The Best Actress race of 2025 was one of the most exciting… since last year’s.

The truth is, the Best Actress category is the most consistently interesting, rewarding some of the best actresses working today for delivering bold and often daring work that makes the Best Actor category pale in comparison.

Last year saw the showdown between Lily Gladstone and Emma Stone, which culminated in the latter winning her second Oscar, and this year offered an equally twisting race between Anora‘s Mikey Madison and The Substance‘s Demi Moore.

The 2025 race was full of surprises. Madison was the presumed frontrunner following Anora‘s festival debut, but Moore picked up steam following back-to-back wins at the Golden Globes and Critics’ Choice Awards, where she won over Madison.

Moore then took SAG, while Madison took BAFTA, going into Osca night on a pretty even field.

Alas, the Academy went with Madison, putting an end to the dream of calling Demi Moore an Oscar winner. What made the Academy choose Madison over Moore?

There’s not one right answer, and several factors were surely at play, but this list will try to break down the race and explain why Madison became the 97th Best Actress winner in Oscar history.

6. The Academy Loves an Ingenue

Young Women Have Always Had a Place in the Best Actress Category

Historically, Best Actress has been far kinder to young performers than its male counterpart.

Whereas Best Actor tends to award older actors (the youngest winner remains Adrian Brody, who was 29 when he prevailed for his work in The Pianist), Best Actress is far more lenient.

The youngest Best Actress winner is Marlee Matlin, who was 21 when she triumphed for Children of a Lesser God.

Jennifer Lawrence and Janey Gaynor both won at 22, while Joan Fontaine and Audrey Hepburn were 24 at the time of their victories.

In summary, the Best Actress category loves an ingenue, especially if she’s just breaking into the business. Madison fits this profile nicely, especially as Anora very much represented her debut in the cinematic big leagues.

While Best Actor stuck to its usual way by awarding Brody instead of the far younger Timothée Chalamet, Best Actress went the other route, bestowing the gold on the young ingenue over the experienced veteran.

Multiple Factors Go Into Winning an Oscar

A good narrative is important to win an Oscar. If recent and somewhat notorious career wins like Brendan Fraser and Jamie Lee Curtis prove anything is that a great narrative can take an actor all the way, especially if they’ve been delivering good work for years.

Demi Moore had a perfect narrative this year: an industry veteran receiving major acclaim and recognition for the first time in her career.

Speech after speech, Moore mentioned how much this acknowledgment meant to her, and audiences ate it up every time.

Alas, a good narrative isn’t everything, and sadly, Moore’s ultimate loss proves it.

It’s definitely a part of the overall package, but it must be supported by other factors, especially in tough races like this one, where the winner comes down to the wire.

This isn’t a dig at Moore, who conducted a beautiful and near-perfect campaign from The Substance‘s Cannes debut all the way to Oscar night. However, it is interesting to consider the actual role a narrative plays on the road to the Oscars.

4. The ‘Emilia Pérez’ Collapse

It Was Closer to Winning Best Picture Than We Dare Imagine

No movie collapsed so spectacularly or infamously as Jacques Audiard‘s Emilia Pérez. The controversial musical premiered at Cannes, where it made a big splash and became an early frontrunner.

Following a high-profile victory at the Golden Globes, where it actually defeated Anora, and a massive showing at the Oscars with 13 nominations, Emilia Pérez seemed to be the film to beat come the ceremony.

And then, the Karla Sofía Gascón controversy broke out, and the film became damaged goods so toxic that no one wanted to touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Emilia Pérez was always a divisive movie: Mexicans despised it, musical fans loathed it, and general audiences couldn’t care less about it.

But the industry embraced it to the point where it seemed like the certain winner in January. It’s impossible to ensure it, but it’s not hard to conclude that, had Gascón’s tweets not been discovered, Emilia Pérez would’ve probably been our Best Picture winner.

Anora would’ve been the biggest loser here, as an EP-centric Oscars would’ve opened the door for potential wins for A Real Pain in Screenplay and The Brutalist in Director.

Without the overall support for her movie, Madison would’ve also been more vulnerable, allowing Moore to claim Best Actress.

When thinking about it, no movie benefited more from Emilia‘s collapse than Anora.

3. There IS a Horror Bias Within the Academy

The Genre Has Always Struggled at the Oscars

It’s common knowledge that horror has always had a tough time at the Oscars. Throughout the ceremony’s 97-year history, only seven horror movies have received Best Picture nominations, including The Substance.

Considering masterpieces like Psycho, The Shining, and The Blair Witch Project were not only unrecognized by the Academy but actually received middling reviews upon their original releases, it’s easy to conclude that horror has it twice as hard as other genres to receive mainstream recognition.

Thus, the fact that The Substance had such a strong showing at this year’s Oscars is already impressive, especially Coralie Fargeat‘s inclusion in the Best Director category.

Yet, that was also what led many to go all-in on predicting Moore, especially after her SAG win.

The 2020s also proved the Academy’s willingness to reward more experimental movies, with the previous two Best Actress winners—Michelle Yeoh and Emma Stone—coming from wild and unconventional sci-fi movies.

Alas, sci-fi is far more awards-friendly than horror.

2 . ‘The Substance’ Was Ultimately Too Much for the Academy

We Always Knew It Might Be More Than Many Academy Members Would Bear

Even within the standards of horror, The Substance is pretty out there. The entire third act is a deeply unserious satire that hammers its point on the audience’s head via exploding blood, guts, gore, and a melting face on the Hollywood boulevard.

The Substance is gross, bold, unsubtle, utterly deranged, and, frankly, far too much. Apparently, the Academy also thought so.

The Substance isn’t an Oscar-friendly movie under any metric.

It’s not hard to believe many Oscar voters probably considered the film’s five nominations sufficient recognition, especially considering its less-than-approachable narrative.

The Substance isn’t just weird; it’s outright revolting, a fact that pretty much every review mentions.

Many of this year’s anonymous Oscar ballots (a tradition that should frankly go the way of the dodo, sooner rather than later) confessed reservations at rewarding The Substance, largely thanks to how disgusting and over-the-top it is.

1. ‘Anora’s Best Picture Win Gave Madison the Edge

Best Picture Goes a Long Way

In the end, it all came out to the perfect storm that led to Anora (almost) cleaning house.

The film won five Oscars, an impressive feat considering it had six nominations. The Editing+Screenplay+Directing combo was already powerful enough, but Best Picture really took Madison all the way because why would a voter choose Anora in all those categories and not Best Actress?

Madison is the heart of Anora; she IS the picture, and if it was worthy of all those awards, it was largely because of her.

Anora‘s journey to the top was paved with confusion and uncertainty, but critics remained convinced of Madison’s prowess until the very end. Following the PGA win, Anora was unstoppable on the path to Best Picture, and that also included Madison.

In the end, the 2025 Best Actress race is the perfect example of the power of being in a Best Picture frontrunner; for future reference, always remember that it’s wise to go with the Best Picture protagonist. That’s how the average Academy voter thinks.