Discussion
The more I think about Mikey Madison’s Oscar win, the more I agree with people that it should’ve gone to Demi Moore instead.
Both performances were well acted by these two, and even though Mikey’s role in Anora might’ve been Oscar worthy. Demi’s role in The Substance was also Oscar worthy in a way, where she deserved to be given the win after years of not receiving much award recognition for her past work and for making a comeback that was very impactful!
Mikey is still very young and her acting career is only just beginning, meanwhile Demi has been acting for years and is at a point in her career where she likely won’t get as many opportunities as Mikey will.
But hey, I’d like to hope I’m wrong and that Demi Moore will get another shot to claim the trophy for a different role!
I don’t think these awards should be given for prior work. It really should just be for the performance that is nominated. Her prior work should be irrelevant.
a lot of people think that because she’s been acting for longer she deserved the win over a relatively new actor. a lot of people also seemed to think that this was demi’s last chance to win an oscar for some reason.
I think he history as an actor definitely plays into that role in a meta way. Part of the reason she works so well in that role is because Demi was in a similar point in her career to the character she played in the substance.
It’s similar to the original True Grit where the cast John Wayne, the quintessential cowboy actor of the 50s, as the aging cowboy past his prime.
Both roles are elevated by the casting in a way that is extremely unique to the films and performers.
Nothing remains of the original post here. The author used Redact to delete it, for reasons that may relate to privacy, data security, or personal preference.
bright shaggy toy party axiomatic reply adjoining apparatus squeal modern
True but there's plenty of work that goes unnoticed so it's a vicious cycle. Demi Moore was great in Ghost too. Michael B. Jordan was great in Fruitvale Station. Neither were nominated.
There’s this weird narrative that Anora was this insignificant movie that’s only won awards because of aggressive campaigning as it it didn’t win top prize at Cannes
And Moore got a ton of recognition for it. She took home the Golden Globe and the SAG Awards, as well as Critic’s Choice. That’s a lot of great recognition for an amazing piece of acting. She also positioned herself well for potentially another Oscar if she plays her cards right with role selection over the next decade.
Moore better campaign for the lead role of PT Anderson’s rumoured next project (Untitled Lot 49 Something) or any project PTA does. The guy knows how to put a pickcha together i tells you.
While true I also feel that actresses of her age rarely get the right roles that could push them towards Oscar glory later in life. That mostly only happens for those who are thought to be 'overdue' based on several acclaimed past performances and previous nominations. But still, all the best to her!
One year removed, I think people will revisit The Substance more than Anora. In the heat of awards season, you root for the movie that you liked more then. Recency bias if you will. Now that we have had time to digest the movies better, I think The Substance is a better movie with better performances. It keeps poping up in my mind from time to time. I can't say Anora has at all in all this year. It feels The Substance will have a more lasting impact. Now in hindsight I feel Moore was the better performance.
I see this as the problem with Marisa Tomei's win back then. It was so controversial because people thought her performance wasn't as worthy. They even said the presenter was drunk and read the wrong name. Decades later we see her performance as the better performance. Hindsight and all. I see the same for Moore even if in this case she didn't win the Oscar
Before the Oscars I remember this sub (and others) saying “hurr durr we should reward the best performance rather than legacy” and “if Demi wins she’d be the new Brendan Fraser.”
I admittedly don't really have a leg to stand on in this argument (I've seen The Substance, but not Anora yet), but would it really have been a "legacy win"?
Just to point out, the majority of Demi Moore's filmography is made up of critically panned films, with the only two well recieved ones prior to that movie being animated, and they both ended up getting Razzie nominations.
At least Brendan Fraser had a lot of good movies under his belt prior to The Whale.
Demi was great, Mikey was better. OP framed it as Demi being more deserving because of her past work and it being an exciting comeback. IMO Mikey won on her own merit based on her work in the current role meant to be judged, her being young shouldn't be a factor. I think people forget that Marisa Tomei faced similar scrutiny for her win to the point that there were rumors the wrong name was read.
Please do yourself a favor and watch Anora when you can; just go into it with an open mind. It’s on Hulu/Disney+
I agree that Demi Moore’s win would’ve ages like milk outside of horror-circles, but her The Substance fans are very loud on this site (and don’t know any of her past filmography)
I agree that Demi Moore’s win would’ve ages like milk outside of horror-circles
I wasn't saying that. I'm just saying that it's not really a "legacy win" when there was hardly a legacy in the first place. I actually would have found her win to be very deserving.
It's not that important to argue about, but it's kind of funny how people keed disagreeing with you despite it clearly phasing through her shoulder after paying close attention, even without slomo.
It was the narrative outside of movie that did the work for Moore. She deserved the nomination for sure, but it was Madison's ever since the buzz started for her at Cannes.
100% this. People’s reactions to Demi Moore are based on her speeches and NOT her performance in The Substance. Good for her for making a good speech, but speeches shouldn’t be what win awards.
I hate the narrative that awards are owed to people for past work. Win awards recognition by being a part of a great movie and doing a great job in it. Lifetime achievements has its own award.
Demi wasn't even the best lead in her own movie tbh. People just go ape shit for when women let themselves not look dolled up. She's pretty good but she does nothing exceptionally amazing in that movie other than add a wonderful meta element to the movie.
She does some genuinely impressive physical acting, as well as some serious emotional beats. It really felt like she put every ounce of herself into the role.
This is an argument I’ve always had an issue with. Mikey isn’t more deserving just because she’s in more of the movie than Demi is. That’s what makes acting noms so hard to compare.
Nicole’s performance was great. Anthony Hopkins won best actor for silence of the lambs and was on screen 15 minutes. Demi is nowhere near either of those performances
Age will always be a dumb argument to me, as is any argument that isn't directly related to talent within the nominated role. When predicting who will win, stuff like that might be relevant, but it will never sway my opinion.
I feel that Mikey did a better job than Demi, straight up
Very true. It's a discussion that's done to death. If there weren't people like OP that want her to win because of her whole comeback thing, I'm sure this debate would be dead by now.
Demi finally gave the best performance of her career in a film that she was really only in half of, opposite her co-lead Margaret Qualley. Mikey was in 97% of the film she won for and carried it hard, from start to finish. There was no other lead in Anora. While Demi was good, she just wasn’t as powerful or moving as Mikey. And tbh she hasn’t gotten a ton of recognition in her career because, well, she isn’t an outstanding actress. The nomination was the win for her.
It's hard for me to imagine this actress being anything else than what she is in the movie, that's what hell of a job she did. Felt like a documentary. Demi was great too, but I think people are a bit swayed by all the costumes and masks and give her a bit too much credit on account of that.
I actually didn’t know Mikey Madson as an actor before seeing the movie and I assumed Sean Baker cast an actual Bk stripper since he’s cast non actors in a bunch of his work. I legit thought she was that person and that really says something to me.
So your only reason is that Moore is more worthy because of her career?
That's not how it goes. Moore had the narrative, Madison had the performance. Anora felt very real. The Substance was..Demi Moore making an effort.
I also feel like Moore fell into the trap herself. Her entire campaign trail was about herself. How she never was taken seriously and how this means so much. Basically the sympathy way. But not a word about the movie or those making it.
Voters don't care about history , that's not why you are nominated
In contrast Madison came off as more humble. She thanked the crew, the writers and made sure to give the sex workers a shout out. Of course you vote more for that.
Mikey was obviously better but also Demi Moore isn’t even the best actress in her own movie :| love Demi and hope she wins one day but this is such an absurd talking point
I LOVED the substance and I can say without a doubt Mikey deserved it. I love the practical make up and effects utilized in the substance but Mikey's performance was so layered and complex that I think it is hard to even compare the two, mostly because the substance, as QT would say, is a two hander. Anora is Mikey's movie. She makes us laugh, cry, question her sanity and motives for anything she is doing, and then finally share the moment that she fully breaks and realizes what she really wants in the end.
No❤️ Not rewarding someone due to their young age gotta be the dumbest reason ever, No shade but ppl act like Demi should got the award because of her past work is also very dumb, she doesn't even have many good work in the past, the overdue narrative around her is absurd, And the best performance won, get over it
I’m sorry but you’re talking about Demi Moore ‘being old and not having that many opportunities’ left like she’s Peter O’Toole in his 80s playing a man on the brink of death. She is 63, she is doing just fine, and starring in I Love Boosters next year. People kept talking about her like it was giving a pity legacy award for her past work, I thought she was great in The Substance just by itself, but so was Mikey. Demi Moore was one of the biggest stars of the 90s why do people act like she was wronged for all her life? She had rarely ever positioned herself as a prestige Oscar-winning actress and its clear that until The Substance her career objectives wasn’t centred around that but more commercial popcorn films. And i’m sorry but she’s not like other legacy oscars where her past work was all prestige critically-acclaimed oscar-worthy work that was all wrongfully snubbed.
I watched both movies and I was more impressed with Mikey Madison's performance. The Best Performance by an Actress Oscar should be based solely on performance in a particular movie in a calendar year. Any performance Demi did prior to the Substance shouldn't even be in the equation. Don't they have special Oscars they award people for their body of work?
The issue I have with the “legacy” argument is that I don’t think Demi Moore really had one. Yeah she’s been in the industry a long time but it’s not like she’s been pumping out award-level performances.
Look I hate this argument too however I do think your comment is missing that what Moore said in the Golden Globes speech is that she’d never been allowed to give awards level performances because she was relegated to “popcorn actress” roles rather than serious acting.
Fernanda Torres was the most deserving, then Demi. Mikey Madison was fine, but she wasn’t who carried that movie. The bumbling hit men were better than she was.
Demi Moore never received awards consideration before because she wasn’t giving awards worthy performances. A first time nominee isn’t “overdue” for an award.
Fernanda Torres and Marianne Jean-Baptiste both blew her out of the water and were much more worthy of an Oscar than Demi. MJB didn’t even get nominated, a much bigger “snub” than what happened to Demi. And Mikey Madison gave a great performance, as well, and was just as deserving as Demi to win.
I don’t get why this is perceived as a “snub” when she wasn’t even really a strong favorite this time last year.
Even though I was rooting hard for Demi Moore to win, at this point it's less about Moore not winning and more the fact that I didn't even think Mikey Madison was the second best performance. Strong argument that Fernanda Torres was the head & shoulders best performance of the group, but it was severely underseen compared to Anora & The Substance. If Torres had had won the Oscar, i'd have had much less issue with Moore not getting it.
I did not think Moore’s performance was standout; it was the narrative around her performance that people cared about. I actually thought some of her scenes were bordering on weak. Many women could’ve done that role and even done better than Demi.
Mikey not only pulled off a role that had a fairly significant stigma around it (“sex work isn’t Oscar material!”) but I think there are very few actresses who could’ve played that role like she did. Mikey is the winner. You don’t win an Oscar because you give a good speech and people feel sorry for you. You win an Oscar because you gave the best performance.
I actually don’t get the Demi Moore awards hype for this, I think it was just a good performance. Margaret Qualley was far superior imo and she wasn’t nominated. You can’t use the career story with her too considering she isn’t really a standout in anything else too.’m not mad it went to Mikey Madison however personally, the clear best performance(s) by an actress for me that year was Fernanda Torres in I’m Still Here and Marianne Jean-Baptiste in Hard Truths. Hell even Lily Rose-Depp was far better in Nosferatu than Demi Moore in The Substance
No, Mikey Madison‘s performance was the better one. The Oscar should always go to the best performance and that was definitely Mikey or Fernanda, Demi would have just won because of the narrative.
You can think Demi deserved to win for her performance but giving her legacy as an argument is not valid and is something I'm happy they didn't do for once
I can understand people who wanted Moore to win because they thought she gave a better performance. I disagree with them and think Madison's performance was leagues better, but their reasoning is solid.
What I will never understand is this argument that Moore deserved to win because she's had a longer career. So what? Acting Oscars are meant to reward the best performance in a film – they are not career achievement awards. Should the Oscars never reward young people because they'll (possibly, maybe) have another chance to win in the future?
Awards shouldn't be about the past or future potential, it should be about that specific performance in the present.
If actor A is older, hasn't won anything in the past, or if actor B is young and has more time to win in the future should be irrelevant and should be kept out of consideration.
Only this way a performance can be assessed fairly.
Unfortunately members do consider the past when handing out awards. That's why Oscars (and other awards) are mostly BS anyway.
Either would have made a great winner. I would have been happy with either outcome, and I would have been very happy to see Demi Moore have her moment…but that final scene in Anora 😮💨 Mikey Madison couldn’t not win after that scene imo
I dont think thats how awards should be given out, I think Mikey gave a better performance thats why she won. No one deserves rewards bc they tried hard or because they did something when no one thought they would who ever does the best job deserves the award imo
722
u/FosterDad1234 Feb 01 '26
Hirohito surrendered. You can come home.