Is ‘The Substance’ just another ‘Black Swan’? And more questions in the Oscar Experts Mailbag
Welcome to Oscar Experts Mailbag, a rebranded version of Oscar Experts Typing and a spin-off of “Awards Magnet,” in which Gold Derby editors and experts Joyce Eng and Christopher Rosen answer your burning questions of the week. Questions have been edited for length and clarity. Email your questions to slugfests@goldderby.com.
Sean writes:
Hi Joyce and Chris,
I noticed a lot of Oscars prognosticators have recently moved “Conclave” to the top of their Best Picture rankings, including a narrow plurality of Gold Derby experts. I just saw the movie — how entertaining, hilarious, and surprisingly subtle. I was cracking up when they slammed the dead pope’s body into the back of an ambulance and flashed the title card. Does it have any chance of pulling off a “CODA,” “Spotlight,” or “Argo”-style win by becoming a consensus, down-the-middle crowd-pleaser? Or does it need more critical support? I think it could allow Oscar voters to send a political message without getting into governmental politics, which everyone seems sick of at the moment.
Chris: I’ve been one of those experts for weeks, with “Conclave” sitting atop my Best Picture and Best Director picks like the star on top of a Christmas tree. That doesn’t mean I’m bullish on its eventual victory — particularly because we still have months to go in this race. But if we’re going to game it out, it does feel like a potential “Spotlight” in that it’s a well-made and smartly executed movie with Big Ideas and progressive politics that doesn’t shove those politics down the throats of its viewers. But what’s holding me back from total confidence is the film’s anecdotal lack of passion. “Conclave” is absolutely the consensus choice right now — I don’t think I’ve spoken to a single person who is negative about the movie. It has played well with elite critics, Letterboxd kids, and older industry types. But it also hasn’t engender the kind of rabid enthusiasm we’ve seen from recent Best Picture winners like “Parasite,” “CODA,” and “Everything Everywhere All At Once.” It’s not an “emotional” movie and emotions often win out when people are voting for Best Picture. It’s also not an undeniable phenomenon like “Oppenheimer.” So, can it win? Sure. Do I think it’s going to win — or will something like “Anora,” “Wicked,” or even “The Substance” prove passion trumps contentment? Maybe?
Joyce: Over the weekend, I overheard an older gentleman tell his wife he wants to see a movie “about the pope.” I almost told him he can stream it on Peacock in five days. I expect another round of vape memes this weekend. But yes, “Conclave” is a low-key four-quadrant hit. I also have yet to encounter anyone who dislikes it and I can see it winning, but I agree that it lacks that extra oomph of passion. It feels like it needs to rely on apathy toward or diffuse support for its top rivals, and I’m not sure if that will play out. What would help greatly is if it’s able to pick up a Best Picture prize or two from a critics group before the televised awards to generate momentum. Sometimes someone needs to be the first to do something to “give” permission to others to do so. Right now, it feels like everyone is content to nominate but not award it because there’s always something they like more.
Nick writes:
Hi Joyce and Chris,
What a great showing for “The Substance” at the Globes! Not my cuppa, but I loved the performances; happy to see Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley recognized. I’m seeing a lot of “Promising Young Woman” comparisons with “The Substance.” I guess they’re fair, though that was a unicorn of a year, so it’s a bit of a stretch in my opinion. So I fear “The Substance” could mirror the awards run of “Black Swan” instead. Qualley feels similar to Mila Kunis. And Coralie Fargeat’s nomination in Best Director at the Globes (and then again at the Critics Choice Awards) leads me to believe she could break the Oscar lineup like Darren Aronofsky did for her ambitious use of genre. The main reason I’m bringing this up, however, is that compared to the precursors, “Black Swan” underperformed severely at the Oscars. It only received five nominations despite garnering 12 at BAFTA and Critics Choice. “Black Swan” was genre-y but tame compared to “The Substance.”Do you see genre bias piercing “The Substance” this season? It has a far lower ceiling, but even “Black Swan” dropped out of screenplay and supporting actress.
Chris: The biggest difference between “Black Swan” and “The Substance,” at least to me right now, is the calendar. Aronofsky’s Polanski riff is 14 years old, and in Academy years, that might as well be 114 years. This is a much different group of voters, more international, more diverse, more willing to embrace “genre” movies that aren’t traditionally seen as “Oscar” movies — just look at Best Picture winners like “Parasite” and “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” So while “The Substance” is undeniably gross, I don’t think it necessarily is disqualifying as a genre piece. I also would say it’s not actually a horror movie, at least in the traditional genre sense. It’s a satire that uses body horror to tell its story, but it’s about as different from “The Exorcist” or “Smile 2” as “Barbie” was. We’ve seen this week that the guilds have gone crazy for “The Substance” — it has hit with the editors, hair and makeup artists, and costume designers so far. I’m susceptible to recency bias (Joyce, please roll your eyes at me!), so take this with a grain of salt — but the showing with the guilds has me more bullish than ever on the movie. I put it in for Best Picture, Best Director, both actresses, Best Original Screenplay, Best Hair and Makeup, and Best Costume Design (the yellow coat is the costume of the season, right?). The passion for this thing is real, and I think even older voters are willing to go along for the ride of gore in the final 30 minutes — particularly because it’s not played like “Saw” torture porn nonsense.
Joyce: I won’t repeat what Chris said, but we’ve mentioned many times that we think the silly gore is an asset for “The Substance,” and I still believe that. Some might wince at it, but it’s not a jump scare. As far as the “Black Swan” comp, the key phrase you’ve said there is “lower ceiling.” “The Substance” could have — and should have! — hit more categories than the seven it’s nominated for at Critics Choice. We know a lot of members in Critics Choice stan the film, so it arguably underperformed with them. Where’s the nom for Best Editing? Or Best Cinematography? Or Best Production Design? Or Best Costume Design? (Yes, the yellow coat is the real star.) But I also think the “underperformance” works to its benefit because there are no headlines touting “‘The Substance’ leads Critics Choice nominations with 11” that might put a target on its back and foment backlash. The middle-of-the-pack seven nominations is very respectable and allows it still to be seen as the underdog surprise of the season that people want to root for. It’s hit every guild so far, but that streak is less noticeable because guilds are lower profile and they announce separately. Even if it underperforms at the Oscars, the drop-off would be less severe than what “Black Swan” suffered because it’s currently expected to net fewer noms. But with its guild slayage so far, you could argue that it might pull a reverse “Black Swan” and over-perform with the Academy.
SEE Oscar Experts Typing: Jon M. Chu rises after his big NBR Best Director win
Steven writes:
Hi Joyce and Chris,
Between the Critics Choice Awards snub and her absence from a lot of the regional critics groups so far, what do film critics have against Nicole Kidman and her performance in “Babygirl”? It seems like this happens a lot, even the year she won Best Actress for “The Hours.”I know it’s a tough field, and the critics have largely embraced Cynthia Erivo, Mikey Madison, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Demi Moore, and even Amy Adams more than Kidman (as well as Angelina Jolie). But do you think her failure to launch with the critical community will hurt her chances, or is Kidman still a safe bet to land among the five Best Actress nominees because of her standing in the industry?
Chris: I wish I could say I was surprised by Kidman missing the Critics Choice Awards nomination, but in hindsight, that actually felt right. I’ve spoken to a few male critics who were mixed on the movie and not sure why people thought she should get in at the Oscars. But those guys don’t vote for the Oscars either, so I’m not ready to jump ship from Kidman just yet. She’s a beloved actress in the industry, a former Oscar winner, and that Volpi Cup win for Best Actress at Venice has a great track record for performers of her stature: Penélope Cruz and Cate Blanchett, two prior Oscar winners, both converted their Volpi Cup win into a later Oscar nomination in, respectively, 2022 and 2023. The issue right now for Kidman is her movie: We’re still waiting to see how “Babygirl” hits the public space, and how A24 manages to juggle “Babygirl,” “The Brutalist,” and “Sing Sing” (which the studio is all but treating like a new release after its quiet summer run in theaters). Kidman’s also up against a stacked Best Actress field, where there are eight legitimate candidates (if you want to count Fernanda Torres for “I’m Still Here,” and I do) for five spots, and two of those spots — Mikey Madison and Karla Sofía Gascón feel awfully secured. Does Kidman have enough juice to stay in against Demi Moore, Angelina Jolie, Cynthia Erivo, and critics’ favorite Marianne Jean-Baptiste? I’d probably feel better about the answer in a couple of weeks.
Joyce: Kidman has never had a lot of critical support even for her most daring performances. She’s never won one of the Big Three and I did not expect New York Film Critics Circle or Los Angeles Film Critics Association to go for her. But it is more concerning that she is not popping a lot with regionals, which caused my Peter tingle to sense that she’d miss at Critics Choice, especially with voting having closed on Tuesday. We discussed in this week’s mailbag episode how A24’s plate might be too full, but she is its main Best Actress player (unlike the handful of men it has to manage in Best Actor). What might also hurt her is that she’s looking like the sole contender for “Babygirl,” which could also make the film a low-priority watch for voters. But maybe there’s a disconnect between critics and the industry with the film — wouldn’t be the first time! A24 has done a lot of tastemaker screenings and Q&As with Kidman that have been attended by fellow luminaries and her past co-stars, so it might be targeting industry over critics. I’m also waiting to see how the movie plays when it hits theaters on Christmas, but I’ve thought a lot about dropping her the past few weeks. It’s such a tough field and there’s going to be a crazy snub no matter what the final five is.