The long-time debate on Hollywood’s superficial and inaccessible beauty standards has experienced a recent upsurge spotlighting Demi Moore, the star of Coralie Fargeat’s The Substance (2024). There has been a multitude of reactions, not only to her immaculate black-dress appearance at the SFFilm Awards, but also to her speech when winning Best Female Actor at the Golden Globes. After being one of Hollywood’s favourites in the ‘90s, Moore’s performance in The Substance brought her back to center stage, alongside questions on the hypocrisy of Hollywood’s beauty standards.
Moore expresses in her speech the pressure of not feeling “smart enough, or pretty enough, or skinny enough, or successful enough” in the industry. She then accentuates the need for women to “put down the measuring stick” and to stop comparing or conforming themselves to Hollywood’s surreal laws of beauty and perfection. She further emphasizes this in an interview with Variety by describing The Substance’s contemplation of “women and their value diminishing as they age.” She then describes how her character Elizabeth gave great value to “everything external and how she then internalized it.”
While Moore affirms that she did not feel personally tied to her character’s journey, her own ageless looks seem instead to express the actress’ embodiment of Elizabeth’s relationship to beauty standards.
Indeed, Moore’s words appear to tackle the industry’s demanding beauty standards; however, her smooth face at sixty-two seems to abide by them and confirm them… and money makes the process all the easier. While it is undeniable that Moore looks stunning, what I find the most striking is this out-of-reach and, dare I say, out-of-this-world pinnacle of surrealism and unfairness at which women’s beauty standards have risen.
Instead of praising the natural beauty of women at any age, her tricenarian looks communicate unrealistic expectations for everyday women to stay forever young. To my eyes, it illustrates the toxicity of the French expressions that describing a younger woman as une belle plante, a beautiful and fresh blooming plant, and an older woman as une fleur fanée, a fading, wilted flower. Moore’s seemingly unwrinkled and tightly lifted face takes us away from the recent embrace of aging gracefully and brings us back to this impossible state of running against the clock. Always worried that our good looks will fade with age. Always worried that we will not be relevant anymore if we do not look twenty-five. Always worried that we will be replaced by younger, fresher women. Always worried that we will not be sexy or dateable anymore, especially to the male gaze.
I will not deny that Moore’s speech can be inspiring, and I agree that it is ridiculous for women to measure themselves against that fictitious perfect woman Hollywood so desires and fantasizes about. However, to hear this coming from the lips of a woman who has clearly indulged in that very fantasy only highlights the hypocrisy of it all and further glamorizes these unrealistic Hollywood beauty standards. Many women in their sixties will not have by their side Moore’s talented and, no doubt, expensive plastic surgeon, as speculated. While many know her looks are not natural, her youthfulness at sixty-two is praised. Resultingly, such superficial, demanding beauty standards diminish the natural beauty of women at sixty.
An article in The Daily Mail collected reactions posted on X to Demi’s appearance at the SFFilm Awards. Many denounce the role that money plays in sustaining such youthful looks, with one user further condemning how it is “unfair to expect 50+ year old women to compete with 20 somethings on the dating market (sic)”. Another user addresses how these celebrities are exceptions to reality, but due to their constant representation in the media, “they shape our perception of what is normal”.
However, the comment section of a Facebook post addressing the same unfairness shows greater positivity towards her potentially surgically re-invented self. Many commenters highlight how “gorgeous,” “beautiful,” “amazing,” and “great” she looks, and some even express how the focus should not be on her looks, but on her acclaimed performance in The Substance. The latter appears to condemn this superficial hyperfixation people have with women’s looks at the expense of their professional value – in this case, Moore’s talent as an actress. Indeed, women are too often artificially defined by their outer image rather than by what really matters: their worth as a person and a professional.
These comments emphasize the contradicting space Hollywood women must navigate, where they are expected to respond to the assumption that movie stars must look glamorous and flawless, all while being criticized for it. How does one negotiate in this world? How can one make everyone happy? The comments supporting Moore also express how people should just leave her alone – it is her body and her money. She does not owe anything to anyone and should not be held accountable for doing what pleases her. However, did she lean on the likely shoulder of plastic surgery out of her own free will, or did she do so because of the conscious or unconscious influence of Hollywood?
I think it is important to remember that being a Hollywood star comes with a certain degree of responsibility. She is a woman whose fame has made her greatly influential. Her image is not neutral or innocent but carries the price of being looked up to and inspiring to many – whether for her success, her beauty, or both. Regardless of whether she wants to or not, Demi Moore’s professional and aesthetic decisions endorse certain life choices, and today it is the glamorization of an impossible youth.