In handling social ethics,
especially if the topic is controversial, film-makers must decide, whether
consciously or not, whether to advocate or elucidate. Whereas the
former is in pursuit of an ideology, the latter is oriented to teasing out via
dramatic tensions the nuances in a typical normative matter that move an
audience beyond easy or convenient answers to wrestle with the human condition
itself as complex. This is not to say that advocation should never have a role
in film-making; The film, Schindler’s List (1993), for example, provides
a glimpse into the extremely unethical conduct of the Nazi Party in ruling
Germany. I submit that the vast majority of ethical issues are not so easily
decided one way or the other as those that arose from Hitler’s choices
regarding communists, Slavs in Eastern Europe, intellectuals, Jews, homosexuals
and the disabled. In relative terms, the ethical controversy surrounding
transsexuals is less severe and clear-cut. The value of elucidating is
thus greater, as are the downsides of prescribing ideologically. One
such drawback to indoctrinating on a controversial issue is that the
ideological fervor in making the film for such a purpose can blind a film-maker
to the cogency of the arguments made in favor of advocated stance on the issue.
The film, Emilia Pérez (2024), illustrates this vulnerability, which I
submit is inherent to ideology itself.
The film centers on the
decision of a Mexican drug-kingpin to get surgery to “become a woman.” I am
using quotes here because the statement itself strikes at the controversy
itself. Can a biological man become a woman? If so, is it sufficient that the
man’s penis be removed, or must a vagina be made? Or does the making of a vagina out of
the skin of a penis constitute a vagina? This seems not to be the case, and,
furthermore, ovaries are typically not implanted. Yet the removal of the penis
and testicles can be interpreted as the loss of manhood in the literal sense. Is
the patient in gender-limbo? In contrast, there was no ethical limbo for the Nazis
who murdered millions of people in Europe. It is no accident that Spielberg
made Schindler’s List in black and white. Emilia Pérez is in
color, and thus flush with the nuances of the world that most of us inhabit in
our daily lives.
Lest it be contended that gender
is separate from the biology, such that a man can be a woman without even
penis-removal, then the contention itself can be reconceptualized and presented
as a nuanced question rather than as a fact of reason that has already been established
as in a fait accompli to be merely (but importantly!) ingested and promptly
digested by audiences. When Emilia, after her operation, insists that she is
just as much a woman as any other woman, another character could turn this
statement into a question by asking, “But you don’t have ovaries, do you? Or eggs?”
Similarly, when Emilia reverts to a man’s voice in expressing outrage upon
discovering that her ex-wife has taken the children, the statement of being
just as much of a woman as any other woman could be revisited in dialogue.
Moreover, film-makers need not
shy away from making relevant philosophical issues transparent and even
exploring possible lines of reasoning. For example, the assumption that in an
alleged dispute between the body and the mind, the mind not only trumps the
body, but is immune from the conflict of interest that is inherent in having
one party of a dispute being the arbitrator is frequently passed over in
sex-change decisions. Emilia Pérez lapses in not challenging this
assumption. She assumes that her mind is right and her body is wrong,
but she is using one of the two to make the decision, and thus pass judgment on
itself.
Emilia’s decision to undergo a
surgical operation is already decided when she meets with Rita, the lawyer who agrees
to handle the logistics of Emilia’s operation (and subsequent hiding in plain
sight as a woman) for a lucrative fee. Wasserman, the Israeli physician who performs
the operation, tells Emilia beforehand that the soul of a person remains the
same even if the body changes. Emilia disagrees: the body can change the soul,
which in turn can change the world. Unfortunately, the film does not go further
in unpacking either of these affirmations. That the human soul is notoriously
difficult to conceptualize, much less define as to an essence and attributes may
be why two statements are allowed to stand on their own—but are they really?
The attitude of the film is clearly in favor of Emilia’s ideological belief
even though it is hardly an established fact that by removing an organ or two,
the soul itself changes appreciably. Emilia is on firmer ground in claiming
that the world can change if enough souls change, but even here, the relevant
change is arguably more from self-love issuing out in selfish self-interest to
an enlightened self-interest manifesting benevolence, than in terms of gender. Does
a soul even have a gender? The Christian Apostle Paul asserts in his epistle to
the Galatians (3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave
nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus.” In terms of souls, gender can be transcended. Perhaps both the
physician and Emilia should stay clear of religious language altogether; psychology
may be more relevant anyway. If the body changes, what would be the
impact on the person’s psychology? Self-love in the psychological sense is
different than self-love as a sin.
What about the world part of
the tripartite linkage? Does removing a few organs relevant to gender render
the world a better place, assuming enough people whose psychological state
would be improved thereby undergo operations? More people who are comfortable
literally in their own skin could indeed be expected, other things equal, to
result in a happier world. Perhaps nothing is more destructive of a society
than is the self-hate of some people at the expense of the many. In the film, Emilia
turns from drug-dealing to founding a non-profit charitable organization geared
to helping families of murder victims find some peace from the recovery of the
bodies. Her newly-found self-acceptance clearly results in a better world;
other people benefit from her new-found psychological relief in her externals finally
reflecting her inner-self, which is a psychological rather than a theological
concept. As for her soul, and what it might experience after her mortal body—whether
male or female or neither—has died, God’s eyes might be more on the residue remaining
Emilia’s soul from the killing of people for drug-profits than on any residue
remaining from gender, whether psychological or biological.
Approaching a controversial, and thus perhaps a not-easily-resolvable ethical issue as a question rather than as in the form of a premeditated ideological answer saves an audience from feeling that it is being viewed only as a means of furthering an ideology (whereas Kant’s ethic insists that we be treated as ends in ourselves rather than just as means) and a screenwriter from overlooking logical lapses occasioned from a fervent ideological agenda. Emilia’s insistence that changing a body changes a soul, which in turn changes the world may be a good line, but it seems more infused with ideological bent than having been thought out. It is better, I submit, not only to elaborate as the narrative unfolds on both of the contending claims, but also to open the viewers up to other, larger questions, such as raised here. Just as film can present the nuances in a tone of voice in a line excellently delivered by an actor, so too film can enunciate and enumerate on the nuances that typically forestall easy solutions to ethical problems.
Moreover, both in enunciating abstract philosophical and theological points and exploring them, including pointing out where they clash, the medium of film has unrealized potential, as evinced in this analysis of Emilia Pérez. Against this potential, using film to advocate ideologically pales utterly. The hidden gravitational pull of ideology can render a producer, director, and screenwriter unwittingly susceptable to hasty and faulty reasoning in coming up with statements for dialogue that are nonetheless likely to be delivered by actors in a defiant tone of infallibility. I am just as much a woman as every other woman! If you say so, Emilia. A film can and should subject such ideological declarations to scrutiny as questions.
