Emilia Pérez: Political Stances for Academy Gain

When I sat down to watch Emilia Pérez, I was expecting a film that was absolute shit: a film so easy to criticize for its problematic thematic elements, technical issues, and poor writing. Like an idiot, I expected all of this and still assumed I would have the ability to sit through the film. This was not the case. I had to watch this film in shifts with hours, if not days, in between watching the scenes. This watch was so incredibly hard that I feel inadequate to write about it. But, against my better judgment, I will, because the hatred I have for this film and the team behind it is so great that I must express my disdain.

The plot follows a gang leader, Emilia Pérez, transitioning with the help of a lawyer. After three years of embracing her true self outside of Mexico, she decides to return with her family while presenting as her sister. She then starts a charity to help the families of those she had harmed as a kingpin, but ends up getting kidnapped by her wife’s lover and ends up dying, to become a symbol against gang violence and the drug trade.

One glaring issue with this film is that it should not be a musical or a comedy. Speaking of comedy, this movie is not funny. While it could have been done well as a comedy, I would not trust writer and director Jacques Audiard to do so. As for being a musical, it’s a lousy one at best. All of the numbers are uninspired and the lyrics are physically repulsing. As a non-Spanish speaker, I don’t know the extent of how bad the Spanish lyrics and dialogue are, but the writing of the English scenes and songs was so bad I almost ripped out my ears. The most notable example is from the song “La Vaginoplastia,” with the lyrics, “Hello nice to meet you / I’d like to talk about sex change operation / I see, I see, I see / Man to woman or woman to man? Man to woman / From penis to vagina!” I can only imagine that the lyrics in Spanish sound exactly like this to native Spanish speakers. Other than being outright bad, the lyrics themselves degrate the trans experience down to sexchange operations and doesn’t explain the complexities around these operations and the general trans experience. There are so many more examples of this, and if I named them all, we’d have a two and a half hour film. 

Another issue with this film is that it tries to comment on too many things and does none of them well. As Mexican film critic Gaby Meza explained, “Emilia Pérez [is] exotic and bold [but without depth]. Not in the trans experience, not in the narco experience, not in the disappeared, but rather a touch of everything like an ingredient to sweeten.” The idea that Audiard used all of these experiences as a seasoning for the film, instead of making it actually what the film is about, causes it to feel empty. Rather than an exploration of Mexican culture, the film uses “Mexico” (it was shot in France) as a background, even though it relies on Mexican culture and the narco experience for its story. Emilia Pérez also uses trans people as another tool to make the film interesting, when, again, the film is reliant on the trans experience. What was the message? What was the point? There was nothing except the exploitation of the cultures and identities that this film uses to appeal to viewers. 

This idea isn’t helped by Audiard saying in an interview that “Spanish is a language of modest countries, developing countries, or of poor people and migrants.” This comment reveals everything: why would he write about Mexicans, and in Spanish, if he just thinks of them as poor people? 

The lead actress, Karla Sofía Gascón, has also become known for offensive comments when her old tweets resurfaced. In these tweets she talks about how she's “sick” of religions and made racist statements about the murder of George Floyd. All of this racism coming from the writer-director and the title actress reveals the shallowness of the film’s commentary on race, gangs in Mexico, and trans people. 

Back to commentary on the film itself, Emilia Pérez is stylistically obsessed with being ambitious and getting the shot, but the intense shots have no weight behind them. This makes it nice to look at, but ultimately results in movement and art without purpose. The lack of substance in this film garners the same effect of staring at a blank wall. Looking at the stills before watching, I thought, “Wow! This is so artsy and different and pretty!,” but when I saw the same stills while watching the movie, I felt nothing. Honestly, that’s the most annoying part. This film is a pile of nothing. So why is it up for 13 Oscars?

There’s one main reason why I think Emilia Pérezgot nominated for 13 Oscars. It “covers” issues that are risqué in politics right now: trans people and immigration policies. Political topics are peak Oscar bait. Even if the film has no substance or actual political stance on any of the issues it brings up besides “kidnapping and drug trade is bad,” it’ll still get nominations. Even with the director exploiting the identities the film is reliant on to draw in an audience and the lead actress making many racist remarks, the Academy will still nominate it because it’s different. I definitely have not seen another film like Emilia Pérezand I hope I never do.