The Oscars 2025 are now upon us, and while every year sees controversy over which films did or didn’t get picked, this year has been more contentious than most, with the record-breaking nominations of one film: Emilia Pérez.
The Spanish-language film was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, making it the most nominated foreign-language film in history. Despite this success, the movie—about a transgender Mexican gangster undergoing gender-affirming surgery to leave their cartel and start a new life—has sparked controversy from multiple quarters. Chief among these concerns are its representation of Mexico, its handling of transgender issues, and how ultimately, there were far better movies this year that could have gotten the nomination.
While set in Mexico, the film’s French director, writer, and producer, Jacques Audiard admitted to doing little research into Mexico for the film. Furthermore, of all the actors in the film, only Adriana Paz is Mexican, with the rest of the cast consisting of Latin American actors from the USA. For many, the lack of Mexican actors makes the movie feel disingenuous, particularly as the characters do not speak in Mexico’s regional Spanish dialect. Selena Gomez, in particular, has been criticised for playing a Mexican character while sounding like an English speaker attempting Spanish for the first time.
Audiard has stated that he wanted the film to be in Spanish because he saw it as a language of “modest countries, of developing countries, of the poor and migrants”. While he has since said he was taken out of context, this description fits the depiction of Mexico in the film:a violent, dirty place, with comments made on people smelling like spicy food.
The film’s drastic tonal shifts further undermine both the real-world issues in Mexico as well as the representation of trans women it claims to champion. Mexico faces serious threats from cartel violence and abductions—subjects that Emilia Pérez treats as a joke, with its gangster lead framed as sympathetic and redeemed by the end of the film.
After her transition and a time skip, the titular character’s role in these tragedies is almost hand-waved away, reinforcing negative stereotypes about trans people. Namely: the high emphasis on surgery, especially with the meme-worthy “penis to vagina” song, and that trans people transition to escape past crimes and that once they have transitioned, those crimes can no longer be attributed to them.
The backlash from these two groups has been so strong that Mexican trans director Camila Aurora González created a parody of the movie called Johanne Sacreblu. This satirical short film, set in France but featuring a fully Mexican cast speaking broken French, revolves around “an epic tale of baguettes, croissants, stinky cheese, and the difficulties of not taking daily showers”. The one-the-nose parody reflects how Mexican audiences feel about Emilia Pérez and its depiction of their country.
All of this raises a larger question: if Emilia Pérez was so poorly received, why was it nominated for so many Academy Awards? A significant reason is that while Mexicans dislike it, for many among the voting board, Emilia Pérez possesses many qualities the Academy looks for in a Best Picture nominee.
Many critics have acknowledged that the film is a creative breath of fresh air—a surrealist musical about a topic often relegated to grim, grey crime thrillers and dramas. The consensus is that it’s well-shot, well-edited, flows smoothly, and features strong performances from A-list Hollywood actors, even if the Spanish dialect is inaccurate. On a purely technical level, it is a very well-made film.
It’s well known that Academy voters, leading figures in Hollywood’s film industry, have a type when it comes to nominating films. Dramas and biopics revolving around real-world issues are preferred, as are interesting new cinematography and writing techniques. Musicals also have a strong history at the Oscars, as many Academy voters have backgrounds in theatre. In some ways, the nomination of a horror film like The Substance is a far bigger surprise than Emilia Pérez.
This isn’t the first time the Oscars have nominated a film they see as progressive and representative of marginalised people without properly understanding how that film poorly portrays said groups. The most infamous examples are the 2006 and 2019 Best Pictures, Crash and Green Book. Both movies involve a surface-level look at race relations that at best lack the nuance to comment on such issues and at worst perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
It all ties into the Academy’s ongoing efforts to diversify its lineup. The 2015 Oscars were heavily criticised for the lack of diversity in nominees, leading to the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite and the revelation that 94%t of Academy voters were white and 77% were male. In response, the Academy pledged to bring more POC voters on board and to nominate a more diverse selection of films.
This initiative has had some positive results in recent years, with POC-led films like Everything Everywhere All At Once, Parasite, and The Shape of Water even winning top awards. However, while the Oscars are attempting to be more progressive, the voting body remains predominantly white and American, meaning they may not fully grasp the viewpoints of other cultures.
I’m not on the voting board, but for many in the Academy, Emilia Pérez may be seen as an ambitious and experimental film. A creatively crafted musical that places marginalised groups at the forefront and features strong performances—at least for voters who don’t understand the different dialects of Spanish.
Ultimately, Emilia Pérez represents another step in the Oscars’ ongoing struggle for relevance and representation in an increasingly global world. While they remain the most prestigious awards in the film industry, for decades, they have only recognised a narrow selection of films in terms of both genre and diversity.
Emilia Pérez highlights that there is still progress to be made. It is not enough to simply put a Mexican or trans character on screen—the story needs to demonstrate a genuine understanding of their culture and experiences. Likewise, Oscars voters should take more time to engage with and appreciate these perspectives if they wish the award show to better reflect the film industry and movie-loving public they claim to speak for.
Words by Alex Daud Briggs
Support the Indiependent
We’re trying to raise £200 a month to help cover our operational costs. This includes our ‘Writer of the Month’ awards, where we recognise the amazing work produced by our contributor team. If you’ve enjoyed reading our site, we’d really appreciate it if you could donate to The Indiependent. Whether you can give £1 or £10, you’d be making a huge difference to our small team.