The Making of an All-Time Oscars Villain

by

During this year’s Oscar nominations reveal, one film stood out with the most nods: Jacques Audiard’s Emilia Pérez. With a total of 13 nominations, it appeared set to dominate the awards race for the remainder of the season. However, controversial tweets from the film’s lead actress, Karla Sofía Gascón, re-emerged, casting doubt on its triumph. Regardless of her acting skills, these posts showcased an alarming amount of intolerance towards various groups, including Muslims, Jews, lesbians, George Floyd, Chinese people, and even the 2021 Oscars ceremony that had multiple non-white winners. In a surprising twist, the first openly trans actor ever nominated for an Oscar was unmasked as the Spanish equivalent of Clayton Bigsby.

In a majority of films, being labeled as the antagonist during Oscar season can be akin to stepping on a landmine. For instance, who could have foreseen that the vibrant rom-com “La La Land,” initially welcomed at the Venice International Film Festival in 2016, would later be criticized as “regressive” and an example of white liberal self-indulgence? For Emilia Pérez, assuming the villain role seemed almost destined. The movie centers around a Mexican gangster undergoing a secret transition, transforming into a philanthropist, only to find herself in a family drama akin to “Mrs. Doubtfire.” It premiered at Cannes this past May, where it bagged two significant awards and was picked up by Netflix, signaling its potential as a major contender for awards. Critics on the Croisette praised Audiard’s ambition, but even those most supportive could sense trouble brewing: The French musical handled sensitive subject matter with the finesse and depth you’d expect from the French and from musicals. New York critic Bilge Ebiri described Emilia Pérez as “bold in its absurdity,” yet pointed out that the film was “laden with giant culture-war landmines,” suggesting that viewers would still be arguing about it long after the festival had ended.

In my opinion, “Emilia Pérez” is a polarizing film, sparking heated debates among critics, particularly within the trans community and journalists at Cannes. As it left the sheltered festival atmosphere last fall, queer critics began sounding alarms, labeling it as anything from a “messy, insensitive, often baffling movie that does not seem to understand” its trans heroine, to a “deeply evil monstrosity.” However, it’s important to mention that I’ve encountered trans individuals who appreciate the film and find issue with cisgender critics like myself claiming it as universally transphobic.

A clip from the most memorable sequence, a Busby Berkeley-inspired musical number set in a Thai gender-affirmation clinic, quickly went viral when the film became available on Netflix screens in November.

The central debate revolved around the movie’s blending of gender transition with moral transformation, portraying this transition more as a metaphorical device rather than a real-life experience. In defense, Audiard argued that he designed the film like an opera, a genre not typically focused on real people. Originally, the main character’s sex change was intended as a comedic element; it was Gascón who proposed that the ex-cartel kingpin should have genuine gender dysphoria instead. Critics argue that these origins are clear in the film’s inconsistent tonal shifts, creating a film that appears indecisive about whether to mock, celebrate, or frighten its audience regarding transgender individuals.

As the debate surrounding trans issues unfolded, Mexican audiences were simultaneously introduced to the film “Emilia Pérez“. Unfortunately, their reception was far from positive. To many Mexicans, director Audiard was reminiscent of Napoleon III, the worst Frenchman Mexico had encountered since then – a filmmaker who seemingly crafted an entire movie depicting Mexico without consulting any Mexican natives. The misrepresentations in “Emilia Pérez” were numerous. The majority of the film was shot on a soundstage outside Paris, with only one of its five main actors, Adriana Paz, being from Mexico. Mexican viewers found the script filled with awkward transliterations, delivered by actors who spoke with accents foreign to their country or who appeared uneasy delivering any lines in Spanish. The controversy deepened when it was discovered that Audiard had described Spanish as a language spoken in “modest countries, developing countries, poor people, and migrants”. Mexican filmmaker Camila Aurora eventually responded with the musical parody “Johanne Sacreblu“, which featured numerous French stereotypes – a rare positive outcome from this entire ordeal.

Nonetheless, Emilia Pérez continued her victorious streak, amassing four Golden Globes and garnering nominations at all major Oscar precursors. On the web, detractors mirrored Pauline Kael’s sentiments, lamenting that they had never encountered anyone who truly admired it. However, as someone who has, I can attest that such individuals indeed exist. They are producers, scriptwriters, drama instructors; typically over 50, frequently from beyond the U.S. These individuals recognize Emilia Pérez as a distinctive and daring masterpiece of art, a bold move only Audiard, a filmmaker known for his ability to evoke intense emotions, could execute.

Similar to movies like “Crash” and “Green Book,” the character Emilia Pérez found herself caught between traditional Hollywood liberalism and modern online liberalism. Until Gascón’s tweets gained widespread attention, many believed that Emilia Pérez represented a progressive choice in the race. Voters who supported Emilia Pérez and nominated Gascón for Best Actress felt they were making a statement against the Trump administration’s attempts to undermine transgender identity. Even though she was considered an underdog in her category, Emilia Pérez became a powerful card for the campaign. Regardless of any other opinions, here was one trans actress who could authentically champion Emilia Pérez as a guiding light in challenging times. In her acceptance speech for the Golden Globe Award for Best Musical or Comedy, she said, “You may imprison us, you may harm us, but you will never be able to strip away our spirit.

Now that it’s clear Gascón holds views similar to a Trump administration member, her statements have become less appealing. She has criticized Islam as a source of disease for mankind, expressed concerns about the presence of Muslims near her daughter’s school, suggesting next year they might need to learn Arabic instead of English. She referred to the COVID-19 vaccine as the “Chinese vaccine,” implying it comes with a mandatory chip and two spring rolls. Lastly, she stated that Adolf Hitler “just had his own opinion about Jews.

In line with the typical crisis management strategy, Gascón issued an apology through Netflix for any distress caused by her tweets. However, her subsequent actions did not follow suit. To salvage her reputation, she undertook a media blitz – without consulting Netflix or her publicists – repeating her apology in numerous social media posts and interviews, while asserting that she was the target of a “smear campaign”. Reports suggest that as a result, the Emilia Pérez campaign has effectively distanced itself from Gascón. A planned trip to the U.S. has been canceled, and Netflix is said to be refusing to cover any additional travel or styling costs. Furthermore, her collaborators have also expressed their disapproval. In an interview with Deadline, Audiard distanced himself from his leading lady, stating, “I just can’t comprehend why she’s causing us more harm.

Due to the chilly state of their partnership, Netflix chose to exclude Emilia Pérez from the film titled “Emilia Pérez.” In place of Gascón’s name and likeness, posters promoting the movie for awards consideration now focus on Zoe Saldaña, who portrays the gangster’s lawyer. Interestingly, this move is ironic given that Saldaña’s character may be the primary perspective in the film; however, she was placed in the Best Supporting Actress category, enabling Netflix to nominate Gascón as a lead actress instead.

The Gascón incident marked a turbulent period leading up to the Oscars, with numerous controversies arising among the nominees. In an intensely competitive category where as many as five films might believe they could win, the Best Picture race has been tainted by a series of mudslinging incidents on social media. Anora received criticism for not hiring an intimacy coordinator, while The Brutalist faced backlash for using AI to design architectural structures. It was also discovered that Fernanda Torres, nominated for the Brazilian film I’m Still Here, had used blackface in 2008.

After experiencing the stirring drama between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, it’s enticing to ponder if some of these contentious issues were sown by rival award campaign strategies. Notably, Netflix’s awards strategist Lisa Taback was once Harvey Weinstein’s right-hand woman, and some find a dark irony in the streamer’s front-runner being undermined by tactics the disgraced magnate originated. Nonetheless, when it comes to Gascón, there’s no enigma surrounding the reemergence of the offensive Tweets: They were unearthed by Canadian journalist Sarah Hagi, who shared with Variety that she was inspired to investigate the actress’s posts upon seeing her use the coded term “Islamist.

Instead of being orchestrated by hidden power brokers, these online narratives are the outcome of a more complex awards-season terrain, teeming with various factions pursuing their own objectives. Just as politics has made us all de facto campaigners for our preferred candidates, so too do contemporary fans assume the role of independent investigators. A bot swarm backing one acting nominee could ignite a backlash against another contender. And these new disputes may trace back to older sources. Prior to her Tweets becoming public again, Gascón hinted at being targeted by Torres’ associates, perhaps referring to “Brazilians.” There was some truth to this: That notoriously passionate and internet-savvy group, along with Mexicans, have united against Emilia Pérez, advocating for Latin America against the European perspective – potentially securing I’m Still Here the award for Best International Film.

If the ongoing controversy has potentially ruined Emilia Pérez’s chances of winning an Oscar, it might take some time for this reality to fully set in. The Producers Guild Awards voting concluded on the very day the scandal surfaced, but Academy members have plenty of time to deliberate: Voting for the Oscars begins on February 11. Some ardent supporters of Emilia Pérez, speaking anonymously, claim that their personal opinions remain unchanged, but the loss of the film’s progressive image could be lethal in a ranked-choice ballot system that favors consensus. For now, we can view Emilia Pérez as a contender who is both deceased and yet still alive on the Oscar stage.

Read More

2025-02-07 17:55