Feinberg on Karla Sofía Gascón, ‘Emilia Pérez’ and a Very Modern Oscars Scandal

by

The Oscar competition, lasting approximately 10 months from the Cannes Film Festival in May until the Academy Awards ceremony in March, mirrors a political campaign. It kicks off with potential contenders announcing their candidacy (at film festivals and premieres). Supporters of promising candidates refine their arguments (by highlighting favorable narratives) and seek endorsements (at screenings, receptions, Q&As, and interviews). Some proceed to the preliminary rounds (other awards shows before the Oscars), and finally comes the election day (the Oscar night itself).

Beyond sharing commonalities, it’s undeniable that the consequences of winning a political election are far greater and wider-reaching than those of winning an Oscar. However, the potential benefits of an Oscar win — both reputationally and financially — are substantial enough to prompt some individuals to act in questionable ways or stir up investigations into past misconduct.

The effects of winning a political election are much more significant compared to winning an Oscar. But, winning an Oscar can still lead to considerable rewards (in terms of reputation and finances), which might make people behave unacceptably or bring past mistakes to light.

Notably, Karla Sofía Gascón, a renowned Spanish actress, garnered acclaim for her role in ‘Emilia Pérez’. Remarkably, she became the initial transgender individual to secure a best actress Oscar nomination on January 23rd, a significant milestone recognized by the Academy.

Within just a few days, Gascón’s Oscar chances, as well as her entire life, suffered a dramatic collapse. In an interview on January 28th, she made remarks that suggested, without providing any proof, that individuals associated with fellow best actress Oscar nominee Fernanda Torre (I’m Still Here) were responsible for attacks against her. This led to immediate criticism from many quarters, including the vast number of Brazilians who have been actively supporting Torre and her film throughout the award season on various online platforms.

In the following period, whether intentionally or not, tweets from Gascón’s past years resurfaced and spread on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), revealing offensive comments about various marginalized groups, including the Oscars themselves. Since then, this incident has gone viral, making Gascón as controversial as figures like Gary Condit, John Edwards, or George Santos – essentially tainted beyond repair. At present, Mel Gibson might be more well-liked in town.

It’s plausible to suspect that the public reveal of Gascón’s tweets wasn’t entirely coincidental. Furthermore, it could be contended that Netflix, with its substantial resources and approximately 60 employees dedicated to awards initiatives, should have spotted these tweets before pouring millions into an Oscar campaign for a film featuring Emilia Pérez at the forefront. Given that a similar scenario, involving just one tweet, nearly undermined the Academy Award potential of another contentious movie, Green Book, six years prior, it seems prudent to question why such oversight occurred.

But the bottom line, of course, is that Gascón did this to herself.

I find the whole situation to be shocking and sad.

Over the last few months, I’ve had numerous encounters with Gascón at different festivals, events, interviews, and Q&A sessions. Throughout these interactions, I didn’t notice any hint of a troubled side. Instead, she appeared to share an undeniable connection with her co-stars, specifically Zoe Saldaña and Selena Gomez, as well as her director, Jacques Audiard. Frequently, she was accompanied by her young daughter, who seemed incredibly mature and wonderful, and I can only imagine the heartache she’s experiencing at this moment.

Moreover, it’s important to note that regardless of personal feelings towards Emilia Pérez, one can acknowledge that Gascón delivered an exceptional and bold performance in the film. Her awards season triumph was a beacon of hope and advancement for numerous individuals. Under different conditions, she would have been acclaimed at the Oscars, whether victorious or not, and ultimately would have been honored at the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures as a pioneer, standing alongside figures such as Sidney Poitier and Kathryn Bigelow, who are also recognized for blazing trails.

Consequently, due to her actions, Emilia Pérez’s chances of winning the Best Actress Oscar, which were already questionable, have been completely eliminated, and it could potentially affect her career in the industry as a whole. Moreover, her film, which was a strong contender for the Best Picture Oscar with 13 nominations, just one less than the all-time record, has had its chances severely hampered. Unfairly, this also applies to her co-stars who were nominated, such as Zoe Saldaña, who had been the frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress for several months. In light of recent discussions with Academy members, many find it difficult to vote for Emilia Pérez in any category, given that she has become a controversial figure.

Emilia Pérez, being a strong contender for the Oscar, has unfortunately been embroiled in controversy at a crucial point during the awards season. In recent decades, especially since the intense battle between Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan, numerous claims – some questionable and others ambiguous – have jeopardized the chances of films like A Beautiful Mind (with allegations that its lead character was anti-Semitic), Slumdog Millionaire (accused of exploiting child actors from India), The Hurt Locker (suspected of plagiarizing a veteran’s story), The King’s Speech (for distorting historical facts), and Green Book (for various reasons).

As a devoted admirer, I find it intriguing that every one of those films still took home the Best Picture Oscar. It seems that the Academy members dismissed the accusations of falsehoods, misleading information, or irrelevance when it came to assessing a film’s quality. However, the Gascón situation appears distinct from anything we’ve encountered before, as her inappropriate behavior is undeniably problematic (although she has contested that some tweets have been manipulated), offensive to almost every ethnic group, and starkly contrasts with the message of her movie, which is centered around tolerance. Furthermore, her actions have undermined the dedicated efforts of numerous individuals who worked diligently on her behalf.

This current Oscars controversy is unlike any we’ve seen in the past, mainly due to the widespread influence of the Internet and social media, which have only recently become significant factors. While there has always been opposition research during Oscar races, traditionally carried out by strategists working for different campaigns, I don’t approve of such tactics but acknowledge their existence. In this instance, however, it appears that regular individuals – some of whom may be critical of “wokeness” or find the portrayal of trans people and Mexico in ‘Emilia Pérez’s’ work to be oversimplified – have taken it upon themselves to dig up and disseminate damaging information about someone who has provided plenty of material for such scrutiny.

Is it conceivable that these civilians might have colluded with a competing campaign, standing to gain from the fall of Gascón and Emilia Pérez? While anything can happen in today’s digital era, proving it can be challenging. However, the fact remains unchanged: they have significantly disrupted the Oscar race.

Read More

2025-02-02 05:25