Reflecting on the Oscars and the limits of celebrity activism

Of course, that’s not to say actors are responsible for carrying the socio-political burdens of their projects. But Saldaña’s decision to focus on the significance of her award in such a politicised manner, whilst simultaneously silencing the multiple voices negatively impacted by the film for which she is now enjoying such success, felt lacking.

Moments later, during press interviews, Saldaña was approached for comment. Her subsequent apology was vague and reactive, solidifying the perception that she, like so many before her, was more committed to the optics of representation than to the substance of it – at least when said representation doesn’t directly apply to her lived experience.

It is true that modern actors face an unprecedented level of scrutiny, expected to be more than just entertainers. They are cultural ambassadors, political commentators, and activists—whether they signed up for it or not.

‘I don’t share your opinion,’ Saldaña responded to a reporter who had asked about the film’s damaging depiction of Mexico.

‘We weren’t making a film about a country. We were making a film about four women. And these women could have been Russian, could have been Jamaican, could have been Black, could have been from Detroit, could have been from Israel, could have been from Gaza. And these women are still very universal.’

Joe budden podcast reacts to zoe saldana getting backlash for only embracing her Latino and not her black side at the Oscars. Marc Lamont hill breaks down how actors and actresses of Latino descent only embrace being black when they want to play black roles pic.twitter.com/pDM8H1FU2A

— joebuddenclips/fanpage (@Chatnigga101) March 5, 2025

But Saldaña did not win an Oscar for a blockbuster with universal appeal – she won for a film that explicitly engages with Mexican and transgender identities. The idea that she could then divorce herself from the real-world implications of that narrative is, at best, naïve and, at worst, willfully negligent.

Her omission in her speech was not merely a minor oversight; it was a reflection of a broader pattern in Hollywood’s approach to diversity – one in which representation is treated as a marketable aesthetic rather than a meaningful engagement with real communities.

To play these roles without an earnest investment in the people they depict is to engage in a form of performative activism – one that is profitable, professionally advantageous, and, as it turns out, disposable when inconvenient.

This is not about demanding perfection from celebrities. Nor about discrediting Saldaña’s hard work and personal experience as a Latinx actor in Hollywood. To step into a role that carries significant cultural and social weight is to accept a responsibility that extends beyond the set.

That being said, Saldana is not the sole architect of Emilia Perez’s problems. The film, directed by Jacques Audiard, a French filmmaker with no direct ties to the communities represented, was lauded for its ambition yet criticized for its execution.

If we are to demand better, it must be at every level. Directors and studios must prioritize authenticity in storytelling, ensuring that those who craft these narratives are equipped to do so responsibly.

But actors, too, must recognize that playing a role tied to real-world struggles carries a duty to acknowledge and honor those struggles. To portray someone’s experience on screen but ignore them in real life is not just an oversight – it is an abdication of responsibility.

That’s no longer an excuse anyone should accept.