Emilia Pérez is everything what can be wrong with cinema

You’ve probably heard about the biggest cinematic phenomenon of the past month. In Search of Emilia Pérez, or simply known as Emilia Pérez, is a French film that blends several (too many) genres. It’s a mix of comedy, drama, crime, and musical, attempting to portray the story of an imaginary drug lord who decides to transition - not just in terms of gender but also in life - leaving behind the world of crime in search of redemption for their past.

To be honest, in just those couple of sentences, it sounds like a compelling idea, capable of reinventing a genre and themes that already feel cliché in the industry. But a movie is much more than its initial premise, and a lot can go wrong along the way. Emilia Pérez is one of those cases where not just one, but seemingly everything feels like the perfect recipe for disaster.

And if Emilia Pérez is being rejected by the Latin American community, it’s for good reason - or rather, for a whole host of good reasons.

Emilia Pérez | Sitio oficial de Netflix
Emilia Pérez, the movie that is causing such controversy, is also being adored by the judges of many festivals.

The origin of the disaster

Pinpointing the root of the problem is complicated, and doing so would oversimplify the myriad of issues plaguing Emilia Pérez. However, one could argue that the starting point of the film’s downfall lies with its director, Jacques Audiard.

Audiard is far from being an amateur filmmaker. Over his career, he’s delivered critically acclaimed works such as De battre mon cœur s'est arrêté, which won a BAFTA award, and Un prophète, which earned the Grand Prix at the Cannes Film Festival.

Jacques Audiard:
Jacques Audiard seems to be now the #1 public enemy of whole Latin America.

Although he has extensive experience in drama and comedy, Emilia Pérez marked the first time in his career he attempted to incorporate the musical genre alongside these elements. It was a risky decision, but one that had the potential to work.

Spoiler: it didn’t.

The crux of the problem lies in the heart of the film and the context it attempts to portray - the world of cartels - which is trivialized in the final product. Its execution is not only disappointing but also disrespectful. On top of that, the depiction of Mexico as a country is riddled with generic stereotypes, many of which carry negative connotations and construct a vision of Mexico that exists only in Audiard’s imagination.

As if this weren’t bad enough, there’s an even greater issue: the character of Emilia Pérez. It’s important to clarify upfront that the problem is not that the character is transgender or the actress playing the role - it’s quite the opposite. The issue is that this is precisely the kind of representation the trans community doesn’t need.

Emilia Pérez y en quién ese inspiró el personaje principal | GQ
The character of Emilia Pérez ends up being exactly the wrong portrayal of the LGBTQ+ community in the big screen.

To begin with, the transition process is misrepresented through stereotypes and relies on misguided notions about the subject. From exaggerated portrayals of surgical procedures to a fundamentally flawed depiction of what this process entails, the inaccuracies are glaring. Amelia Hansford summed it up succinctly in her critique for PinkNews:

"It’s a script that is so alienated from the process of transitioning as a trans woman - and yet blurts falsehoods out with such bold, intense conviction - that you’d think Audiard himself had gone through 500 different gender-affirming surgeries in one sitting."

Several organizations from the LGBTQ+ community have firmly rejected the film - and rightfully so. However, this isn’t the greatest sin of Emilia Pérez as a character. Beyond being a transgender woman, it’s important to remember that she also represents something else entirely: a drug lord.

A film born from ignorance

It’s clear that Audiard didn’t have a deep understanding of gender transitions. But there’s something he knows even less about: drug trafficking. And this isn’t mere speculation - he admitted it himself when asked how much research he did on Mexico while making the film:

"What I needed to understand, I already knew a little."

A subject that has led to over 100,000 historical disappearances and an average of 70 homicides per day in recent years is not one you can simply “know a little” about and move forward. It requires deep understanding, empathy for the victims, a grasp of the problem's scale, and the ability to address it with care.

In fact, these two stats can be found with a 2-minute google search. That is the depth-level of Audiard investigation on the topic.

Desaparecidos en Lagos de Moreno |
The disappearances is a complex topic in México and Latin America.

This audacious ignorance led the film to trivialize the drug trafficking theme and Emilia Pérez’s attempt to leave her criminal life behind. Emilia’s supposed redemption arc - leaving her past to support the search for those disappeared by the cartel - is so superficial it borders on disrespect.

In the end, Emilia Pérez doesn’t truly change. She continues to exploit her cartel contacts, manipulates others, displays borderline psychotic and abusive behavior, and delivers a so-called redemption story that feels insincere. The film not only disrespects its audience but also the victims of the real-world issues it pretends to tackle.

This dual-layered failure in representation is why the character is problematic: her portrayal of transgender identity is deeply regressive, and the depiction of drug trafficking and its surrounding issues lacks depth, resulting in a clumsy revictimization that is grossly inconsiderate of an entire nation.

Desaparición de personas en México: el dolor como motor de lucha colectiva  | OHCHR
You may be unaware, but the narco is a HUGE and complex problem in México.

Audiard claimed to understand what needed to be understood, failing to realize that the topic requires a profound sense of sensitivity. If you’re reading this from outside Latin America, here’s an analogy to put things in perspective: imagine if tomorrow, someone made a musical movie about school shootings in the U.S., with a protagonist named John Smith.

Or lets ask Audiard what does he think about a movie made by a mexican director, which is located in France, and everything happens in France, and everyone in the movie pretends to be french (except one single tertiary character), but all of the actors and actresses are from every imagined country except France and, of course, no one of them really knows a single word of french. And one of those characters just says “hon hon hon le baguette”

That’s how offensive (and tone-deaf) Emilia Pérez ends up being.

A presentation that adds insult to injury

It’s not just the content of Emilia Pérez that’s disastrous - the way it’s presented amplifies the failure. I’m no film or TV professional, but even for the untrained eye, the technical flaws are glaring. The movie is plagued with inexplicable cuts, confusing angles, and camera dynamics that hinder, rather than enhance, the narrative flow.

But beyond the technical aspects lies an even more egregious flaw: its identity as a musical. As a fan of the genre, I can confidently say that not only is this a bad movie - it’s also a terrible musical.

The musical numbers lack coherence and struggle to find any real meaning within the story. While the insensitivity of the film stems from its narrative and themes, the musical segments contribute to the disrespect. Does this mean musicals can’t tackle serious and dark subjects? Absolutely not - West Side Story, for example, masterfully addressed xenophobia and gang violence without being offensive or tone-deaf.

The worst offender is the sequence where Rita seeks out a surgeon for Emilia’s transition. This scene drips with harmful stereotypes about transgender individuals, making it painfully obvious that the film is built on outdated and offensive clichés.

Then there’s the number where Rita and Emilia sing about the hypocrisy of Mexico’s elite - ironic, considering Emilia herself lacks the moral high ground to critique anyone. Or the chaotic scene where Jessi trashes a room while singing a song whose clever wordplay was entirely lost in translation.

Yes, that’s the level of Emilia Pérez. A musical that misses every note, both literally and figuratively.

The elephant in the room

You’ve likely seen the infamous clips showcasing some actors’ terrible Spanish - especially Selena Gomez’s. Let me tell you, those brief snippets don’t do justice to the situation: the rest of the movie is even worse.

Oh, and the title for the so-called song of the infamous clip is a stupid sexual joke.

“I did the best I could” said Selena Gomez, the same person who released a full Spanish album less than five years ago. Is it possible that outside the studio, without a producer’s guidance, she simply forgets how to pronounce words in what she herself calls her language?

Let’s not forget that plenty of actors have successfully learned new languages for roles: Jack Black learned Spanish for Nacho Libre, and even Emilia Clarke mastered High Valyrian (a fictional language) for Game of Thrones! And she nailed it.

I’m not a Selena Gomez hater - not at all. But her performance in this film is among the lowest points in her career. For years, she’s proudly flaunted her Latina heritage as a defining trait, drawing in a broader audience. Now, it feels like a bold mockery of her Latino fan base.

Sangre latina: Selena Gomez se aventura al reguetón con un nuevo disco en  español | MDZ Online
Nope, Selena is not latina.

Latin identity is more than just a badge to wear; it carries profound sociocultural meaning and deserves respect.

Although the script justifies her poor pronunciation, that doesn’t excuse her delivery of nonsensical Spanish dialogue. At no point did she seem to intervene creatively to improve her diction or make her lines comprehensible. This means that, maybe, she didn't even understood what she was saying in the movie.

Unfortunately, Gomez isn’t alone in this shortfall. Zoe Saldaña, who plays Rita, barely attempts an accent appropriate to the film’s setting. Again, the script tries to explain this away, but it ultimately clashes with the overall context of her character. Her performance feels flat and uninspired, robbing Rita of the impact her role demands.

If neither Gomez nor Saldaña could convincingly speak Spanish or adopt the right accent, why were they cast? The answer is simple: the casting team didn’t care about authentically representing the Latin American audience. While they initially claimed they’d exclusively cast Mexican actors, they ultimately widened their search, abandoning that commitment.

When asked about excluding Mexican actors from a film deeply rooted in Mexican culture, the casting team dodged the question. They pivoted instead to touting LGBTQ+ inclusion, pointing to Karla Sofía Gascón, who genuinely represents the trans community. At least they got one thing right.

Adriana Paz responde a rumores de discriminación en los Globos de Oro |  Noticias de México | El Imparcial
Adriana Paz is the ONLY mexican actress in the whole movie.

The same indifference extended to the film’s locations. Initially, the plan was to shoot entirely in Mexico, but Audiard personally requested to film almost exclusively in Paris. While movies don’t need to stick rigidly to their settings, this choice highlights the director’s willful ignorance and comfort. Representing Mexico - or any Latin American country - visually requires more than filming in a random European square and slapping on an unbearable sepia filter.

Chronicle of a foreseen catastrophe

Perhaps you might find some redeeming qualities in Emilia Pérez. I’ll admit there’s one musical performance I didn’t find entirely awful (although, I won't even bother to mention which one). However, as a whole, the film must be understood as a product that misrepresents a social reality and culture, born from ignorance, complacency, and a production team too lazy to create something respectful.

And, of course, I’m not here to police anyone’s tastes. If you like the movie, that’s your choice. But you should know that behind it lies a carnival of grotesque stereotypes and a shocking level of ignorance. This combination manifests as xenophobia, transphobia, and insensitivity that I personally find repulsive.

Primer avance de 'Emilia Pérez' por el que Adriana Paz ganó a Mejor Actriz  en Cannes – La Crónica de Hoy México
If you enjoy Emilia Pérez…well then, it's your problem.

I’m certain that in a few years, people will look back at Emilia Pérez and wonder how such a disaster was so beloved by critics. Its success is rooted in nepotism and the fact that Audiard, a well-connected figure in the industry, has the privilege of having his work automatically regarded as worthy of attention by juries, critics, and audiences.

To draw a geeky analogy: Emilia Pérez is like Overwatch winning Game of the Year in 2016. Nowadays, nobody can believe it happened.

Emilia Pérez is disrespectful, out of touch with reality, and offensive to an entire country and thousands of victims. If you enjoy it…well, that’s entirely your prerogative. But at least now you know the context behind it - context the director seemingly couldn’t be bothered to skim in a headline.

Reseña de 'Emilia Pérez': una jefa del crimen que sabe cantar y bailar -  The New York Times
Yeah, of course it has to be a musical!

I just hope that if, someday, someone makes a 9/11 musical where Bush is portrayed by a Taiwanese actor barely capable of pronouncing English, it will be equally celebrated at every awards ceremony. Oh, and there better be a song called "They Hit the Second Tower" that wins Best Original Song.

Most popular
Newest
comments

Share your thoughts!

Be the first to start the conversation.

71
comment
21
favorite
1
share
report