Getty imagesThe denigration of inflammatory remarks of the actress’s social media on subjects such as George Floyd, Islam and the Oscars itself caused a storm – and can threaten the overall chances of the film during this year’s Oscars.
Karla Sofía Gascón made the history of the Oscars by being the first trans woman to be nominated in the category of the best actress. Until this week, there was a chance that she could make history again by also winning the award. But now? “I think we can say safely that Karla Sofía Gascón will not win anything,” said Wendy Ide, the observer’s film critic, told BBC.
Gascón plays a trans -Mexican drug lord that has become a philanthropist in the musical thriller of Jacques Audiard’s opera, Emilia Pérez – a film that has long been one of the favorites to win the greatest prices of the 2025 Academy Awards, including The best film, but which was already darkened in controversy. Some Mexican commentators have opposed to the representation by French writer of their countryAnd to the scarcity of Mexican talents in production, most of which were slaughtered near Paris. This might not have been enough to return the voters of the Academy against Emilia Pérez, who received 13 appointments, but there is now a more important problem to consider.
NetflixEarlier this week, Gascón complains in an interview That the social media team working with Fernanda Torres, a nominated from the best actress because I am still there, “tears me away and Emilia Pérez Down”. She then returned, saying that she “referred to toxicity and a violent hate speech on social networks” in general. But the impression persisted that Gascón had attacked a competitor in a way that was against the spirit of the Oscars. However, it was a storm in a cup of tea compared to the hurricane of the old X posts which were determined by journalist Sarah Hagi, then reported in Variety. Published in 2020 and 2021, they included numerous offensive remarks on George Floyd, Chinese, Muslim women and Islam in general, to name only a few of Gascón’s targets. To top it off? A post attacking the Oscars themselves. Of the 2021 event, to which Nomadic won the best film, Gascón said: “More and more #OSCARS are like a ceremony for independent and protest films, I did not know if I watched an Afro-Korean festival, a demonstration of Black Lives Matter or 8M (a Spanish maid to refer to International Women’s Day).
The irony is that because Gascón is trans, and the film offers a sympathetic and nuanced representation of a trans protagonist, part of the attraction of the film to the voters was that it seemed so progressive. But there is nothing progressive in the anti-divide content of its publications. “The chances of Emilia Pérez are strongly linked to her liberal references,” explains Ed Potton, editor -in -chief of arts in Times. “Once these are lost, they will be difficult to find.”
Friday, Gascón published a declaration To say that she was “deeply sorry for those I caused pain”, but the damage is caused. “She has always been an external chance of the best actress,” said Ide. “But I would now be very surprised if Emilia Pérez won the best film, and this time last week, it was like a strong competitor.”
As Ide says, the reverberations of publications on Gascón’s social networks can not only demolish the chances of Gascón to win an Oscar – Emilia Pérez’s hopes in other categories can also collapse. Could this be the first case of a scandal that rushed to the best dream dreams of a film in the last stadium of the race? “In fact, I did not think that Emilia Pérez would win the best film, anyway, but it will certainly not happen now,” explains Patrick Heidmann, film journalist at Berliner Zeitung. “For the best international feature, I’m still here, it’s now the favorite. The only other question is how and if (Gascón co-star) Zoe Saldaña will be trained by it. She was going to win a 100% a 100% Best support actress, but maybe Isabella Rossellini and Ariana Grande can now hope again. Saldaña responded to the controversy Around his co-star during a question / answer event for the film in London on Friday evening, saying: “It makes me really sad because I do not support it, and I have no tolerance to any rhetoric negative towards people from any group. I cannot attest to the experience that I had with each individual who was part, who is part of this film, and my experience and my interactions with them concerned inclusiveness and collaboration and racial, cultural and genre. And it saddens me.
Whatever happens, there is already a danger that off-screen stories relating to nominees for this year’s Oscars can overshadow stories in the films themselves. This week, Torres apologized for having wore blackface In a Brazilian comedy, almost 20 years ago. A few weeks ago, the brutalist manufacturers admitted that AI has been used To generate architectural plans and modify the Hungarian pronunciation of the actors – not a good look for a film which was celebrated to be an artistic work of love produced by a director with independent challenge. (IA was also used, moreover, for Improve Gascón’s song voice In Emilia Pérez.) Meanwhile, several nominees were marred by accusations of “categorically fraud”: some commentators asked if Saldaña and Great should have been nominated for the best support actress for Emilia Pérez and WickedRespectively, and if Kieran Culkin should have had an actor the best actor for real pain, when the three artists could be described more precisely as co-chefs. And Mikey Madison, Anora’s star, was struck by a backlash When she said that she had chosen not to use an intimacy coordinator when filming sex scenes.
None of this is new. Rather than winning or losing prices from Oscars on the basis of quality, films and actors are always affected by external factors. When Paul Newman won the best actor Oscar for the color of the money in 1987, it was largely due to the hot and hollywood feelings towards a beloved Tinseltown icon. At the other extreme, after Mickey Rourke was recorded using a homophobic insult against a journalist at the end of 2008, it is not surprising that he did not win the best actor Oscar for the wrestler in 2009 : Sean Penn won him instead for playing Harvey Milk, the rights activist of homosexuals, in milk.
NetflixIt is also true that film leaders and publicists never hesitated to arouse ugly rumors on competition. When Harvey Weinstein was the boss of Miramax, he was accused of Rivaux of Badmithing Awards, as when his film Shakespeare in Love won a surprise victory over the best image Save soldier Ryan in 1999. Since then, there has been mumnage That Natalie Portman did not do enough of her own dance in the black sawing of Darren Aronofsky, and did not give enough credit to her double of ballet. The previous year, there were tutrings only the campaigns for two nominees the best actresses, Andrea Riseborough And Michelle Yeohhad stretched the rules, even if they had not broken them. But this year, things seem to become uncontrollable.
“I must say that I do not remember the so obvious dirty swimming pool played in a previous Oscar race,” explains Stephanie Bunbury, film journalist at Sydney Morning Herald. Bouilloning scandals and flying insults “suggest a new imperative to gain by fair means or faults,” she adds-but they may have more to do with the prevalence of social media than with campaigns of smear concerte concert . “That (animosity) reflects the desperate state of industry or simply the wickedness of the time when we live, I really have no idea. But it certainly brings a puff of sulfur to procedures.”
It also brings real uncertainty to procedures. In this febrile prize -ceremony season, when there is no dead certificate for the best image price, things are suddenly devoted Conclave And A complete unknownIf only because they may seem to the Academy of safe and non -controversial choices – so far, at least.
