Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Talk of the Town: What Selena Gomez’s Critics Get Wrong About Her Spanish

Opinion

Talk of the Town: What Selena Gomez’s Critics Get Wrong About Her Spanish

Selena Gomez attends the Hollywood Reporter's annual Women in Entertainment Gala presented by Lifetime at The Beverly Hills Hotel on December 04, 2024 in Beverly Hills, California.

(Photo by Emma McIntyre/WireImage)

Emilia Pérez,” Jacques Audiard’s musical film set in Mexico about a narcotraficante’s secret gender transition, has sparked a lot of chatter. It won awards at the Cannes Film Festival, including Best Actress for the all-female ensemble cast, picked up nominations for the 2025 Golden Globes, and is rumored to be a contender for the Oscars.

The talk isn’t all positive, though. Critiques of actress Selena Gomez’s Spanish in her portrayal of Jessi del Monte are particularly harsh, culminating in the Mexican actor Eugenio Derbez’s recent characterization of her Spanish and acting in this movie as “ indefensible.”


These attacks are not new. Comments on her Spanish in a shampoo commercial and YouTube compilations of her speaking Spanish focus on her flubs.

While I cannot judge Gomez’s acting chops, I do have over 30 years experience teaching and assessing Spanish on the university level. The commentary on Gomez’s Spanish says more about cultural attitudes toward languages –and Spanish specifically– than about her proficiency.

Language is about communication. When people understand each other’s intended meaning, no matter their grammatical accuracy and accent (and we all have an accent), then their language has been successful.

The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACFTL) Can-do Statements assess proficiency by what language learners at different levels can achieve, not by their mistakes. Linguists know bilingualism exists on a continuum, not the all-or-nothing scale people often apply to speakers.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 19.5% of the population identifies as Hispanic/Latino; almost one in five people speak a language other than English at home, and of those, 62% speak Spanish. Globally, Spanish is the official language of 21 countries, but given its variations across geographic, social clas,s and generational lines, there is no one right way to speak Spanish.

Too bad then that Gomez seems to have internalized the nitpicking of her Spanish and the culture’s rigid ideas of language proficiency. The lyrics of her 2021 collaboration with Rauw Alejandro, “ Baila Conmigo,” open by questioning how much Spanish she understands. Throughout her interviews promoting the film, “Emilia Pérez,” she declares that she is not fluent and expresses a mixture of pride and disappointment in her language learning results for the role.

However, Gomez´s portrayal of Jessi goes beyond words. She communicates the heart of her character when she cuddles with her family under the stars, switches to a frosted hair color when separated from her husband, and gives her lover a sexy jiggle after she exits his car and before returning to the family enclave.

Language is also about identity. Gomez was born in Texas, and her father is of Mexican descent. She grew up with Spanish until her parents divorced, making her a heritage Spanish speaker with a linguistic, cultural,l and family background to be proud of, and proficiency levels vary widely among heritage speakers.

However, as stated by the National Heritage Language Resource Center, “Too often, speakers of heritage languages feel insecure or even ashamed of their heritage language. These deficit feelings, combined with societal pressures to use the dominant language, can contribute to speakers abandoning their home language.”

In essence, Gomez is critiqued for experiencing the typical challenges of heritage speakers while being held to native speaker standards–a no-win situation that a rapidly growing number of Americans can relate to. The character Jessi’s linguistic background is not explained in the movie, but she is from the United States and switches between Spanish and English, a form of translanguaging common among bilinguals and heritage speakers.

In the United States, some Spanish speakers experience linguistic racism. People perceived as “Latinx” who speak Spanish in public places are routinely discriminated, verbally harassed or even detained by Border Patrol.

Yet non-Latinos who learn Spanish are often celebrated for their bilingualism. So, while compilation videos poke fun at Gomez’s Spanish, other YouTube videos laud the bilingualism of actors who are non-native speakers, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Josh Hutcherson, Ben Affleck, and Will Smith.

To be sure, proficiency levels do exist, though common notions of bilingual and fluent can be elusive and hard to define. The ACTFL proficiency levels range from novice to distinguished, and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL) starts at A1 and goes to C2. But these proficiency labels do not reflect the nuances of what it means to “language” in the United States, especially for people of color.

The criticisms of Selena Gomez´s Spanish in this film aren't just overly simplistic and damaging. They miss the point of a movie about mutability, voice, trans lives, and transnational living. The desire to pin down Gomez as bilingual or not, her Spanish as good, or bad, her accent as authentic or gringo is antithetical to the movie’s main message.

The criticism also misses the point of empathy and acceptance of different cultures, heritages, languagesand individuals, colliding and collaborating to meet people where they are and who they are.

Selena Gomez has spoken fondly of Mi Camino, the song Jessi and her boyfriend sing at a karaoke bar in the film, stating that “my laugh was real because I was messing up the words.”

Making mistakes with language is inevitable; approaching languages with a spirit of playfulness and acceptance is a choice. After all, as the lyrics Gomez sings, say, “Si mi equivoco de camino, igual. … Quiero quererme a mí misma.”

Annie Abbott is an Associate Teaching Professor of Spanish at the University of Illinois and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.



Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less