Demi Moore & The World's Strangest Award

She may have missed out on an Oscar for her role in her huge comeback movie, The Substance; but Demi Moore has been named the recipient of an altogether different award.

Last week People Magazine named 62 year old Moore the ‘World’s Most Beautiful Person’.

The announcement has got me feeling uncomfortable, conflicted and more than a little confused. And I’m not the only one. Even writing the title here… well it’s giving me a bit of the ick. Don’t get me wrong; I think Demi Moore is gorgeous. I’m not denying I wanted to be her back in the 90’s watching Ghost, and seeing her strut about in that leotard in the opening scenes of The Substance; I wanted to be her all over again.

But are we actually still doing that award and ones like it? Still? In 2025? Come on People Magazine; I think we can do better.

The fact that Moore of all people, after having made The Substance, was given that award, just seemed incredibly tone deaf. A film which literally teaches us that the pursuit of beauty and youth is strewn with danger and sadness.

If you haven’t seen The Substance, I would urge you to. It tells the tale of ageing Hollywood fitness queen Elizabeth so desperate to hang onto her youthful looks (and the career that comes with it) that she signs up to taking a dangerous cocktail of injections in order to ‘split’ into Sue, a manifested younger version of herself.

The film shines a light on the intense self-hatred which comes for some women when watching themselves age. It takes a horror-esque turn as we watch Elizabeth relentlessly butcher herself in pursuit of staying young, and therefore staying employed, valued and loved.

The male gaze is brought into sharp focus through the eyes of the TV producers who employ Elizabeth and then later Sue. We see the women wither and die as their physical beauty recedes and they are no longer of any worth to the male characters. The films’ subject was close to home for it’s leading actress, having suffered at the hands of a male-dominated industry who overlooked her for many years as she aged.

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Moore states that her own experience of living under the male gaze has had a profound, negative and long-lasting impact on her life. She has revealed she spent decades punishing her body with gruelling workouts, struggling with her body image and suffering from a crippling lack of confidence, saying “I was putting all of the value of who I was, into how my body was, how it looked, and giving other people’s opinion more power than myself.”

I wonder then, how someone who has spent decades struggling with her self-image and self-worth, reacts to the news at 62 years of age, of being named People Magazine’s Most Beautiful Person? Does she feel validated? Seen at last? Or does she, like me, think the idea of even giving out that title is absolutely pointless and bizarre..? I wonder if she’d prefer the discussions taking place to be about her very underrated acting ability.

As I’ve said, there’s no denying Moore is a very attractive woman. Her elfin features, short cropped hair and almost boyish thinness captivated us all when she played her breakout role in Ghost. But much of that original ‘beauty’, however we define that, is gone. Moore has clearly had substantial ‘work’ done. She is stunning… but she looks closer to 42 than 62. Is it fair to say she’s the most beautiful? Or does she just have better access to surgeons and treatments than your average 62 year old who couldn’t hope to keep up with the unrealistic standards of Hollywood?

I’m all for championing older women, in all walks of life. And yes it’s great to see People Magazine recognising an older woman rather than a young whippersnapper. It’s great that ageing is being celebrated for the privilege it is, rather than the curse many women feel it to be.

But we need to talk about why the hell the award exists in the first place and if it holds any validity at all.

As the saying goes; beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For me, the ‘imperfections’ are what make people uniquely beautiful. My sister-in-law’s gappy front teeth, my best friends’ scar above her eyebrow, my little boy’s freckles. I don’t want the ironed out clinically clean versions of beauty Hollywood has long prescribed to us as being the gold standard.

There’s no denying though, that being beautiful in a traditional way, rather than in the quirky ways that I love, has it’s benefits. Beauty correlates with higher social status and stronger economic mobility, especially for women. There’s also an attractiveness stereotype. In several studies it has emerged that scientifically ‘beautiful’ people are perceived as being kinder, funnier and more competent than their less attractive counterparts. Biologically, we’re conditioned to seek out attractive people, and to want to be perceived as attractive ourselves.

While none of us can deny there’s value in being seen to be attractive, it seems to me the most strange outdated concept, that in 2025 we are still awarding people for being genetically blessed. Or having enough money that you can defy your genetics. Beauty can never be anything other than subjective, no matter how many awards magazines bestow on people.

In a world where we have women like Malala Yousefzai, the astounding Gisele Pelicot, and the inspirational Katie Piper; shouldn’t we spend a little more time thinking about women’s work, women’s value, women’s worth? You know, moreso than if they’re; well… pretty?