Emilia Pérez: Trojan Horse of Hollywood Liberalism Exposed

The term “Oscar bait” refers to films that appear to be produced with the primary goal of gaining attention for awards. These movies often tackle contemporary issues or advocate for social justice and progressive ideals. Emilia Pérez‘s work is almost synonymous with this term, as it delves into a multicultural crime narrative with significant transgender representation, featuring a cast of powerful women. This approach was successful, earning 13 nominations at the 97th Academy Awards. However, recent criticism has been intense, primarily due to past controversial comments made on social media by its Oscar-nominated lead actor, Karla Sofia Gascon.

What Did Karla Sofía Gascón Say That Was So Controversial?

Since Sarah Hagi brought attention to Gascón’s old tweets, she has faced criticism. These posts undermined the positive sentiment toward Gascón as the first openly trans actor nominated for Best Actress at the Academy Awards. It’s unfortunate. On November 22, 2020, Gascón posted on social media, “I’m Sorry, Does it seem to me that there are more Muslims in Spain? Every time I pick up my daughter from school, I see more women wearing headscarves and long skirts. Next year, instead of English, we might need to teach Arabic.

As a fervent observer, it appears that Gascón frequently targeted Muslims in her remarks. On September 2, 2020, she shared an image of a Muslim family dining at a restaurant and sarcastically commented, “Islam is truly wondrous, with no trace of machismo. Women are revered, and when they are so esteemed, they are left with a small, squared opening for their eyes to be seen and their mouths, but only if she complies. It’s just one of the many delightful aspects of this religion, isn’t it? How profoundly repugnant such a perspective on humanity.” (The emphasis is Gascón’s.) Her bitter vitriol was not limited to Muslims, though. In June 2020, Gascón wrote:

To put it frankly, I believe that only a small number of individuals truly cared about George Floyd before his passing. However, his death has underscored the fact that there are still individuals who view Black people as having no rights and police officers as being assassins. Such views are misguided.

As a film enthusiast, I stumbled upon a tweet from last summer (August 2020) that blended anti-vaccination views with the disturbing element of racism. It’s deeply concerning to see such divisive and harmful content online.

As a movie buff, I’d say: “Getting the Chinese vaccine isn’t just about protection, it also includes some fun extras! You’ll receive two spring rolls, a magical cat toy that moves its paw, two plastic flowers, a pop-up lantern, three phone lines, and one euro for your initial purchase with the system. It’s like getting a mini cultural experience along with your shot!

Attacking Her Co-Star & Feigning Apologies

In a questionable tweet, which was posted alongside an image featuring Selena Gomez and Hailey Bieber, actress Emilia Pérez appears to have criticized her co-star Selena Gomez. The supposed message reads: “She’s a wealthy rodent who pretends to be poor whenever possible and will never cease tormenting her ex-boyfriend [Justin Bieber] and his spouse.” However, Emilia Pérez has asserted that this tweet is fake, although its content seems consistent with her past behavior.

In light of these troubling and remorseful disclosures, Gascón has given several versions of an apology. When she deactivated her X account, she apologized (through The Hollywood Reporter) in a manner that seemed more like martyrdom. “I’m sorry,” she wrote, “but I can no longer tolerate this campaign of hate and misinformation affecting me and my family, so at their request, I am closing my account on X. However, feel free to keep attacking me as if I were responsible for world hunger and wars… But let me tell you something: ‘The more you try to bring me down, the stronger I will become. The greater the victory will be.’

Mom, life has brought me here with a mission to spread hope and love throughout the world, and that’s exactly what I intend to do,” summarized Gascón, so heartwarming.

Gascón Is Also a Scapegoat

The harmful social media comments made by Gascón have been met with disapproval not only from critics and the public, but also his fellow actors Audiard and Netflix themselves. Despite her possible Oscar nomination, Netflix has distanced itself from Zoe Saldaña in their For Your Consideration campaign, and is no longer financing Gascón’s travel expenses. Zoe Saldaña addressed the controversy by stating, “I find it deeply disappointing because I don’t endorse such behavior, and I have zero tolerance for any hateful speech directed towards any group of people.

In a candid interview with Deadline on February 5, 2025, Audiard spoke openly about his current state with the person in question. “I haven’t communicated with her, and I don’t plan to. Her self-destructive behavior is something I can’t intervene in, and honestly, I just don’t comprehend why she persists,” Audiard confessed. “Why is she hurting herself? Why? I simply don’t understand it, and what I also don’t grasp about this situation is why she’s harming those who were once very close to her.” The director further elaborated:

I can’t wrap my head around why she persists in causing us harm. At this moment, I won’t reach out to her because she needs time alone to acknowledge and take responsibility for her actions… It seems she’s feigning victimhood. She keeps portraying herself as a victim, which is quite unexpected. It’s almost like she believes words don’t have the power to inflict pain.

It appears that Gascón is being blamed for the controversy surrounding Emilia Pérez’s messages, which would be fair if all reports are accurate. However, it’s important to note that everyone involved in creating Emilia Pérez shares some blame. The focus on her messages has diverted attention from the film’s real issues, such as Hollywood’s hypocrisy in promoting identity politics while overlooking individuals’ true natures. There are many problems with Emilia Pérez beyond its cringeworthy song about vaginoplasty. In essence, the film’s flaws go far deeper than just the personal biases of one of its stars.

‘Emilia Pérez’ Fails Trans People on Every Level

In simpler terms, the film Emilia Pérez is often praised for its blend of genres and distinctive direction, but more so for its daring portrayal of a powerful transgender character or as a “bold, affirmative gender musical” according to some critics. However, those who identify as transgender or part of the LGBTQ+ community often view the movie as a misguided and awkward effort by a cisgender man to depict trans identity.

In an article titled “Why I find Emilia Pérez inadequate, insincere, and potentially harmful” by Amelia Hansford, it’s stated that the script lacks understanding of the transition process for trans women, yet is delivered with strong, confident untruths. Similarly, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) comments that Emilia Pérez represents a setback in trans representation.

Audiard’s perspective on the theme often revolves around dual lives or, more specifically, the decision and cost of living. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, he expressed this as, “Frequently in my films, there’s a recurring theme about double lives, or more accurately, the choice of life, the price one pays for a life. In essence, it’s about how many lives does someone have the entitlement to live?” The director employs gender reassignment surgery as a symbol within the narrative of a criminal seeking to depart from their criminal past and pursue redemption. However, this method of integrating trans representation into film is problematic; a transgender individual should not be portrayed as “escaping” or leaving their identity behind. As Hansford points out in The Pink News, such portrayals are misleading and inaccurate to the realities of being transgender.

The problem lies in the fact that transitioning isn’t about making a moral choice, and merely transitioning doesn’t erase one’s past actions. It’s not a death or rebirth. In the film, Emilia maintains connections with the cartel, deceives her family, resorts to physical violence towards the end when reconnection fails, and even considers using financial extortion against her wife portrayed by Selena Gomez. These actions don’t align with any thematic sense and unfortunately depict Emilia as another trans character portrayed as psychopathic, adding to an unwanted pattern in media representation.

Oh, ‘Emilia Pérez’ Insults Mexicans, Too

Emilia Pérez is a movie that claims to depict Mexican culture and be set in Mexico, but it’s actually filmed in France by a French director and features a predominantly non-Mexican cast. Critics, particularly Mexicans and Spanish speakers, have criticized the actors’ accents, especially Selena Gomez’s, since the trailer was released. Gomez admitted to Remezcla that she wished she had more time to prepare for the role by learning Spanish.

It’s the contempt for authenticity and Mexico that makes this situation even more outrageous, according to Gascón. In an interview with Rolling Stone in October 2024, he stated, “I believe this movie is more Mexican than what many Mexicans produce.” The article titled “Jacques Audiard, the Most Hated Man in Mexico, Sparks More Backlash” highlights how Audiard demonstrated his arrogance and lack of charm with this one-liner:

Spanish is a language of modest countries, of developing countries, of the poor and migrants.

In a discussion with Guillermo del Toro for The Hollywood Reporter, Audiard expressed that his vision for his Mexican film didn’t align with Mexico or Mexicans as he initially envisioned. “I had so many mental images, but these images wouldn’t fit on the streets of Mexico, in the homes of Mexico. I required a more powerful stylistic approach,” explained Audiard. Essentially, he struggled to find suitable actors for the roles and although he met several actresses in Mexico, including trans actresses, it just didn’t seem to work out. This is particularly ironic when you consider that the film’s casting director and other team members had emphasized their desire for authenticity in the movie.

In her conversation about the casting process for the movie Emilia Pérez, Carla Hool made a questionable statement. She explained that they extensively searched for actors in Mexico, the U.S., Spain, and throughout Latin America to maintain authenticity, but ultimately chose the best actors regardless of their nationality, which raised concerns about the production’s hypocrisy.

As a passionate cinephile, it’s disheartening to learn that The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has recognized Hool’s dedication to promoting authenticity and expanding opportunities for Latinx actors in her projects. However, I can’t help but feel that this statement unintentionally underscores the inconsistencies and biases often seen among liberal Oscar voters.

The Academy Awards Tend to Reward Empty Social Justice Posturing

From my perspective, I find it intriguing how certain films that tackle sensitive social issues, like those focusing on racial or LGBTQ+ themes, often receive numerous Oscars. Movies such as “Driving Miss Daisy,” “Green Book,” “Dallas Buyers Club,” and “The Danish Girl” are examples of this pattern, with white directors and writers at the helm. Similarly, films like “Slumdog Millionaire,” about an Indian man escaping poverty, were written and directed by well-to-do British men. The same can be said for “Crash” (2004), a film addressing multiracial tensions, created by white directors. Even the iconic “Gandhi” was directed by a British man, depicting the Indian independence movement from the British Empire. This trend continues in many other films, and it’s something worth discussing.

The unfortunate tradition persisted as Emilia Pérez received 13 Oscar nominations. Slash Film notes that “well-intentioned individuals, who are trying to demonstrate their lack of transphobia, are overhyping a regressive piece,” leading to the conclusion that it’s disheartening to find out that many Academy voters seem oblivious and appear to be voting for the illusion of progress embodied by Emilia Pérez, rather than allowing the communities portrayed in the film to decide if this depiction warrants celebration.

In simpler terms, Hansfeld states in The Pink News that calling this movie “awards bait” would be unfair to what he calls “awards bait” – instead, Emilia Pérez is a film that seems to believe it deserves respect merely by existing. On the other hand, Kyndall Cunningham, writing for Vox, skillfully points out the irony in this situation.

Despite the surprise not being entirely unexpected, Emilia Pérez’s nomination for the Oscars is quite predictable. This is because her movie fits comfortably into a genre that the mainstream Hollywood often applauds – heartwarming tales about individuals on society’s periphery. These films enable viewers to feel socially conscious simply by consumption, but they don’t actually question or challenge the stereotypes and political messages within them.

As a discerning film critic, I find it intriguing – indeed, somewhat ironic – that the same person who has openly criticized the Academy Awards for favoring independent and protest films in a now-deleted post, is herself now a contender this year. In her characteristically blunt, dismissive, and derisive style, she once remarked, “The Oscars are starting to resemble a ceremony for independent and protest films; I wasn’t sure if I was watching an Afro-Korean festival, a Black Lives Matter rally, or the 8M.” She went on to describe it as an “ugly, ugly gala.” It remains to be seen whether she will grace this year’s event with her presence, and whether she might even take home an award.

2025-02-16 08:03