Movie Reviews
'Emilia Pérez' review: An incendiary transgender cartel musical
The tale of a vicious cartel boss who undergoes gender-affirming surgery, Emilia Pérez places women front and center in a traditionally male-led gangster genre. But rather than subverting its visual and tonal hallmarks, French filmmaker Jacques Audiard compliments them with a liberating sense of expression through song and dance.
The Spanish-language Cannes title not only won Audiard the Jury Prize — the festival’s third most prestigious accolade — but it was also awarded the Best Actress trophy to not one but four of its central performances, each of which brings a unique thoughtfulness and passion to the screen. Part throwback musical and part modern cartel saga, the Dheepan director’s audacious blend is about the transgender experience in thorny ways, but it finds a deft balance between energetic filmmaking and intimate drama.
What is Emilia Pérez about?
Credit: Cannes Film Fesitval
Dreamlike landscape shots of a nebulous Mexican city — the film was largely shot in France — fade and overlap as we’re slowly lowered onto streets overrun with violent crime. Rita (Zoe Saldaña), an overworked, underappreciated corporate defense attorney, is part of the problem. She’s a cynical cog in a brutal machine, and her job is getting killers off the hook. It’s a premise she introduces to us firsthand via a snappy dance number in the tight confines of a public market, where she’s promptly joined by extras.
Soon, Rita is presented a deal with a devil: the vicious wanted criminal Juan “Manitas” Del Monte (transgender telenovela star Karla Sofía Gascón), who, midway through the movie, changes her name to Emilia Pérez and adopts a whole new identity. Emilia wants Rita to help her evade authorities by researching an expensive and secretive gender-affirming surgery, and by recruiting discreet international experts. The procedure, however, is no mere excuse or easy escape hatch from her life of crime. Rather, it’s been her deep desire for many years — Emilia has also covertly begun hormone replacement therapy — and it just so happens to align with her need to leave her life of crime in her rearview.
When she was living as Manitas, Emilia was perceived to be a tough-as-nails cartel boss who built an empire on blood. Its foundations, which she relays to the audience by singing in despondent whispers, involved leaning into society’s violent masculine expectations for the sake of survival. Now, upon undergoing a series of simultaneous surgeries — which receive their own informative musical number, courtesy of some excitable Thai surgeons — her plan also includes faking her own death in the eyes of the law. In order to fully shed her past, she wants to “kill” Manitas, and have Rita evacuate her wife, Jessi (Selena Gomez), and their two adolescent kids to Switzerland, where they’ll be safe and none the wiser about Emilia’s new life and identity.
All’s well that ends well… That is, until Emilia — having fully transitioned — resurfaces several years down the line in the hopes of reuniting with her family. For this mission to bring Jessi and her kids to Mexico, Emilia once again conscripts the resourceful Rita, though both women have since turned over new leaves, making their return to Mexico (and to the thick of cartel activity, where Manitas is still wanted) a challenging conundrum. What follows is a complicated and often amusing plot in which Emilia reintroduces herself to her kids as their long-lost aunt, while also embarking on a pilgrimage of rigorous social work alongside Rita to clean up Mexico’s top-down corruption, if only so that both women can atone for their sins.
These acts of repentance come wrapped in wildly energetic musical numbers that leap off the screen, as the camera jostles and swerves to keep pace. All the while, the film asks intriguing philosophical questions about the mind, body, and soul, as they pertain to its genre lens.
Emilia Pérez is a charged transgender tale of remorse.
Until she undergoes her affirming procedures, nearly every character in the film (including her surgeon, and even Emilia herself) refers to her with male pronouns, as though Manitas were a distinct entity whose life ends when Emilia’s begins. While trans people generally use pronouns that align with their gender regardless of their desire for (or access to) gender-affirming care, perhaps the movie’s 72-year-old cisgender director, and its numerous cis writers and producers, aren’t up to date on the terminology, though Emilia hints at having experienced dysphoria as a child. However, her being older and more isolated from trans issues and communities also means she lacks the necessary language to define her deep-seated feelings and experiences. So, this imaginary dividing line between Manitas and Emilia becomes a vital dramatic question.
Failed by the healthcare system, transgender people find help elsewhere
Conversations between Rita and the doctors she interviews are rife with differing perspectives about physical transformation representing metaphysical good, and about the ways in which gender dysphoria can be relieved through physical means. If the film, as a political entity, ought to be judged on its approach to trans people irrespective of its language, then it’s ostensibly in the right, and only introduces these dueling questions as a means to channel Emilia’s spiritual dilemma.
Mashable Top Stories
While gender-affirming surgery is something she wants, in order to escape, and needs, in order to survive as her true self, it’s also something she hopes will relieve her of her ethical burdens as a ruthless killer — as though Manitas were some uncomfortable temporary skin she could simply shed. Gascón even embodies this idea when she first appears as the gruff and grizzled Manitas onscreen. The actress’s prosthetic nose (i.e. the character’s “real” nose, pre-rhinoplasty) sits uncomfortably on her face, while the contours of her beard and unkempt, mane-like wig are visible to the naked eye. It’s as though we were seeing Emilia the way she sees herself: performing maleness, and being forced to pretend in order to survive.
If anything, the outdated idea that she “was a man” and “is now a woman” (according to some characters) is something she wishes were true, if only to rationalize her life as having a distinct “before” and “after” point — for her spirit, as represented by her body — between Manitas and Emilia. The more modern way we understand gender and identity, wherein Emilia has been the same person all along, is not something she herself can sit with, even though she claims to have recognized this about herself from an early age. Her transformation may be life-affirming, and even life-saving, but it cannot possibly provide her with the absolution she desires. This, in turn, portends the aforementioned tale of Emilia and Rita trying to confront their sins by exposing the metaphorical and literal skeletons they once helped bury.
Transgender opinions on the film are unlikely to be monolithic, but emphasis on the surgical aspect of the trans experience tends to be a reductive, retrograde cisgender fixation more often than not. However, in Emilia Pérez, these anxieties around the nitty-gritties of physical transformation become a key emotional focal point, over which Gascón pores in every scene and every quiet musical number. Her novel sense of gender euphoria remains shackled by a kind of moral dysphoria, having committed atrocities under a façade to which she can no longer relate, if she was ever able to in the first place. And yet, Manitas’ actions are a part of her too, even if they belong to a false version of herself.
While Emilia may be guilty from a legal standpoint, the ethics of her guilt, as imagined by Audiard’s drama, become infinitely more complicated. It’s as though her corrective physical metamorphosis had fallen tragically short of helping her purge herself of her misdeeds. However, on the other side of her social transition, she also finds renewed romance with a headstrong local woman on the run from her husband, Epifania (Adriana Paz) — a committed, loving performance that rounds out the quartet of Cannes winners — but the very idea of happiness becomes corrupted too, so long as Emilia’s past remains unconfronted. For instance, Jessi, who believes herself to be a widow, moves on romantically as well, leading to sparks of envy that anchor Emilia to her ugliest emotional tendencies.
But while all these ideas are all somewhat interesting, it’s the way in which Audiard assembles them — in the vein of a mid-2000s Hollywood thriller, imbued with raucous musical energy — that truly makes them sing.
Emilia Pérez is a stylistic triumph.
Credit: Cannes Film Festival
To liken crime movies and musicals to strictly “masculine” and “feminine” forms of cinema might sound reductive, but this traditional genre binary is key to Audiard’s artistic approach. These respective modes, each repressive and expressive in their own right, inform the ways his actors move through space, and the way he captures them doing so.
For one thing, Emilia Pérez resembles the highly saturated war-on-drugs/war-on-terror studio films produced in America at the turn of the century. Its intimate, shaky camerawork and high-contrast shadows create a sickly feel akin to Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic or Tony Scott’s Déjà Vu, hi-octane thrillers in which you can practically smell the gasoline radiating off people’s skin, thanks to their overblown visual highlights (including on Black skin; something Déjà Vu and Emilia Pérez have in common). These are the kinds of films where it feels like the light source is everywhere, all at once, reflecting off people’s bodies at all times — if not emanating from them in the first place.
Audiard and cinematographer Paul Guilhaume take full advantage of these familiar textures and conventions as soon as they begin blending the aforementioned approach — an ostensibly more “realistic” one — with the theatrical expressionism of dance. The harsh highlights become spotlights, as the film’s luminous characters begin to control the fabric of the frame. Their movements determine whether people around them are still or in motion. Routine activities take on musical rhythms. Personal confrontations in public settings determine whether or not other characters are lit at all. These are women fighting for agency in harsh environments, and their aesthetic control over the space around them ends up a particularly fitting depiction of this idea.
While the film has lengthy stretches without musical numbers, and features a few laments with rusty delivery that it could’ve probably done without, there are just as many songs that are exciting and emotionally rousing. (Some tracks are mercifully rapped, rather than sung, by actors with less vocal training.) One in particular, a rock opera ballad which unfolds just as Rita begins turning over a new leaf, sees Saldaña dancing across a series of expensive banquet tables. While she’s invisible to its lavish guests — corrupt politicians and police personnel she now hopes to take down — her pulsating movements practically force them to move and convulse to the beat as well. Others finally have no choice but to dance to her tune. It’s one of the most fist-pumping cinematic moments this year.
However, no matter who’s on screen, Emilia remains the focal point around whom everyone’s story pivots — whether it heads toward catharsis, tragedy, or both. She represents, in microcosm, the transformative nature of fictional characters at large, and ends up embodying a novel narrative tension through her transgender experience: between physical and emotional metamorphosis, a dramatic disconnect that becomes the catalyst for nearly every scene and song.
Above all else, the film’s four leading ladies are perfectly attuned to Audiard’s volatile mixture of operatic emotion and naturalistic cinematic influence. The result is a dazzling, dramatic high-wire act that’s always fun to watch, and is frequently invigorating, too. While its combination of styles and subject matter could’ve been picked out of a hat, Emilia Pérez sees Audiard sorting through a fog of risky, seemingly immiscible ideas to deliver a queer Molotov cocktail.
Emilia Pérez was reviewed out of the Cannes Film Festival.
Movie Reviews
Film Review: Mother Mary – SLUG Magazine
Arts
Mother Mary
Director: David Lowery
A24, Topic Studios, Access Entertainment
In Theaters: 04.24.2026
“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee,” or whatever the fuck those silly little Catholics say. With David Lowery’s ninth feature, our dear Mother Mary is anything but full of grace. Though she is full of something … g-g-g-GHOSTS!
Mother Mary follows a distraught pop star (take a wild guess at her name), played by the always lovely Anne Hathaway (The Princess Diaries, The Devil Wears Prada), who dramatically ends up on the doorstep of her ex-best friend and costume designer, Sam Anselm (Michaela Coel, Chewing Gum, Black Mirror). She confesses to Sam, after barging her way into her secluded design studio, that she needs a dress that feels like “her.” This is something she feels her current team of designers can’t do and is very important, as she’s performing a new unreleased song to celebrate her comeback. During the creation of the gown, the two women reminisce and catch up, all in the same haunted breath. During their heart-to-heart (pun intended), they both realize that at some point since their separation, they each have been taking turns experiencing a haunting by the red, shapeless form of a (what they both determine is at least female) “ghost.”
Now, not to sound like a broken record, kids, but what is my favorite saying? That’s right, “there are no perfect movies,” and Mother Mary is an example of a very complicated and imperfectly okay movie. Lowery’s writing is, at times, far too abstract or obtuse, which can lead to quite a bit of confusion for about 100 of the film’s 112-minute runtime. Before it’s clarified, the relationship between the two female leads is hard to decipher. Are they best friends, former lesbian lovers or a secret, worse, third option? Does this red ghost actually have anything to do with unresolved feelings these women still have for each other, or is it just aesthetic?
There are also interesting “visions” Sam gets when talking things through with Mother Mary that feel somewhat like they tangle the film’s overall seam. It also lacks a lot of raw edges you would normally see when two women discuss a “friendship break-up.” Mary Mother also has yet to break the curse of the inaccurate on-screen popstar portrayal. I’m not sure why, but for some reason, Hollywood cannot get the feel of a popstar just quite right on screen. Mother Mary is supposed to be Lady Gaga, yet it feels like her on-stage scenes are what dads imagined watching Hannah Montana must’ve looked and felt like to their daughters. This is something that seems unfathomable when you have Jack Antonoff and Charli XCX to help write the soundtrack.
That being said, once the ending hits you in the face and you finally get the full picture that Lowery is painting, the film saves itself. Lowery does something interesting and unique when it comes to the haunting genre of horror, as his characters are not haunted by ghouls and goblins but by emotional moments or memories in time. This is something that, when done right, is the epitome of beauty and is frankly more terrifying than any jumpscare by a James Wan demon. What’s more haunting than the what-ifs and what-could-have-beens of an intense connection with another human being, romantic or platonic? What’s more punishing than being the one who committed the sin that severed your red thread connection? Lowery also puts the infamous Bechdel Test to shame, as there is not a single male character with dialogue for the entirety of the film.
Do I love what Lowery is trying to do here? Yes. Does he stumble and fumble along the way? Absolutely. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t see Mother Mary, but also if you miss it … you’re not missing much. —Yonni Uribe
Read more film reviews by Yonni Uribe:
Wasatch Mountain Film Festival Review: Protecting Our Playground
Film Review: The Drama
Movie Reviews
Review | Paper Tiger: Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson lead dark gangster movie
3.5/5 stars
The American filmmaker started his career with 1994’s Little Odessa, starring Tim Roth as a Russian-Jewish hitman operating in the Brighton Beach area of New York. His next two films, The Yards (2000) and We Own the Night (2007), kept him ensconced in the world of low-life criminals.
Paper Tiger also casts the Russian mob as the antagonists. Set in 1986 in Queens, New York, it stars Miles Teller and Adam Driver as the Pearl brothers, Irwin and Gary.
Irwin (Teller), an engineer, is married to Hester (Scarlett Johansson) and has two teenage sons: Scott (Gavin Goudey), who is about to turn 18, and the younger Ben (Roman Engel), who is diligently studying for his exams.
Gary (Driver), a former policeman who still has connections on the force, encourages Irwin to team up and create an environmental clean-up business involving the filthy Gowanus Canal.
Movie Reviews
‘Avedon’ Review: Ron Howard’s Admiring Profile of Groundbreaking Photographer Richard Avedon Embraces His Genius, Flair and Mystery
For Richard Avedon, as with most significant artists, work and life were inseparable. When the photographer died in 2004, at 81, he was on the road, mid-project — “with his boots on,” in the words of Lauren Hutton, one of the many beautiful people he helped to immortalize over a 60-year career. Hutton and the two dozen or so other interviewees in Ron Howard’s admiring documentary make it clear how much affection the New York native inspired while reinventing fashion photography and putting his iconoclastic stamp on fine-art portraiture.
The profile Avedon paints is that of a relentless seeker and high-flying achiever, and a deliciously unapologetic contrarian. How can you not adore an image-maker who says, “Beautiful lighting I always find offensive,” and, regarding little kids as potential photographic subjects: “I find them intensely boring.” Avedon’s interest in the grown-up human face, in what it conceals and reveals, was his lifelong project, one that he pursued within circles of rarefied fame, on the backroads of the American West, and in a poignant late-in-life connection with his father.
Avedon
The Bottom Line A solid mix of glitz and angst.
Venue: Cannes Film Festival (Special Screenings)
Director: Ron Howard
1 hour 44 minutes
As confrontational as his images could be, the camera was Avedon’s way of experiencing the world, a way of seeking truth through invention. Howard, whose previous doc subjects include Jim Henson and Luciano Pavarotti, and whose fiction movies are designed more to engage rather than to confront, seems particularly inspired here by Avedon’s auteur approach to still photography — it was a narrative impulse, not a documentary one, that shaped his vision, a drive to create moments and mise-en-scènes for the camera.
Avedon built his career at magazines in an era when magazines mattered. He was only 21 when he joined Harper’s Bazaar, where he stayed for 20 years, leaving to follow fashion editor Diana Vreeland to Vogue, where he stayed even longer. And when Tina Brown took the helm at The New Yorker and overturned its age-old no-photos policy, she hired Avedon as its first staff photographer.
When Harper’s sent him to Paris in 1947 with an edict to summon some of the battered capital’s prewar glamour, he turned to movies for inspiration and conjured visions of romantic fantasy amid the ruins. It was his first significant assignment, and a turning point for fashion photography. The doc emphasizes how, at a Dior show, the images he captured of the designer’s voluminous skirts mid-twirl expressed an ecstatic moment after years of wartime rationing. “People were weeping,” recalls Avedon, a vivid presence in the doc thanks to a strong selection of archival material.
The kinetic energy of those shots would become a defining element of his approach. Injecting movement and a theatrical edge into fashion photography, he lifted it out of the era of posed mannequins. To get models into the spirit of his concepts, he often leapt and danced alongside them. It’s no wonder that in Funny Face, the romantic musical loosely inspired by his career and first marriage, Fred Astaire played the photographer. Eventually Avedon shifted to a large-format camera, an 8×10, that allowed him to interact with his subjects directly, rather than through a viewfinder. There would be more scripted and carefully choreographed moments in his TV spots for Calvin Klein jeans and Obsession, collaborations with the writer Doon Arbus (daughter of Diane and Allan Arbus) that took chances (and which, for some viewers, are inseparable from memorable spoofs on SNL).
Fashion and advertising were mainstays, but he also became a notable portraitist. Positioning his subjects against a plain white background, he removed flattery from the equation. It was an artist-subject relationship in which he held all the power, and he didn’t pretend otherwise; on that point, Brown offers a trenchant anecdote. Remarkably, even though his refusal to sugarcoat was well established — not least by his notorious photo of the Daughters of the American Revolution — an Avedon portrait carried such cachet that establishment figures including the Reagans, Henry Kissinger and George H.W. Bush all submitted themselves to his crosshairs.
The film suggests that a moral imperative was as essential to Avedon’s work as his unconventional aesthetic vocabulary. He threatened to sever his contract with Harper’s when the magazine didn’t want to publish his photos of China Machado, and he prevailed: In 1959, she became the first model of color to appear in the editorial pages of a major American fashion magazine. Howard looks beyond the catwalks and salons to Avedon’s portraits of wartime Saigon, Civil Rights leaders and patients at Bellevue, many of those images collected in Nothing Personal, the book he did with James Baldwin, a friend from high school. A superb clip from a D.A. Pennebaker short of the book launch encapsulates the painfully awkward disconnect between the artist and the corporate media contingent. Most surprising, though, is how hard Avedon took it when the book was lambasted by critics. A later book, In the American West, would also meet harsh criticism; Avedon was, in the eyes of some, a condescending elitist.
Howard’s film is a celebration of a complicated man. It acknowledges Avedon’s naysayers, as well as his struggles and doubts, but this is very much an official story, made in association with the Richard Avedon Foundation, and steering clear of the disputed 2017 biography by Avedon’s business partner. The commentary, whether from models (Hutton, Isabella Rossellini, Twiggy Lawson, Penelope Tree, Beverly Johnson) or writers (Adam Gopnik, John Lahr, Hilton Als) or Avedon’s son, John, can be gushing, but it’s always perceptive.
The connection he sought with his subjects wasn’t about star worship but the instant when the ego lets down its guard, yet at the same time he was more interested in what he called “the marriage of the imagination and the reality” than straight documentation. Without putting too fine a point on it, Avedon links those twinned yet seemingly contradictory impulses to certain formative experiences. There was the devastation of extreme mental illness for Avedon’s sister and his second wife. There was the pretense of happiness in his childhood home in Depression-era New York (the city is captured in terrifically evocative clips). He recalls, discerning and exasperated, the staged domestic harmony — “the borrowed dogs!” — in family photos.
Avedon doesn’t aim to unsettle, like Avedon himself did, but neither does it tie things up neatly. There’s nothing simple or reductive about the emotional throughlines the documentary traces. It embraces the complexities of a man who turned artifice into a kind of superpower, whether he was dreaming up scenarios for fashion spreads or confronting an America as far removed from haute couture Manhattan as you could get.
-
Movie Reviews14 minutes agoFilm Review: Mother Mary – SLUG Magazine
-
World26 minutes agoShakira Acquitted of Tax Fraud in Spain, Will Be Reimbursed $64 Million: Singer Says She’s Spent Eight Years ‘Enduring Campaigns to Destroy My Reputation’
-
Politics38 minutes agoHow Redistricting Is Making the Midterms Less Competitive
-
Culture1 hour agoHow Many of These Books and Their Screen Versions Do You Know?
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoWe make Ken Jennings relive the worst moment of his life : Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!
-
Technology1 hour agoMusk v. Altman proved that AI is led by the wrong people
-
World2 hours agoBodies of four missing Italian divers found inside ‘shark cave’ in Maldives days after they vanished
-
Politics2 hours agoDem who welcomed socialist mayor’s ‘change’ now sounding alarm over billionaire exodus: ‘Gravely concerned’