.png)
2 hours ago
1 ARTICLE AD
EXCLUSIVE: The awards prospects of Emilia Pérez‘s title character Karla Sofía Gascón continue to circle the drain, but the film’s other Oscar nominees – including Zoe Saldaña and director/co-writer Jacques Audiard among 13 nominations received by the film — will make the rounds this weekend at industry the gatherings that build momentum in the final push to the Oscars as Netflix tries to resuscitate its chances. Gascón reportedly will not be part of the weekend’s activities, but as a nominee she still gets a ticket to the Oscars, and if she comes she should not be surprise if she gets the cold shoulder from her cohorts on Emilia Pérez.
In this exclusive interview with Deadline, Audiard expresses profound disappointment with Gascón’s behavior, essentially disowning her for the position she has put others in, and for her continued appearances filled with half-apologies, and the hurt felt by those she targeted in her original missives. It’s a reminder that as much as they would like to, film companies hold limited sway with stars in crisis moments. Advisors all around Nate Parker urged him to show contrition on shows like 60 Minutes toward the woman he was accused of sexually assaulting when he was a college student (she eventually committed suicide for reasons unknown). This was when 2018’s The Birth of a Nation followed a record-setting Sundance deal and rapturous applause that established the film as and early Oscar frontrunner.
But Parker, who as a young Black man in danger of a prison sentence, watched as an all-white jury acquitted him, had strong feelings all his own. To have to endure an apology tour so many years later was difficult for Parker, who co-wrote, directed and starred in the film. He came off defiant on 60 Minutes, and it sank the film and did not create the career trajectory most thought he would experience. Gascón faces the same prospect. Awards are not so important when these things are so personal for the participants, reflective of their personal struggles to get here. One can only hope Gascón finds peace someday with the self-inflicted mistakes and what they might say about her, all of which have overtaken the good will of her emerging as a symbol of what a trans person can deliver onscreen.
Here, the French auteur Audiard discusses the burden of making a much-lauded film and now, like Saldaña, having to disavow the indefensible posts that have undone Gascón. Audiard also defends a comment he made about the Spanish language which seems to have gotten misinterpreted in the translation. The film has been dissected down to the decision to film Emilia Pérez in France rather than Mexico even though the film might not have gotten made otherwise. Emilia Pérez was acquired by Netflix at Cannes, for the U.S. and two other territories. It was sold as an indie everywhere else in the world. Because Audiard is French, the financials were much more favorable if he shot in his home country. While the rebate in Mexico would have been $1 million, the financial benefit of shooting in France was 12 times greater. That was half the film’s $24 million budget, sources said. Here, Audiard sticks up for his film and everyone else who made it and are not Karla Sofía Gascón.
DEADLINE: When we spoke a few weeks ago as the film was racking up awards nominations, the focus was on how you found inspiration for the Emilia Pérez character from an obscure character in a novel, and how you structured it like an opera. The optics of Gascón’s social media missives have greatly changed the conversation and optics on the film. What do you make of the way this whole thing has turned around?
JACQUES AUDIARD: You specifically are talking about Karla Sofía and all that stuff?
DEADLINE: Yes, how Gascón’s old social media posts have become an overriding issue heading into this post-nomination period.
AUDIARD: Yes. Very unfortunately, it is taking up all the space, and that makes me very sad. It’s very hard for me to think back to the work I did with Karla Sofía. The trust we shared, the exceptional atmosphere that we had on the set that was indeed based on trust. And when you have that kind of relationship and suddenly you read something that that person has said, things that are absolutely hateful and worthy of being hated, of course that relationship is affected. It’s as if you fall into a hole. Because what Karla Sofía said is inexcusable.
DEADLINE: Have you spoken to her?
AUDIARD: I haven’t spoken to her, and I don’t want to. She is in a self-destructive approach that I can’t interfere in, and I really don’t understand why she’s continuing. Why is she harming herself? Why? I don’t understand it, and what I don’t understand about this too is why she’s harming people who were very close to her. I’m thinking in this thing of how hurting others, of how she’s hurting the crew and all these people who worked so incredibly hard on this film. I’m thinking of myself, I’m thinking of Zoe [Saldaña] and Selena [Gomez]. I just don’t understand why she’s continuing to harm us.
I’m not getting in touch with her because right now she needs space to reflect and take accountability for her actions.
DEADLINE: That sentiment seems to be missing in her fusillade of comments and interviews. Sometimes you just apologize and own that what you’ve said was wrongheaded. We haven’t really seen that.
AUDIARD: Absolutely not. She’s really playing the victim. She’s talking about herself as a victim, which is surprising. It’s as if she thought that words don’t hurt.
DEADLINE: How has all this impacted your enthusiasm to be out there in Hollywood at events meant to give your film momentum? Stiff upper lip?
AUDIARD: Well, I’m certainly going to participate, but for the moment there’s something sad about it. I thought I was coming back here full of enthusiasm and now there’s a sadness that we have to get past, if things aren’t clear, then we need to shed light on them and we’re going to have to spend time on continuing to really defend this film.
I’m not alone in this business. There’s Zoe. I want to and I’m going to champion and defend her. I would never let her go. There’s my extraordinary crew that worked on this film, with faith and enthusiasm. There’s no way I’m letting go of these people.
DEADLINE: It was noted that in an interview with a French website, you were quoted saying that Spanish is a language of modest countries, of developing countries, of the poor and immigrants. Care to clarify what you meant?
AUDIARD: Absolutely. Just to give you a little background, I’ve often made films in cultures that were not those of my native language. I’ve made a film in Tamil, I made a Western, in English. I’m drawn to things that don’t belong to the domain of my native language, and I happen to enormously love the Spanish language. I wanted to make an international film. Now, if you’re going to make an international film, there’s not a lot of languages that you have to choose from. There’s English and there’s Spanish, and Spanish is such a rich language that crosses borders. What’s been said about my statement is actually exactly the opposite of what I think. I worked five years on this film and for it to now be denigrated in this way, it’s really simply too much.
DEADLINE: That is part of the criticism coming from Mexico. Some have objected to the depiction of the cartels and their victims. What are these critics missing in your intent in making this musical?
AUDIARD: What shocked me is that either people haven’t seen the film properly, or they haven’t seen it at all and are acting in bad faith. The representation of the cartels in the film is thematic. It’s not something that I’m particularly focused on in the film. There’s one scene that deals with it. The real thing that I’m interested in, that I was interested in doing, is that I wanted to make an opera. That demands a strong stylization. Well, that tends to be how opera is to have schematic elements. The psychology can be limited. Opera has psychological limitations. It seems I’m being attacked in the court of realism. Well, I’ve never claimed that I wanted to make a realistic work. If I wanted to make a work that was particularly documented, then I would do a documentary, but then there would be no singing and dancing. For example, I read a review where it said that night markets in Mexico City don’t have photocopiers. Well, in night markets in Mexico City, one also doesn’t sing and dance. You have to accept that is part of the magic here. This is an opera, not a criticism of anything about Mexico.
DEADLINE: Because the film is playing theatrically in most international territories, you have done press in many countries. How Speaker 2:
Right, right. Well, now, and Jack, I think you have been, you’ve been out there promoting the film in places like South America. What reaction have you gotten from the journalists who watched the film and interviewed you, and has it changed as the result of the Karla controversy?
AUDIARD: The reactions have changed. The reactions now are not the reactions that we were having earlier. As you’re very right to point out, I’ve been working on promoting this film for a long time, since before Cannes, and the reactions that we’re seeing now did not exist then and did not exist for a long time. I think the reactions around Mexico really changed around the Golden Globes, and now I can’t not mention important facts like the fact that we’ve had many European prizes, aside from the Golden Globes. There has been this curious change in the recognition that we’ve gotten from the profession, the public, and then the social networks.
DEADLINE: Can you be specific about how the reactions changed?
AUDIARD: Well, the reactions have changed in that initially we had a lot of favorable reactions, people who were curious to see the film, people who were very happy to have seen the film. And then at a certain point, the film started to get criticized a lot, condemned by people who may very well not have seen the film. I have to mention that I don’t see reviews very much, but I’ve heard that some reviews have things about the film that are simply not true. Generally, I’m attacked on the question of realism, but I honestly have to say I’ve never been treated this way before.
DEADLINE: Your reputation as a filmmaker and an artist is impeccable. What has this made you feel about the whole idea of these award-season campaigns, given that the recent discussion about your film doesn’t really have much to do with artistic achievement?
AUDIARD: There’s several ways you can see this. The first way, which is maybe my state of mind today, is that it’s tiring, it’s exhausting. But there’s another way of looking at it, which is maybe more of the cinephile way. And that is, if a film sparks a debate, well, that gives me confidence in cinema.
DEADLINE: It is in keeping with your quote that your films aren’t here to answer questions as much as to ask them…
AUDIARD: For me, cinema fundamentally does not serve to answer questions. It’s not able to, because the answers are going to change every week. Its function is to ask questions. Now, these questions may be more or less pertinent, but it seems to me here that the questions are getting people talking.
DEADLINE: I’m turning 65, and I have never been active on social media, because too many people say the wrong things or their words are misinterpreted. Are you active on social media? Because to me, this is a cautionary tale as to what a slippery slope it can be…
AUDIARD: I’m going to answer you very honestly and point by point. I’m 72 years old, I’m not on any social media. And I think I may give up on my cell phone.
DEADLINE: As you replay events of the movie, is there anything you regret or might have done differently?
AUDIARD: Let’s just talk about the financial stuff. The regret that we had, because this was a very important choice, was that we didn’t make it in a studio in Mexico. And the simple reason for that is that the film funding, the public funding for film in Mexico was not as good for us as what was available, available to us in France through these extraordinary institutions, the CNC and regional film funding.
DEADLINE: Anything else you wish to address?
AUDIARD: I think we’ve had quite a comprehensive conversation. I just want to thank you for allowing me to express myself both on the issues that have arisen, and on cinema.
DEADLINE: It seemed the fairest way to do it. I’m regretting asking you about regrets, because perhaps the moment you temper your creative instincts to try anticipating reactions, and trying to please people, maybe you stop being Jacques Audiard, and become someone whose work is less appealing. A musical about a cartel leader who changes gender and gets drawn back into her own life, feels like a pretty big creative swing to me.
AUDIARD: I appreciate that and being able to explain myself.
