smooth cheeks, I couldn’t help but think about how great she looked. Even as she gave up on the date and crumpled, she still looked, if not 26 and glowing like her other-self version, like a beautiful movie star who’s had expensive and skillful work done on her face that makes her look at least ten years younger than her actual age. For whom exactly would this not be enough? The Substance hinges on the audience taking as a given that nothing but peak, high-assed, smooth-limbed perfection is an acceptable look for any woman, but a few more visible wrinkles or lines of neck flesh would have sold the premise much better."
Me: you do realize that Demi has had work done right? Expensive plastic surgery and botox? All of them have? That's not natural? She dyes her hair?
And the point is it's never enough? They asked Demi to do it - because she had work done, the audience knew it, and she's an icon of beauty and perfection at 60. Seriously - it's not about aging, it's about being whatever society's view of beautiful seems to be, and that it is never enough. Depending on an external view is an empty proposition.
I haven't seen the movie and I know that.
All 69 commentators who have seen the movie - agreed.
"It's literally the whole point of the movie that she is this incredibly beautiful woman but doesn't see it because she has been so brainwashed by society that a woman's worth lies in her "young and beautiful body". She herself bought into and perpetuated it. We can see it as the audience, but she cannot. It's what makes the movie work. It's kind of the whole point. "
"You really missed the point. In Hollywood, very beautiful women - of ALL ages - are made to feel not good enough. It doesn’t matter how good Demi Moore looks to us - it’s how she feels about herself. Which is bad. She has been made to feel old, unattractive and unemployable by the Hollywood (mostly) male power culture. Of course she would take extreme measures. Not questionable at all if you know Hollywood and what it does to women."
"I remember when I was a teenager I always though scenes in movies where women freak out about a single wrinkle were silly, but then when I started getting gray hairs at age 25 I understood. It freaks you out because it's a sign that your youth is starting to fade, and you can never go back. I now dye my hair every few weeks because the thought of having salt and pepper hair in my thirties is too much for me. [ Meanwhile there are people dying their hair silver and gray in their 20s, because they think it's cool. I stopped dying during the pandemic. I own my age. I earned it. I'm 57 and proud. Although it would be nice if I didn't have the ailments that go with it - such as arthritis. Gray hair? Pfft.]
I agree with other commenters, that Demi Moore being beautiful was the point of the movie, because Hollywood makes incredibly beautiful women feel like they're not enough. And also the irony is that she was beautiful to begin with, but in her quest to be younger through this horrible procedure, she's made herself actually look hideous." [Even that one got the point.]
The NY Times reviewer, Alissa Wilkinson, is actually better. Review in the Times. Unlike the Cut reviewer, she deftly skirts revealing too much about the film or providing spoilers (the Cut Review spoils the movie - so don't read, unless you don't care), and warns about the bombastic and gory content. Also she gets the point of the movie. Because I read it first - I realized how far off the mark the Cut review was, although I'd have probably figured that out any how.
Today? I'm grateful I found a way to be a professional writer without becoming a critic. Also, grateful it's very sunny, not overcast, a nice day, and warmer than it was the last four days. Since I have to walk a little ways to that Doctor's Appointment.
Random quote via correspondence list that amused me greatly this morning:
"He's a Heeler Dog, and this breed's job is herding. And I think he's trying to herd the cats."
LOL!
I can't decide who I feel for in this equation. The cats, the dog , or the owner. But I'm grateful I don't own or take care of any of the above - be difficult - I'm in a one bedroom apartment, full time job (not remote), in New York City, and allergic.
The Substance Reviews are also entertaining. I have no intention on seeing it - so I can read spoilery reviews - to squash my curiosity. (I can't watch gory body horror films. I've tried. I end spending 98% of the time with my eyes shut or peeking through fingers or fast-forwarding.) And per the reviews - this is a very gory and bombastic movie - that lacks subtly.
The Cut's Review however - clearly missed the point of the movie. I haven't even seen the movie and I could tell they missed the point. So I read the comments - out of curiosity - and oh dear, they ripped her critique apart, making it very clear that she had missed the entire point of the film. And had done it again, with another review.
Reviewer:
"The problem is that, while watching Demi Moore as Elisabeth roughly rub more and more concealer and blush into her preternaturally smooth cheeks, I couldn’t help but think about how great she looked. Even as she gave up on the date and crumpled, she still looked, if not 26 and glowing like her other-self version, like a beautiful movie star who’s had expensive and skillful work done on her face that makes her look at least ten years younger than her actual age. For whom exactly would this not be enough? The Substance hinges on the audience taking as a given that nothing but peak, high-assed, smooth-limbed perfection is an acceptable look for any woman, but a few more visible wrinkles or lines of neck flesh would have sold the premise much better."
Me: you do realize that Demi has had work done right? Expensive plastic surgery and botox? All of them have? That's not natural? She dyes her hair?
And the point is it's never enough? They asked Demi to do it - because she had work done, the audience knew it, and she's an icon of beauty and perfection at 60. Seriously - it's not about aging, it's about being whatever society's view of beautiful seems to be, and that it is never enough. Depending on an external view is an empty proposition.
I haven't seen the movie and I know that.
All 69 commentators who have seen the movie - agreed.
"It's literally the whole point of the movie that she is this incredibly beautiful woman but doesn't see it because she has been so brainwashed by society that a woman's worth lies in her "young and beautiful body". She herself bought into and perpetuated it. We can see it as the audience, but she cannot. It's what makes the movie work. It's kind of the whole point. "
"You really missed the point. In Hollywood, very beautiful women - of ALL ages - are made to feel not good enough. It doesn’t matter how good Demi Moore looks to us - it’s how she feels about herself. Which is bad. She has been made to feel old, unattractive and unemployable by the Hollywood (mostly) male power culture. Of course she would take extreme measures. Not questionable at all if you know Hollywood and what it does to women."
"I remember when I was a teenager I always though scenes in movies where women freak out about a single wrinkle were silly, but then when I started getting gray hairs at age 25 I understood. It freaks you out because it's a sign that your youth is starting to fade, and you can never go back. I now dye my hair every few weeks because the thought of having salt and pepper hair in my thirties is too much for me. [ Meanwhile there are people dying their hair silver and gray in their 20s, because they think it's cool. I stopped dying during the pandemic. I own my age. I earned it. I'm 57 and proud. Although it would be nice if I didn't have the ailments that go with it - such as arthritis. Gray hair? Pfft.]
I agree with other commenters, that Demi Moore being beautiful was the point of the movie, because Hollywood makes incredibly beautiful women feel like they're not enough. And also the irony is that she was beautiful to begin with, but in her quest to be younger through this horrible procedure, she's made herself actually look hideous." [Even that one got the point.]
The NY Times reviewer, Alissa Wilkinson, is actually better. Review in the Times. Unlike the Cut reviewer, she deftly skirts revealing too much about the film or providing spoilers (the Cut Review spoils the movie - so don't read, unless you don't care), and warns about the bombastic and gory content. Also she gets the point of the movie. Because I read it first - I realized how far off the mark the Cut review was, although I'd have probably figured that out any how.
Today? I'm grateful I found a way to be a professional writer without becoming a critic. Also, grateful it's very sunny, not overcast, a nice day, and warmer than it was the last four days. Since I have to walk a little ways to that Doctor's Appointment.
no subject
Date: 2025-01-24 10:12 pm (UTC)Keep in mind that Demi's character, Elizabeth, isn't really living a life prior to the Substance - but living through the many reflections of herself that other's reflect back to her. From the NY Times Review - her living space is all mirrored surfaces and portraits of her. Her life is their perception of her. Her looks. That's all she cares about. There's nothing else. And they deliberately asked Moore - who infamously has had a lot of plastic surgery and botox and work done. (Moore doesn't look like that naturally. No one does. Seriously.) The Substance technically creates another version of her - a younger version, which is her but not her - and they share a life force. So have to trade places, or Elizabeth withers, and the more she withers, the more Sue (the younger version) can't exist, because they are codependent on each other. (It's a symbiotic relationship.)
The point of the movie isn't to defeat aging, but that people want to be younger to please others - or look prettier or more beautiful to achieve stardom, celebrity, etc. The metaphor is - that at the end of the day - we can't change who we are at our core - and we may send out this seemingly more beautiful younger self out in the world - but that self is still a part of us and can't survive outside of us. It's a very metaphorical film, apparently. I actually from what I've read it's all visual metaphor. (Which I tend to like - but not in gory over the top body horror films.)
And, from the NY Times review - it's not real tight logically speaking, the audience has to handwave a lot. It's broad or bombastic satire. I got a better read on it from the NY Times review.