A Controversial Trump Bio-pic and the Villains We Make

Summary

Critics at Large | The New Yorker
Episode: A Controversial Trump Bio-pic and the Villains We Make
Release Date: October 10, 2024

---

Introduction and Overview

In this thought-provoking episode of Critics at Large, The New Yorker's staff writers—Vinson Cunningham, Nomi Frye, and Alexandra Schwartz—delve into the intricacies of the newly released biopic, The Apprentice. The discussion navigates through the film’s portrayal of Donald Trump and his complex relationship with his mentor, Roy Cohn, while also exploring the broader cultural fascination with origin stories of villains.

The Apprentice Biopic: Plot and Performances

The Apprentice presents a nuanced look into the early life of Donald Trump, focusing on his aspirations in Manhattan and his influential connection with Roy Cohn. The film stars Sebastian Stan as Trump and Jeremy Strong as Cohn, whose performances sparked considerable attention among the critics.

Alex Schwartz opens the conversation by describing the film's plot:

"The film stars Sebastian Stan as Donald Trump and Jeremy Strong as the infamous lawyer and fixer Roy Cohn."
(Timestamp: 03:45)

The trio discusses the challenges the movie faced, including financing issues after Trump's legal team threatened legal action against the creators. They commend the casting choices, highlighting Strong's portrayal of Cohn as particularly insightful:

"Jeremy Strong as Roy Cohn was kind of ingenious... his desiccated quality really played well to the figure of Cohn."
(Timestamp: 08:59)

Origin Stories in Modern Media

A central theme of the episode is the cultural trend of providing detailed origin stories for villains. Schwartz poses a critical question:

"Is it important to humanize the villain? Or is that dangerously beside the point?"
(Timestamp: 02:24)

The discussion reveals a societal shift towards seeking depth and understanding behind malevolent characters, reflecting a broader desire to comprehend the complexities that forge such individuals.

Roy Cohn: From Reality to Portrayal

Roy Cohn, depicted as a pivotal figure in Trump's rise, is examined through both the biopic and other media representations like the documentary Where's My Roy Cohn?. The critics analyze Cohn’s influence and his own villainous narrative.

Nomi Frye praises the documentary:

"Matt Tiernauer does a really good job of delineating where Roy Cohn came from... how the ethical rot at the heart of that influenced his actions."
(Timestamp: 26:37)

Cunningham adds depth by connecting Cohn’s actions to historical events:

"The trial of the Rosenbergs... cements the public image of him as a villain."
(Timestamp: 28:21)

Literature and Villainy

The conversation shifts to literary portrayals of villains, referencing Paradise Lost by John Milton. Schwartz draws parallels between Satan’s origin story and modern villain narratives:

"Satan is the villain of the story, but he also gets a whole origin story... 'The mind is its own place...'"
(Timestamp: 44:49)

Cunningham reflects on the literary purpose of such narratives:

"It’s entertaining to take the side of someone that you don't like... understand the mental architecture of the wrong is actually very entertaining."
(Timestamp: 46:56)

The Trend of Explaining Villains

Building on the literary discussion, the critics explore why contemporary media emphasizes origin stories for villains. They cite examples from television and film, noting the influence of prestige TV and the Marvel Cinematic Universe's need to flesh out antagonists:

"The antihero era... complicates villains into characters with understandable motivations."
(Timestamp: 41:15)

Schwartz questions whether this trend satisfies the audience’s appetite for understanding malevolence:

"Is it time to hang up the origin story and just rool around in the murk of the present?"
(Timestamp: 50:10)

The Impact on Political Perception

The timing of The Apprentice's release, coinciding with an impending election, prompts discussion on its political implications. Frye contends that the film's political impact is minimal:

"I really don't think it matters... a Trump voter will watch it and be like, hmm, I'm not voting for this guy."
(Timestamp: 17:32)

Cunningham and Schwartz debate whether origin stories influence public opinion, especially among undecided voters, ultimately suggesting limited sway.

Concluding Insights

As the episode wraps up, the critics reflect on the enduring relevance and potential exhaustion of origin stories in media. Schwartz introduces the idea that while origin stories have been pivotal in understanding complex characters, there might be a cultural need to shift focus towards present actions and motivations without delving into past traumas.

"Does someone stand up for literature?"
(Timestamp: 46:30)

Cunningham emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between literary exploration and political analysis:

"Understand which domain you are in."
(Timestamp: 36:38)

The episode concludes with a contemplative note on the balance between humanizing villains and maintaining clear moral distinctions, leaving listeners to ponder the efficacy and necessity of origin stories in contemporary storytelling.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Alex Schwartz (02:24): "Is it important to humanize the villain? Or is that dangerously beside the point?"
• Nomi Frye (08:59): "Jeremy Strong as Roy Cohn was kind of ingenious... his desiccated quality really played well to the figure of Cohn."
• Vinson Cunningham (26:37): "Matt Tiernauer does a really good job of delineating where Roy Cohn came from... how the ethical rot at the heart of that influenced his actions."
• Alex Schwartz (44:49): "Satan is the villain of the story, but he also gets a whole origin story... 'The mind is its own place...'"
• Vinson Cunningham (46:56): "It’s entertaining to take the side of someone that you don't like... understand the mental architecture of the wrong is actually very entertaining."

---

Conclusion

This episode of Critics at Large offers an incisive examination of The Apprentice biopic and its place within the larger trend of exploring villains' backstories. Through engaging dialogue and critical analysis, the New Yorker’s writers challenge listeners to consider the implications of humanizing notorious figures and the cultural appetite for understanding the making of a villain.

Transcript

[Nomi Frye]

Welcome to Critics at Large, a podcast from the New Yorker. I'm Nomi Frye.

[Vincent Cunningham]

I'm Vincent Cunningham.

[Alex Schwartz]

And I'm Alex Schwartz. Each week on this show, we make sense of what's happening in the culture right now and how we got here. So critics, listeners, once upon a time, there was a young man born in Queens, New York.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yes.

[Alex Schwartz]

Who had invested in the real estate business and had developed a number of buildings and had a number of tenants. This father's ambitions stretched from Queens to Brooklyn, but not the sons, for he wished to conquer the gleaming isle of Manhattan. How did I do?

[Vincent Cunningham]

You did really good.

[Nomi Frye]

You did great.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Thank you. I wonder who this man could be.

[Alex Schwartz]

Could you even tell?

[Nomi Frye]

You didn't mention his golden pompadour.

[Alex Schwartz]

That's true.

[Vincent Cunningham]

There are many other things to say. His increasingly complicated Brogan way of speech.

[Alex Schwartz]

There are many things to say about the person we're speaking of, who, if you haven't guessed, is Donald Trump. I have never really wanted to talk about Trump on this podcast or all that much in general because there's a lot of talking done about this guy, and I haven't really felt the need for us to weigh in. But we do have an occasion to change this policy, and that is the Apprentice, a new biopic that delves into the relationship between a young Donald Trump, this aforementioned scion of Queens, and Roy Cohn, the notorious lawyer who took Trump under his wing starting in the 1970s.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Hello, this is Donald Trump from Mr. Cohn. Thank you so much. Donald who? Roy Cohn. Nice to meet you. The Roy Cohn from all the papers? Yeah. You're brutal. Guilty as charged.

[Alex Schwartz]

So there's a lot to talk about here with this movie. There are the performances, there's the film's fascinatingly bumpy path to release. It had a lot of trouble getting financed after Trump's lawyers threatened to sue the creative team. And there's also the perspective of the movie, which I think, and I wonder if you guys agree, is really about the making of a villain and the quest for power. So, to me, this all points to a bigger fascination that our culture has with origin stories, particularly at the moment when it comes to villains. In recent years, there's been, I would say, for backstory, it's not enough to know that a certain character is bad or even evil. More and more, we've seen movies that try to explain why. Where did it all come from? What was the central trauma, the inciting incident? And the big question I have for us today is, is it important to humanize the villain? Or is that dangerously beside the point? So that's today on critics at large. The Apprentice and the vill.

[Nomi Frye]

We need to talk about Donald.

[Alex Schwartz]

That is actually perfect. The Apprentice is a movie we've been hearing about for some time. When did it first come on your radar?

[Vincent Cunningham]

I think I heard the faintest trickle of a ripple about it out of Cannes, but then started to really understand who was even in the movie, that it involved. One of my actorly obsessions at the moment, Jeremy Strong. That really only came to me fully when Trump was trying to bar its release. And, like, the sort of the process of getting it made was when I really started to sort of come online to it as a thing in the world.

[Nomi Frye]

Mm.

[Alex Schwartz]

Right. The film debuted at Cannes this past year, as you said, Vincent, and then had immediate problems getting distribution, which to me, could be its own movie. A thriller, an absolute thriller. It's out now. It was directed by the Iranian Danish filmmaker Ali Abbasi, and it was written by the journalist Gabriel Sherman, who has been covering various dark figures for a very long time, including a book that he wrote on Roger Ailes. And the film stars Sebastian Stan as Donald Trump and Jeremy Strong as the infamous lawyer and fixer Roy Cohn. So would someone please offer a synopsis?

[Vincent Cunningham]

The Apprentice opens on a young aspirant, Donald Trump, who is still laboring under the shadow of his at least verbally abusive father. Domineering father, domineering. Mean not only to Donald, but to Donald's older brother, Fred. Trump goes into a club called Les Club. Les Clubs, and is sort of summoned over to the table of Roy Cohn, who is in the sort of waxing of his power. Holding forth at a table. Donald Trump tells Cohn about a problem that he's having, which is his father's company is the subject of a lawsuit.

[Nomi Frye]

About discrimination because they wouldn't rent to black people.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Black people. Cohn advises him through that. What led you to believe that you.

[Alex Schwartz]

Were denied a lease at Trump Properties.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Based on your race? I saw three Caucasian couples approved before. Objection. Speculation. Mr. Cone, how can he say for sure they were Caucasian?

[Alex Schwartz]

Please allow Agent Green to answer the question.

[Vincent Cunningham]

I've seen Puerto Ricans whiter than my tush after a long winter, and then goes on to be his sort of Sherpa through the halls of power in New York. And we see Trump steadily, steadily rising. We see the, you know, the very abbreviated look into the building of a Trump Tower, other conquests like this. And Trump goes on and on. And then we reach a moment of Tension in the relationship between protege and mentor. It really is a movie about the early rise of Donald Trump, with the relationship to Cohn as a kind of framing device. At least that's how I experienced the film.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah. I mean, the only thing I would add to that, Vincent, is to say it is a movie about the rise of Donald Trump. And it's also a movie about the fall, in a way, of Roy Cohn, which comes about because of illness. He famously. Cohn had aids, which he said was liver cancer and did not admit ever that he either was gay or had aids. And it's also about what happens when you have relationships that are so transactional, that seem to be built on human loyalty, but are really about, what can you do for me? What can I do for you? Quid pro quo. Relationships.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Looks expensive. How much is this? $1,100. Okay, that's okay, we'll take it. And matching shirt and tie. I can't pay for this. Forget it. Okay, Forget it. Listen here, I don't need your money. You pay me back with your friendship, okay? Quid pro quo. You'll be a friend to me, I'll be a friend to you. Okay? That's the pact.

[Nomi Frye]

Okay.

[Alex Schwartz]

And what happens when that kind of relationship starts to fall apart because one of the people is too weak to hold up his end of the deal? And you used the word waxing before. This movie is about one character's waxing and one's waning just to, you know.

[Nomi Frye]

Piggyback on the waxing and waning thing. I think it's also about this sort of vampiric quality of power, where for one to rise, someone else needs to fall. And so if we have the figure of a robust Roy Cohn at the beginning of the movie, kind of leading, somewhat insecure, somewhat wobbly Trump in the beginning stages of his career as a mogul, leading him by the hand and sort of like, lifting him up. Because Roy Cohn at that point is kind of feasting in some senses. And the movie suggests perhaps even sexually, not actually, you know, but kind of like the libidinal energy, let's say, like it's suggested that Cohen had had a crush on Trump, basically was enamored of him.

[Vincent Cunningham]

It's not that easy. Truth is a malleable thing. But he's. These are too tight, I think. All right, well, you have kind of a big ass. You know that? You gotta work on that.

[Nomi Frye]

But then, you know, once kind of Trump gets that leg up, he begins to feast on Cone's rotting carcass and cone, obviously, literally is a sick man towards the end of his life and is fading because of that. But the suggestion is that he has also been kicked to the side. There's a winner take all mentality. And I thought that the movie did that quite well. I enjoyed the movie. First of all, I thought both lead performances were great. As much as Sebastian, Stan annoyed me as Edward in A Different man, which we discussed last week. I thought he was really good as Trump. I thought he was excellent. And I thought that the casting of Jeremy Strong as Roy Cohn was kind of ingenious. And his sort of like, desiccated quality and sort of staring quality really played well to the figure of Cohn. I don't know. What do you guys think?

[Vincent Cunningham]

Well, one thing to mark here are the two performances, not only because I think we're looking for a true characterization of Trump before the sort of late stage Trump that we all know what you said about him being sort of insecure at the beginning, and then we see him do heinous things. There's a very hard to watch scene that is a rape, a marital rape of Ivana by Donald. And one of the questions is, is this a very damaged, wounded person by the way that he was raised, or does he have a spark of the truly sociopathic in him? Which, if you listen to anything about Roy Cohn's upbringing, his bildung, that is a question that also comes up. He had a mother who was kind of a sociopath as well. But where does world historic evil begin? Is a question that I think is.

[Nomi Frye]

It begins with mother.

[Vincent Cunningham]

It begins with mom. It begins at home, as I'll think so. I thought these were both like, sort of interesting performances in that they were kind of caught between realism and popular image. You can see Stan trying to incorporate some of the gestures that we are all sort of. We've been tutored in by watching Trump talk so much, but also trying to create something that isn't an impersonation in a way that called attention to both performances and for me, at least didn't let me get into them necessarily.

[Nomi Frye]

Oh, interesting.

[Vincent Cunningham]

There was never a moment where I was sort of, like, taken away by this is so and so. For me, it was kind of a surface instead of something to delve into. But I don't know if that's how you guys felt.

[Alex Schwartz]

Ooh, I love that idea of the surface because, of course, I mean, we are dealing. And this was my original aversion to the movie. We're dealing with a person who lives in all of our lives at all times. He's unavoidable. And I thought the least I can do is avoid.

[Nomi Frye]

Yeah, it's like, enough. How much? How much can we take?

[Alex Schwartz]

And yet. You know what? I really like this movie. I came away really liking this movie and appreciating it in a way I absolutely did not expect to. And I was kind of like, dead set against.

[Nomi Frye]

Yeah.

[Alex Schwartz]

The movie does two things, I think, that put forward a kind of, I don't wanna say fictional in terms of made up, but fictional in the sense of creating, like, character motivation around these moves that this character makes. One is a sense of deep insecurity and one is a sense of deep confidence. You see, as a very young man, Trump saying, I wanna bet on the future of Manhattan. The film shows you a Manhattan that's really a shambles. Everything is falling apart. Trump wants to put up a Hotel on 42nd street, which is kind of like the absolute center of the cesspit that is midtown New York, just completely ravaged by drugs and poverty and crime. And Trump is saying, I wanna bet on the future of this city. It could go two ways. I wanna make sure it goes the right way. Well, that's kind of the statement a hero might make. I have a vision of New York and I'm gonna pull it into the future. The other part of him you see is as insecure sitting next to this Roy Cohn, who's in that scene you described. Vincent at the club Cohen has a table full of the Mafiosos, who he very famously represented. He's sitting with some of the biggest, you know, Salerno. Exactly. The biggest criminal families of New York are all there. He is the king of it all. And Trump is anxious. He knows he has a chance, but how does he grab it? I'm not convinced that the real Trump ever had or expressed feelings that are as sensitive as the ones that Sebastian Stan, in his very good performance, puts on screen. But I understand the need for the movie to do it. I mean, what I want to know from you guys is were you convinced by this image of the young Trump on the make? This is a more human side of Trump than I think many people have seen.

[Nomi Frye]

You know, it's interesting, I was thinking as I was watching the movie, of course, I couldn't help but think about Trump sending a cease and desist and kind of being obviously dead set against this movie and saying it's a pack of lies. And of course, yeah, he's shown to rape Ivana. He's shown to Be it's not like a positive version. It does show the cracks in the image. Right. Which of course Trump doesn't like, surely. But I did think that it was a not unsympathetic portrait in some ways, and part of it is that early vulnerability. So I think it was certainly a humanizing portrait and for, like, political purposes. Do we want to see our villains, our absolute villains, people who have caused much harm to the world as weak little boys who've undergone trauma and have had their reasons for the monsters they later turn into, or do we not?

[Vincent Cunningham]

It's a good question. And I do think the movie is confused on this issue, whether it wants to do that or if it wants to give us the paint by numbers corollaries to things that we say today. Here's where the hairpiece comes in, here's where the tan comes from. There's a lot of sort of speaking of current day conventions like lore and backstory. Another is fan service. And to me, there was a lot of Donald Trump fan service in this movie of, you know, this thing that happens now. Here's the beginning of that, you know, a lot of.

[Alex Schwartz]

Right, but do you mean that Vincent, like, fan service, I guess, is usually explaining things for fans. In this case, it's almost like the anti fans, like, just to pick on one thing that you were mentioning. You know, you see, there's a scene in this movie which I'm sure the real Donald Trump would not like, in which he's very worried about growing fat and getting bald. And you see his scalp being sliced.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Open, sliced open, stapled back together. All this, like, speaking of, like last episode, a lot of body horror around the later Donald Trump. Well, maybe anti fans, but we're all fans or followers of the story. And so the term fan service, like those of us, all of us who have like, been paying attention to Trump since 2016 to now, there is a lot of lore there that we are all partakers of whether we call ourselves fans of Trump or not. And so there are lots of like, textual references to the things that we've come to know over the last couple of years. But then at the beginning of the movie, there's like the meeting with Kohn, especially the sort of early seduction of Ivana. There's like rom com beats in the sort of early middle of this film. But it seems like those are there to sort of usher us into a place that we can then start being like, you know, Trump Tower. Right. You know, the hair. Right. You know, he says the thing that we've all heard that he's said many times of, like, exercise just wears you out, Doc. So it. I thought it was, like, humanizing, but then just to get us to the point where it was like, the opposite of humanizing, which is like, let me break this person into the story. Beats that you already know.

[Alex Schwartz]

So do you wish it had stayed in that humanizing place?

[Vincent Cunningham]

I don't. I really don't know. The whole time, you know, how you were like, I'm dead set against it. For me, I didn't know what I wanted out of it, and I don't know what I got out of it.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah. See, I think what you're wondering if it worked for you actually did work for me very much, because I don't need to know exactly where the gestures come from. Like, oh, this is the thing that clicked into place. But what I do think the movie demonstrated really well was a calcification into that Persona.

[Nomi Frye]

And, yeah, I think he did that really well. I think the transition from, like, having the slightest hint of these gestures and, you know, facial expressions and kind of utterances into the calcified thing that we now know was done pretty subtly, I thought.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah. I mean, I think there wasn't a lot of room for growth in the life of this. To think about him as a character, not as the person who potentially has Exactly. Will hold all our fate in his paws. Possibly. But to me, part of the point, Vincent, was this way that a person can become calcified into Persona. And the kind of devil's bargain being made with Roy Cohn is the device that allows him to get there. And I felt like the movie sped up to the degree where it doesn't need to show you any more where some of these things come from, because, you know, it's like the curtain is pulled back.

[Vincent Cunningham]

It's speed up a lot of things.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah. And the monster is totally unveiled. I want to ask you guys one more thing, which is, you know, here we are. We have one month to go, as we're recording, to the election.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Unreal.

[Alex Schwartz]

And this film is coming out now. Do you think that matters? Did the film feel political? I mean, what do you think of the release timing?

[Nomi Frye]

I don't think it matters, honestly, like it did. The film did feel political to the extent that it chose for people who already know that Trump has strong man aspirations and is, like, addicted to power. And it's all that seems to motivate him. Power and shame or power and sort of like fear of weakness, you know, kind of the opposite. And Corollary to power. So for people who already know this and are interested to see how that developed and how Cohn, who had kind of similar tendencies, helped it develop, then, yes, I think the movie is political, of course, but I don't think it's gonna sway anyone. Like, I don't think, like, oh, like a potential. Like, a Trump voter will watch it. We'll watch like, Jeremy Strong as Roy Cohn and like Sebastian Stan as a young Donald Trump and be like, hmm, you know what? Addicted to power. I think I might not vote for this guy. Like, I really don't think it matters.

[Alex Schwartz]

Maybe not a Trump voter, but perhaps one of the mythic people who truly do hold our fate in their hands. The undecided voters.

[Vincent Cunningham]

The undecided voters obviously don't leave their houses and therefore would never see this or any other.

[Nomi Frye]

I don't think the mythic undecided voter, I don't think he's gonna, you know, watch the Apprentice in the theater and be like, you know what? I'm not voting for Trump.

[Vincent Cunningham]

That's right. Yeah. Obviously you can tell something about the politics of the filmmakers. It's not a pro Trump movie, but it's also not a polemic. It's a literary movie. I think it's Frankenstein. I think the scenes where they're stapling his head together, I was like, oh, this is Frankenstein, and he is Frankenstein's monster, and Roy Cohn is Dr. Frankenstein, and the monster gets away from him. It's a story.

[Alex Schwartz]

In a minute. What are the origins of villainy? We're going to be talking about different portrayals of Roy Cohn and also double competing memoirs about Uncle Trump. Stick on Lipstick on the Rim. We speak with industry insiders, doctors, and the biggest stars to bring you all the facts.

[Nomi Frye]

Become best friends with your hairstylist.

[Alex Schwartz]

They're gonna make you look and feel.

[Vincent Cunningham]

So good, and you'll just show up as a better you.

[Nomi Frye]

I always wanted to make hoops.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Those girls are hard to raise. They are gonna push all the buttons.

[Nomi Frye]

Just having a community is the best because you can compare stories with your girlfriends.

[Alex Schwartz]

Cheers. Listen to Lipstick on the Rim on Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts or watch full episodes now on YouTube.

[Vincent Cunningham]

This week's episode is sponsored by Neon's film Presence. Directed by Steven Soderbergh and written by David Koepp, Presence is a thrilling new ghost story about a family that moves into a new home and becomes convinced they are not alone. Starring Lucy Liu, Chris Sullivan and Julia Fox. Presence has been Hailed as one of the scariest movies you'll see this year. Experience it in theaters on January 24th.

[Alex Schwartz]

So we've been talking about the Apprentice, but it strikes me it's not happening in a vacuum. I mean, obviously there's the election, there's infinite coverage of Donald Trump, but I'm talking about recent works, or I'm thinking about recent works that have each tried to put forward their own picture of how Trump came to be. And I will just volunteer that what comes to mind for me are two memoirs by siblings. Fred Trump iii, who is the son of Donald Trump's older brother Fred, who died of alcoholism, a moment that is depicted in the film the Apprentice.

[Vincent Cunningham]

That was right.

[Alex Schwartz]

And Mary TRUMP, Fred Trump III's little sister, who has become very visible on the national stage because she first published a book, I believe, in 2020, denouncing Trump and calling him out and saying he is not good for anyone. He's not good for the family, he's not good for the country. So I just read both Mary's new book, which is called who Could Ever Love you? A Family Memoir. My God. And Fred Trump's book called all in the the Trumps and How He Got this Way. These are fascinating documents, my friends. These are absolutely fascinating documents. They are not fascinating about Donald Trump. You are not going to learn much that you didn't already know about Donald Trump. Unlike a movie like the Apprentice. Yeah, there is really no complex portrait of Trump that comes through. And I'm not sure there can be a complex portrait of Trump. The picture of Uncle Trump that emerges in both of these books is not of a man who ever had any, you know, complexity of any kind to begin with. He was nasty, he was selfish, he was aggressive. They both recount separately instances of Trump playing, like, catch with them and their cousins and throwing the ball increasingly hard so that if you didn't catch it with your glove or if it hit you somewhere else in your body, could actually cause real damage, like turning everything into a competition. They both kind of ventriloquized through their father. Like Mary says, for instance, nobody in Fred's circle could bear to be around this arrogant, self important, humorless kid. So there's a sense of he was always like this and it just got more extreme. I mean, I would say the one thing that is fascinating to me about these books is these are two kids who still seem like kids. Even Mary Trump, who's, like, gone on to have this career and has achieved national prominence in various ways, they seem like utterly lost Children who can't make sense of how mean, aggressive, unloving and winning oriented their cold, horrible family was. Their own origin stories, let's say, have loomed so large over their subsequent lives that it's impossible for them to move on. They're going back and retreading this ground of the early Trump family.

[Nomi Frye]

And is there some, in the manner in which Trump is portrayed in these, Is there a sense that there was some animating trauma for Trump himself? Is there something that has made him like, as evil, you know, cold? Like, does he have kind of a villain origin story?

[Alex Schwartz]

He does, and it's not a trauma story. So I love that you asked that question because I think what may be behind it, if I may guess, you know, there's something else going on with the Trump origin story which is not trauma, but does have to do with where you come from and who you come from. It's about his f. His father is the figure who looms super, super large for both of these other Trumps, the niece and nephew. And clearly for Trump himself, certainly he loomed so large for their father that I think it's fairly accepted and I would say persuasive that the conflict that their father, Fred had with his father also Fred, was enough and sufficient enough that it drove Fred into deeper alcoholism and ultimately to his death. Basically, the Trump origin story is how Fred Trump came to be. He was the son of German immigrants. His father had a series of kind of brothel like establishments, and Fred himself got into real estate, much like Donald would do, drove himself at a young age. Except in his case, of course, he did not have a huge cushy backing behind him. And he basically treated his kids as if the way to not love, but the way to achieve value in the family was to produce, was to produce for the family business, was to be tough, was to be strong. I mean, these are all lessons we see Roy Cohn reaffirming to Trump later in life. But in this case, it's Fred Trump as the kind of bestower of approval or retractor of approval that comes across. And so actually, Nomi, the trauma is not Trump's. The trauma is Fred, their father's. I'm curious about Cohn, Roy Cohn. So, you know, he's been an object of fascination over time. In some ways. I hear him cackling from the grave. So happy to be discussed again, to be back in the conversation. Because let's be real, a generation passed when the name of Cohn was not really spoken. And now he's back all over the place. So we've all seen the 2019 documentary Where's My Roy Cohn By Matt Tiernauer. I watched it recently for the first time. Vincent, I think you did, too. And Nomi, I know you wrote about it when it came out. So, you know, and he's also, of course, Roy Cohn is a big character in Angels in America, the play by Tony Kushner. Let's talk about where was My Roy Cohn? The documentary? What do you guys like about this movie? I mean, or do you like this movie?

[Nomi Frye]

I love this movie. You know, Matt Tiernauer does a really good job of kind of delineating where Roy Cohn came from, how he was different, you know, because he was obviously, he was gay, he was Jew. He did come from a wealthy family, but he came from a very unloving mother.

[Vincent Cunningham]

She wanted a son who was perfect and she had a son who was short and unattractive and she tried to correct his nose. And she wanted a different son from.

[Nomi Frye]

The son that God gave her and obviously felt like an outsider to sort of the halls of power and what it meant to be a man in America.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Roy was a definition of a self hating Jewish. He wanted to show to the world that he wasn't Jewish. Many things he did over the years were aimed at proving that to people.

[Nomi Frye]

And how he decided by kind of, I mean, he was a very intelligent man, but by sort of sheer force of will and absolute lack of morals, how to insinuate himself into kind of like the highest echelons of first D.C. society, then new York society, and how there was like a complete ethical rot at the heart of that and how that influenced, you know, like, when Reagan won in 1980, Nancy Reagan said to Roy Cohn, you elected Ronnie. You know, basically. So he was kind of like a kingmaker. And the way that Trump came from that is really fascinating and makes truly, like, neat sense, like in historical terms. And I think the documentary shows that very well.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Another thing that it does, speaking of villains and their origin stories, is it does give a very strong answer to this question with Cohen. Yes, his mom was by all accounts a very difficult person who had such a bad personality that nobody would want to marry her except by a sort of transactional maneuver by which she did, in fact, marry Cohn's father. So there's like, yes, there's like, maybe they account for his personality through his family, but it's really very strongly put forward that, like, there's two things. The trial of the Rosenbergs, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Julius Rosenberg. And Mrs. Ethel Rosenberg, convicted of revealing atomic secrets to the Russians, enter the federal building in New York to hear their doom. Cohn is presented as the mastermind behind the sort of unethical prosecution and execution of the Rosenbergs. And then the McCarthy trial so deeply cements the public image of him as a villain that he has nowhere to go. But just dig in on that. It's not just like you can depart and be a different kind of lawyer. It's like, all I can do now is double down and be like the Great Satan and that's it.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah, I think the movie makes a very good case for that. And Roy Cohn is someone who had such a charisma as a person. You cannot watch clips of him, you cannot see even still photos of him without feeling almost a heat coming off of him. He was so distinctive looking. He had such an intensity. He had the flair that, to me, so weirdly contrasts with Trump, who I understand is, like, made a big name for himself and was super flashy, and everyone thought that he kind of epitomized New York, 1980s wealth. But one is kind of so devilishly smart and one is so obviously stupid, frankly, that it's like a fascinating contrast in types. I mean, I think we might just want to mention Cohn's three rules, as put forward in the movie the Apprentice, that he gives to Trump, because I thought they were pretty niftily constructed. Rule one is attack, attack, attack, attack, attack. Rule two is deny everything, admit nothing. And rule three is always claim victory. And there's an interview in the film Where's My Roy Cohn? That Cohn does very close to the end of his life, where he looks quite, quite sick. But. But he's asked by the interviewer, people are saying, you have aids? Do you have aids? And what does he do? Deny, deny, deny. Attack, attack, attack.

[Vincent Cunningham]

You know, of course, why people ask about AIDS and Roy Cohn. Sure. Because they believe that you're a homosexual and that you simply have never acknowledged the fact. And a good friend of mine, and a good friend of yours, I should say, tell him if he wants to admit anything, he can, but that it's a lie as far as. No. A good friend of mine, who is a woman, says that she believes that Roy Cohn wants to, in effect, come out of the closet. Come out of the closet, meaning make a very dramatic statement. Acknowledges there's certainly nothing. Nothing horrible about it. We've been here. We. We've been doing a very intensive 20 minutes or more on me. I Think you can see me? I think you can see, and the audience can. I ain't dying from nothing to start with, number one. Number two, you asked me categorically, and I tell you categorically. I do not have aids. Where, Roy, do all these stories come from? Oh, it's a cinch, Mike. Take this set of facts. Bachelor, unmarried, middle aged. Well, young, middle aged.

[Alex Schwartz]

Just the kind of complete rewriting of reality. Which is, of course, such a trumpy quality where you believe the lie coming out of your mouth. And that, of course, is also part of Angels in America.

[Vincent Cunningham]

You're not well is all. What do you mean, I'm not well? Who's not well? Well, you said. I did. I said what, Roy, you have cancer. No, I don't. You told me you were dying. What the fuck are you talking about, Joe? I never said that. I'm in perfect health. There's not a goddamn thing wrong with me. My Roy Cohn in Angels in America will always be Al Pacino from the HBO Mike Nichols directed version of that movie. In college, I did play the part of Belize, who was played by Jeffrey Wright.

[Alex Schwartz]

I didn't know that.

[Nomi Frye]

In that you're a bit of an actor.

[Vincent Cunningham]

I did do a little sourcing of. I was watching that movie a lot at that.

[Alex Schwartz]

And Belize. Belize is the nurse who cares for cone as he's dying of aids.

[Vincent Cunningham]

That's right. So they have a lot of scenes together. Find the vein, you moron. Don't start jabbing that goddamn spigot in my arm till you find the fucking vein or I'll sue you so bad I'll have to repossess your teeth, you dim black motherfucker. Watch yourself. You don't talk to me like that. Not when I'm holding something this sharp. Or I might slip and stick it in your heart.

[Alex Schwartz]

If you have a heart.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Oh, I do. Tough little muscle, too. Never bleeds. Not bad, but yeah, the sort of hunger and vigor. And I think another way to say that cone has charisma is to say that he has this incredible zest for life. You could tell that he's enjoying everything. Pacino has those qualities, all of them in spades. And just deploys them like a fucking hurricane. In that performance in a way that I have always admired. And I think about all the. He's talking about all the. The phones like they're the tentacles of an octopus. I wish I was an octopus. A fucking octopus. Eight loving arms and all those suckers. Know what I mean? No. And it's like spitting everywhere. And it's just, like, grotesque and magnetic and you can't look away. That was the first time I had ever heard of Royko.

[Nomi Frye]

Well, sure, yeah.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah.

[Alex Schwartz]

All right, so, guys, help me connect the dots here. What are the through lines for these texts? I mean, we're talking about origin stories. We're talking about or the origin stories behind Trump and the Trump family behind Roy Cohn. Clearly, Roy Cohn is part of the Trump origin story. They meet at a very important, crucial time, and Cohen becomes a kind of conciliary and father figure to Trump. Do you see arguments in these texts about how people like Trump and Cohn came to be?

[Nomi Frye]

I mean, it just seems in both of these cases and in both of these figures and the text about these figures, there is an attempt to sift and to find a neater explanation which comes down to a kind of origin story in both cases. And whether that's totally true or not, you didn't find it totally convincing. In the Apprentice, it seemed. And in the Trump books, it seems that Trump isn't described as a kind of more sensitive and kind of insecure individual.

[Alex Schwartz]

There was no evolution. He just was later meets Roy Cohn.

[Nomi Frye]

And becomes a kind of hardened, et cetera, et cetera, and becomes what we know him as today, better equipped, but not equipped. So, you know, there's obviously differing opinions about how where we're at has come to be, but I think in all of these cases, there's kind of like a desperate need to understand through these origin stories.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah, I think it seems to me that there are at least two ways to describe a person, you know, especially once the person gets famous, that you can do it by way of personal traits, you can do it biographically, or you can zoom back and talk about the society that produced them and what was it in the world that made space for them. These, at least the ones that we've talked about so far, are doing the former, which is necessarily more a literary endeavor than it is a political endeavor. Like, the mistake is to try to look for politics in somebody's. The development of somebody's life. Right. It is the province of literature to be like, you know, one thing led to another and produced this. Whereas if you're looking for political answers, you have to do something else.

[Alex Schwartz]

But do you think that the literary approach is misplaced when it comes to someone like Trump or like Roy Cohn?

[Vincent Cunningham]

No, I don't think it is. I don't think it is. As long as you understand that you're in the province of the Literate. If somebody's like, I want to understand what happened such that Trump never happens again, you would be wrong to then be like, well, his father. So it's just like, understand which domain you are in.

[Alex Schwartz]

In recent years, backstories like the ones we've been talking about have become a fundamental part of the cultural landscape. We'll talk about why I after a quick break.

[Nomi Frye]

The Run Through Evogue is where you'll meet all the most exciting people in fashion and culture. I am Fran Lebowage, who should be.

[Vincent Cunningham]

The mayor of New York.

[Alex Schwartz]

We all support that.

[Nomi Frye]

We support that.

[Alex Schwartz]

Very Nate.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Nikki.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yes.

[Vincent Cunningham]

It's been really great being in this beautiful pink room.

[Nomi Frye]

All right, Usher, can you hear us?

[Vincent Cunningham]

I can hear you. All right. Can you hear me?

[Nomi Frye]

We can.

[Vincent Cunningham]

We can. All right, here we are.

[Nomi Frye]

On the podcast, you'll learn how Vogue really works. Sometimes we'll come in for a second or even third run through until we are awok.

[Alex Schwartz]

Can you tell us what awok means?

[Vincent Cunningham]

It means aw. Ok. Anna Wintour. Ok.

[Alex Schwartz]

I'm Cho Menardi.

[Nomi Frye]

And I'm Chloe Mel. And we're the hosts of the Run.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Through with Vogue, where fashion and culture collide.

[Nomi Frye]

Join us.

[Vincent Cunningham]

It's awok. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

[Alex Schwartz]

So we've been talking about some villains. We've been talking about Roy Cohn, who I think would be honored to be called a villain. We've been talking about Donald Trump, who I do not think would be honored to be called a villain, but is probably honored to be seen that way by many people. And it seems like right now you basically can't have a villain without having some explanation of how they came to be that way. I mean, we have Joker, we have Wicked. We're about to have Wicked, the movie version of Wicked. We have Ratched, about Nurse Ratched from One Flew of the Cuckoo's Nest. We've got Disney villains like Cruella and Maleficent, Basically every villain who it was fine to just be a villain. Now their aspirations have grown and they want to tell us all where they came from. Can you date the rise of this trend?

[Nomi Frye]

I don't know if I can date the rise of this trend, but I can say one thing that I remember noticing. I remember the Gus Van Sant movie Elephant, the 2003 film about a school shooting that was kind of based on Columbine. And it was a movie where, you know, it was like a day in the life of a high school where school shooting is about to happen, and then it happens. And it kind of follows several characters, several students. And it doesn't only follow the victims, it also follows the perpetrators, who are two young teenagers. And Columbine had just happened like, you know, three or four years prior.

[Alex Schwartz]

Right.

[Nomi Frye]

I remember watching it and thinking, oh, interesting. Now we're getting this sort of explanation that did get discussed after Columbine as well. You know, who were these kids? The trench Coat mafia? Alienated teenagers, you know, like rejects. What led them to take up arms. And you know, and this is kind of like a discourse that we get with school shootings too, right? Trying to understand, like what role did parents play? What about romantic trauma, you know, like incel style feelings of rejection, social alienation and so on, on. So I think this is something the kind of like trying to understand and explain the kind of unexplainable is. I think it's something that's been strong in the last couple decades for sure, as things have gotten worse, seemingly worse and worse and more and more kind of inexplicable crimes seem to happen. I think the need to understand them and see how to kind of solve for them has increased.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah. There are a couple of different sources, I think, flowing into this one is, I think a very specific moment in the development of television. The sort of golden age of whatever gives rise to prestige tv. You get the sort of anti hero era, which isn't necessarily obsessed with. With backstory, but is about creating a fine grained texture of the consciousness of someone who is basically a villain. I mean, we do get backstory, let's say with like Don Draper. Right. Like there is. It's like Brothel. It's about like we all. We know. There we go. From the very beginning.

[Nomi Frye]

It's Mother. It's Mother.

[Vincent Cunningham]

It is Mother.

[Alex Schwartz]

Well, with Tony Soprano. It's Mother.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Tony Soprano, literally, it's about like the psychological even, you know, Walter White in Breaking Bad is like, he's got cancer. And that's why he goes, you know, there's like those big protagonists all have some reason why we're supposed to go with them to a point. But the other thing is like the sort of, let's call it the IP era in movies with Marvel and all that kind of stuff, where it's like, well, we got all these villains and we gotta use them to make money. And how am I gonna fill a two hour movie about somebody who's supposed to just be bad? So now I gotta do Cruella, the gritty reboot, to give her a backstory and make her somebody that again, you would wanna pay attention to for a long amount of time. Right? So I think those are two sort of recent touch points. I think that literature proper has been trying to do. Has always thought like, you know, this is almost like a misnomer in literature because there is no just flat villain that you. Then. I mean, we grow with people in works of literature and that is like, on some level, kind of the point. But, okay, let's talk about recent book that I wouldn't call necessarily literature. But it's like, why is Professor Snape such an asshole in Harry Potter? And then by the end, it's like, because he loved this woman and Harry Potter's father took her from him. And he's actually not that bad a guy. And he will. Da, da, da. You know, So I think there is like a. There is a shape to this thing that is. That seems to me to be like the last two decades. Yeah.

[Alex Schwartz]

Oh, my God. You just. I have so many thoughts about what you just said because Snape really, really got it for me. Really, you know, got the point across to me. You know, Vincent, the two things that you're saying, I think are connected. This kind of. The rise of the IP phenomenon where, yes, you're just sitting on, like a big old hen. You're just sitting on a bunch of villain eggs. How do we hatch them up? But, you know, I think that's connected because. Right, you have to. You have the transactional side of it or the business side of it. We've got all this stuff. How do we use it? And then you also have the phenomenon that you just described so well of the antihero becoming a big thing. And of course, the thrill of the antihero is the idea that it allows the viewer or the reader, the audience, let's say, to masquerade in the position of someone who does really bad things. And. And we keep using the word humanize. Does the Apprentice humanize Trump? That's kind of a moral goal, but the entertainment goal is also very interesting and valid, which is to let you be someone else. To let you get inside the head of a psychopathic mob killer like Tony Soprano or a Walter White or whoever it might be. And that, as a literary device, has been around for a really long time. I'm talking about Satan himself from Paradise Lost.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Paradise Lost?

[Alex Schwartz]

Yes. We're going there because in Paradise Lost, written by. By Milton, Satan is the, of course, villain of the story, but he also gets a whole origin story. And we see through his eyes. He was thrown out of heaven. He's arrived in hell. He's like, frankly, he was deported from heaven. And now he's just like, where the hell am I? What the hell is hell? Here I am. And he has this utterly beautiful, completely pitiful soliloquy in which he says some extremely brilliant things that you would not expect Satan to say, including Satan's pretty smart. Listen to what Satan says. Just listen for a second to what Satan has to. The mind is its own place and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. What matter where if I be still the same? So he's saying the kind of. This is the maxim of basically all of human psychological interiority going forward. Talk about origin story. The mind is what I am. You know, whatever shapes me, shapes my entire world. And. And the thrill of that, of being able to be inside the villain, I think is a genuine thrill. I think it's starting to expire a bit now that we've gotten so used to it, because it is a really popular narrative mode. But, you know, I guess one question I have is, do you? Because I'm talking about the moral aim of empathizing with someone who actually may be really different from you in that they're evil and hopefully you're not. And also the literary aim, which is just conveying different experience without necessarily a moral quality attach. I mean, do you think those are worthy goals? Does someone stand up for literature?

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah, no, it's like, yeah, of course.

[Nomi Frye]

Of course.

[Vincent Cunningham]

It's almost a tragedy in Milton's case because of course he's trying to make a moral work. But he learned something which everybody has figured out later on, which is like, actually it's entertaining to take the side of someone that you don't like, to transfer your consciousness for a moment into the wrong and understand the mental architecture of the wrong is actually very entertaining.

[Nomi Frye]

It's like sexy, you know. It's like, how about, you know.

[Vincent Cunningham]

And it gives the devil. Yeah, and it gives the devil all the best lines. Which way I fly is hell myself am hell. What?

[Alex Schwartz]

What?

[Vincent Cunningham]

Those are bars.

[Alex Schwartz]

What?

[Vincent Cunningham]

It's crazy, you know.

[Alex Schwartz]

Shivers down my spine myself.

[Nomi Frye]

Punk's not dead.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah, punk's not been since the moment Paradise Lost hit those newfangled printing press. Let me tell you that again.

[Vincent Cunningham]

They're just two different aims. One might be moral and didactic or whatever, but the other is just whatever we're trying to get out of literature. Something that's entertainment. But more than entertainment. That's a sort of edifying nourishment being, giving entree into experience. On some level, it's the exemplary moment of what literature can do, which is make you think, like, you don't think. You know, it's like, on some levels, it's the highest test of that gift that literature gives us.

[Nomi Frye]

No, totally. But it's exactly the kind of wedge or the gap or the divide between literature and politics, right? Because it's like, in literature, it's great to like someone bad. You know, it's probably better to like someone bad or it feels better, it's more interesting, it expands your sympathies, it makes you feel unlike the way you feel irl, Right? But in politics, we get Trump, you know, which is not great and has, like, real world ramifications that, you know, might be probably quite bad. Right. As we know. And so that's a real pickle.

[Alex Schwartz]

You know, there's another origin story I have on my mind right now that has nothing to do with these ones. It just floated in. Because one thing I want to ask you guys is, do you think we're after the shock of villainy? We're after the kind of shock of the anti hero? We've all gotten pretty used to these things. Is it time to hang up the origin story and just roodle around in the murk of the present and not try to say too much about the past? I mean, I don't want to be prescriptive about where art should go. I don't think that's useful or interesting. I think the frustration I personally have sometimes with these origin stories is that they are so prescriptive themselves, that they're so neat in drawing lines. So the thing I'm thinking of is Ina Garten, who has a new book out, who has written in her new book, her memoir about her very unpleasant upbringing, which she acknowledges is not the worst anyone has ever had. But she had some very cold parents, and she says that one thing she really wants people to get from the book is the idea that you can transcend your upbringing, that you are not the people who made you, and that you are not trapped by origin story. And I found that to be a kind of good antidote to all this time spent in the origin story. Yes, Mills, exactly.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah.

[Alex Schwartz]

You know, part of the point, right, is to know where you came from so that you don't have to stay there forever.

[Nomi Frye]

Although arguably, someone like Roy Cohn, that's exactly what he was trying to do, right, in the sense of, like, you know, he was born gay, he was born Jewish, he was born with an ugly face. You know, he tried to fix it. It didn't work. He was a shrimpy little guy and he did all he could to put his past behind him. Right.

[Alex Schwartz]

So you're basically saying Roy Cohn and Ina Garten are the same.

[Nomi Frye]

Absolutely.

[Alex Schwartz]

One of them decided to use their power to make delicious brownies and the other one decided to plunge the United States.

[Nomi Frye]

If you must argue that, Mr. Ruling Class, then, yes, that is what I'm saying.

[Alex Schwartz]

Well, basically, do you think that there is. What I wanna know from you guys is, is there still a point to the origin story? Is that still a fruitful place to be?

[Vincent Cunningham]

I dislike most writing advice and I dislike the injunction against exposition and some various schools of craft advice go against backstory. And I will never say yes to that because it always has to do with how you do it. And it's always about, you know, do you have style or do you not? So, like, the answer is like, I guess it depends. But I think the backstory is useful insofar as it is interesting, but I just don't. I just. Especially when it starts to rub up against the real world and against politics and everything. I just hope we don't expect to get any use out of it. Cause sometimes, sometimes we just don't.

[Alex Schwartz]

This has been Critics at Large. This episode was produced by Sheena Ozaki. Our senior producer is Rhiannon Corby and Alex Barish is our consulting editor. Our executive producer is Stephen Valentino. Conde Nast's Head of Global Audio is Chris Bannon. Alexis Quadrado composed our theme music and we had engineering help today from James Yost with mixing by Mike Kutchman. You can find every episode of Critics at [e-mail] critics and you can email [e-mail] with the subject line critics. Hi, this is David Remnick. I'm proud to share the news that.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Three films from the New Yorker documentary series have been shortlisted for the Academy Awards and they are Incident Seat 31's Zoe Zephyr and Eternal Father. And they all immerse you in the finest cinematic journalism, exploring themes of justice, identity and the bonds that shape us. These extraordinary films, which were created by established filmmakers as well as emerging artists.

[Nomi Frye]

Will inform, challenge and move you. I encourage you to watch them along.

[Alex Schwartz]

With our full slate of documentary and.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Narrative [e-mail] video.

[Nomi Frye]

From PRX.