Latest news with #RoyCohn
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Robert De Niro Slams Trump's ‘Unacceptable' Movie Tariffs at Cannes Film Festival Opening Ceremony
Robert De Niro used his Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or acceptance speech to address President Donald Trump's promise to impose 100% tariffs on the films shot outside of the U.S., saying the issue should concern the world – not just American filmmakers. 'Now, he has announced a 100% tariff on films produced outside the U.S. Let that sink in for a minute. You can't put a price on creativity, but apparently you can put a tariff on it,' De Niro said, who took the stage to receive an honorary Palme d'Or award. He went on to call on attendees and others watching to take a peaceful stand against Trump's political missions. 'Of course, this is unacceptable. All these attacks are unacceptable, and this isn't just an American problem. It's a global one. And like a film, we can't just all sit back and watch,' De Niro, who's never shied away from sharing his thoughts about Trump, said. 'We have to act now. Without violence, but with great passion and determination. It's time for everyone who cares about liberty to organize, to protest, and when there are elections, of course to vote. Tonight, and for the next 11 days, we show our strength and commitment by celebrating art in this glorious festival.' Cannes Film Festival Jury President Juliette Binoche also shared her thoughts on Trump's tariff plans, which she referred to as the president's way of rescuing the country and his own behind. 'I understand that Trump is trying to protect,' Binoche said before a group reporters during Cannes's opening press conference. 'For us, we have a strong community of filmmaking on our continent in Europe … I don't know what to say — I can see that he's fighting to save America and to save his ass.' She added that she's not 'acceptable to answer' questions related to Trump's interest in considering TV and film tariffs for projects shot overseas. Back on May 4, Trump announced plans to enforce a 100% tariff on films produced outside of the country, mentioning in a Truth Social post that the United State's film industry is 'dying a very fast' death because of the incentives foreign countries offer filmmakers to shoot on their land. Strong, who is among the nine members of the festival's 2025 Cannes Competition jury, and starred as Trump's former advisor Roy Cohn in the 2024 film 'The Apprentice,' didn't weigh in Trump's tariffs plans, but shared that the real-figure he played helped pave the way for Trump's entry into the White House. 'Roy Cohn is the progenitor of fake news and alternative facts, and we're living in the aftermath of what he created,' Strong said. He continued: 'I think that at a time when truth is under assault, where truth is becoming an endangered thing, the role of stories and cinema here at the temple of film; the role of film is incredibly critical. It can combat that entropy and communicate individual truths, societal truths, and affirm our shared humanity. What I'm doing here this year is in a way to counterbalance what Roy Cohn was doing last year.' Cannes Director Thierry Fremaux also chimed in, saying film and TV will find a way to overcome Trump's proposed tariffs. 'Cinema always finds a way of existing and reinventing itself,' Fremaux said. 'The idea that American Cinema would be penalized by foreign countries, I think that is an idea worth discussing.'The post Robert De Niro Slams Trump's 'Unacceptable' Movie Tariffs at Cannes Film Festival Opening Ceremony appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Readers sound off on Trump's trade war, climate data and the measles outbreak
Brooklyn: President Trump is employing a tried-and-true tactic he used as a private businessman. He'd have contractors do construction at one of his ostentatious resorts. He'd invent some bogus reason to be dissatisfied with the work and offer a dime per dollar of the contracted price. The contractor would sue, but Trump's lawyers were under instructions to delay, obfuscate, demand continuances and prolong the lawsuit to drive up his adversary's legal fees. This tactic was taught by Roy Cohn, his mentor, and is intended to take advantage of the glacial pace of our court system. Legal fees are one of the costs of doing business for Trump. He was confident that his deep pockets would compel the plaintiff to settle on his terms or risk going bankrupt. Many did. This time using the economic might of the U.S. instead of his personal wealth as his bargaining chip, Trump is betting that tariffs he ordered will cause prices for American goods in targeted countries to rise to intolerable levels and force our customers to renegotiate trade deals in our favor. He was absent the day his Economics 101 professor taught that it is the consumers of the country imposing the tariff that pay the higher price for the imported goods, not consumers of the targeted country. Tariffs are a tit-for-tat and usually end in a zero-sum game. This situation always results in a recession caused by the sudden upheaval in prices for previously relatively inexpensive goods. Indeed, Wall Street plunged more than 1,000 points this week as a result of Trump's arrogantly raising the tariff percentage to our ally Canada. As for Congress, the silence is deafening. Stan Rosenson Larchmont, N.Y.: In 2020, when Trump said, 'If he's elected, it will cause a market crash and a recession,' I thought he was talking about Joe Biden. It turns out he was talking about himself! Steve Michaud Staten Island: Not only are we being taxed to death, but Con Edison will be raising its rates. It also would pass along the 25% increase Canada threatened to charge for the power it is providing to three states. Yes, we are one of those states. Didn't Trump say Canada would not retaliate? Thomas Bell Manhattan: U.S. stocks are headed toward their worst start to a presidency since 2009, when we were in the midst of the financial crisis. Trump continues to say tariffs will make us so rich that we'll have so much money, we won't know what to do with it. He's a salesman in the most quintessentially American of traditions. Trump Tower, when it was built, was glitzy and gaudy on the exterior. The interiors, finishes and quality of construction left something to be desired. That's a fair analogy for Trump's life and career: enticing rhetoric and lofty promises that are totally detached from reality. Trumpers represented the most gullible demographic in America, and Trump knew how to exploit them. If you supported Trump, is it time to admit you were hosed? Daniel Dolgicer Newton, N.J.: Voicer Rob Weissbard writes that 'if advocating and supporting enemies of this country are not a reason for deportation, what is?' Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence that Mahmoud Khalil supports Hamas and Hezbollah (which is protected free speech), let's discuss Trump's open support for Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, who are both sworn enemies of the United States, and his rejection of our allies (Canada, Mexico, NATO and, of course, Ukraine). But don't let the truth get in the way of your MAGA-inspired hypocrisy, Rob. Michael Schnackenberg Brooklyn: If the GOP accuses Rep. Adriano Espaillat of being an 'illegal immig' ('Dems rip GOPers calling Espaillat 'illegal immig,' ' March 7) someone (the press?) should remind them that Melania Trump came to the United States illegally and worked here illegally. Later she brought her family to the U.S. via chain migration. It's all just more hypocrisy from the GOP and its president. Herman Kolender Manhattan: I am appalled at what the Trump administration is doing to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This agency has provided free, widely used weather forecasts, helping communities prepare for hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, etc. The Union of Concerned Scientists recently delivered an open letter to Congress and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick signed by thousands of experts (including myself) urging full funding and staffing for NOAA to protect its science. Trump and Elon Musk are following Project 2025, which calls for dismantling NOAA and privatizing weather forecasting. Privatizing NOAA's data would weaken public safety and U.S. leadership in climate and ocean science. Dismantling NOAA means flying blind into climate crises; without its data, we would lack essential tools to track and respond to rising sea levels, worsening heatwaves, flooding and other climate disasters. NOAA is essential in fisheries and climate monitoring and research; it works with scientists worldwide to provide vital information. Judith S. Weis Manhattan: Keep in mind that these whackos also have control of the nuclear codes. Anne Stockton Central Islip, L.I.: Rosie O'Donnell moved to Ireland after Trump won the election. Good riddance! Too bad she couldn't move to Mars. Thomas Sarc Long Beach, L.I.: Does anyone care that celebrities who made their millions in America are choosing to leave? They are all bent out of shape because their opinions were rejected by everyday Americans who voted for Trump and in favor of common sense. They don't denounce the violence and destruction. So, bon voyage. Arlene Reilly Manhattan: To Voicer Tripp Hoffmann: Your letter is 100% misleading and contains a statistic you must have hallucinated. Accidental ladder falls resulting in death numbered 300 last year. Where in heaven's name did you get the statistic that said those deaths numbered far more than 50 years of measles? Did you get it when you studied at Trump University? If anyone has Trump Derangement Syndrome, it is you. You lie just like he does. Richard Simon Forest Hills: Somebody wants to put Trump's picture on the $100 bill. This is a terrible idea. Everybody knows he belongs on the $3 bill. Alan Hirschberg Manhattan: As president of the New York City Black Chamber of Commerce, it is my job to economically empower and sustain African-American communities through entrepreneurship and business and help promote economic development to rebuild our communities. I'm constantly looking for ways to ease the serious financial pressures felt by local African-American-owned businesses. Lately, that means I spend a lot of time thinking about affordability, especially of necessities like health care. The price of medical care, including doctors, hospitals, medicine and medical equipment, has had overwhelming growth, much more than the rate of inflation, making it extremely difficult for our community to keep up. Albany has failed to address health care affordability. Businesspeople understand that insurance rates simply reflect the rising cost of care. The chamber has joined the Local Business Relief Coalition to offer reasonable solutions to runaway costs. We hope the governor and Legislature will enact these drastically needed reforms. Tosha Miller Nutley, N.J.: To Voicer Joe Schatzle: I belong, along with you, to the large group of individuals who endured a few days of mild discomfort at home with measles and returned to school or work. I would like to include as new members in that group 124 cases just reported in west Texas. However, 18 of those cases are not eligible, since their infections were serious enough to require hospitalization. Most regrettably are the two individuals who will never belong to that large group of measles survivors, one an unvaccinated school-age child in Texas, and the other an unvaccinated adult in New Mexico. The latter perished, although the exact cause of death is under investigation. So yes, please let's get the MMR vaccination if you haven't already. Peter Griswold Saddle Brook, N.J.: I always enjoy watching the Big East Tournament, especially this year with St. John's University doing so well, but now it's on Peacock, so I can't watch it. Thanks to whoever made that decision. Bill Homisak
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
If we don't act now, we risk losing the institutions that keep our society open, informed and free
Roy Cohn, once an attorney and confidant of Donald Trump, talking to Sen. Joseph McCarthy (right), circa 1954. Photo by Keystone/. I got an unexpected email last week from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It referenced the Prevention Research Center at the University of Minnesota, where I lead work to promote healthy eating and wellbeing among children. The email was notification of a survey for grantees, unlike any I'd seen before in my 20+ years as a researcher, with questions like: 'Can you confirm that your organization does not work with entities associated with communist, socialist, or totalitarian parties, or any party that espouses anti-American beliefs?' 'What impact does this project have on protecting religious minorities, promoting religious freedom, and combating Christian persecution?' 'Is your organization compliant with the latest Mexico City Policy?' Responses were mandated by midnight the following day, just over 24 hours later. The urgency — and implied threat to our work — seemed designed to sow fear and uncertainty. Prior to receiving funding in 2024, our work and team were scrutinized through multiple layers of scientific and administrative review. Our institution provided all necessary government assurances. There were no doubts raised about our work or the context in which we do it. The questions seemed to be less about our work, and more about advancing an unpredictable and politically motivated agenda in the realm of scientific research. As in psychological warfare — where destabilization is sought through confusion, fear, and mistrust — our current climate of chaos and apprehension has gripped researchers, federal workers, and Americans who rely on the government. Policies change without warning, leaving us scrambling to comply with conflicting directives. Uncertainty reigns — many of us aren't sure if our next project will be delayed, canceled or targeted as an example of defiance. Last week, $400 million in federal funding granted to Columbia University was canceled due to accusations the university failed to address antisemitism on campus. The University of Minnesota was named as one of five universities under similar investigation by the Trump administration in February. As of March 10th, 60 colleges and universities have been named as subjects of investigation. Ostensibly about protecting Jewish students and faculty, these investigations and enforcement actions could in reality be intended to stifle and ultimately censor speech that isn't aligned with Trump's political ideology. The president's unpredictable, often unexplained policy changes affect us all. The CDC's ability to respond to outbreaks of diseases like flu, Ebola, and COVID-19 has been severely hindered since firing 700 staffers, with many more layoffs likely coming soon. Firings, cuts and funding freezes at the NIH have stalled critical research on diseases like cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. These setbacks undermine American health and threaten economic growth, as every $1 invested in NIH generates $2.46. The dismantling of federal training programs and university infrastructure weakens future generations of skilled workers — doctors, engineers, teachers and others we need to drive economic growth, compete globally, and solve complex problems. Compounding today's uncertainty is the president's lack of tolerance for dissent. History shows us the dangers of suppressing opposing views. McCarthyism, for example, fueled a climate of suspicion and alarm in the 1950s, when dissenters were targeted for their political beliefs. Intellectuals were among the first targets in Nazi Germany, seen as threats to Hitler's narratives and his consolidation of power. More recent events in Turkey and Russia show how governments that target dissenters create a climate where citizens are afraid to speak out or pursue truth. An atmosphere of trepidation and uncertainty breaks down society's intellectual foundations, ensuring no one challenges those in power. Importantly, advancement and innovation hinge on our ability to foster a vibrant marketplace of ideas; when diverse ideas are no longer allowed, progress falters. Whether it's sudden inquisitions, unexplained policy changes, on-again/off-again tariffs or constant threat of job loss, these actions seem designed to foster fear and control. This isn't about efficiency; it's about consolidating power and undermining institutions that hold the government accountable. If we don't act now, we risk losing the institutions that keep our society open, informed and free. We cannot afford to stay silent while the foundations of our public institutions are eroded. The future of American democracy depends on it. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The end of MAGA's dominance: "The American people see the Democrats take down Trump themselves"
President Trump is a juggernaut. His shock and awe campaign against American democracy, the rule of law, civil society, the Constitution, and the norms and institutions has been extremely successful. Trump's mastery of spectacle and mass media and his natural showmanship and charisma — in combination with the dark arts of politics and power that he learned from his mentor Roy Cohn — make him a formidable foe. The difficulty in trying to stop Trump and his MAGA movement is amplified by how the world is in the throes of an authoritarian populist era that is fueled by rage at 'the system' and 'the elites' and the existing order of things. In total, Trump and his MAGA movement are the product of much larger problems and disruptions both here in the United States and abroad that defy a simple solution. What about the Democrats and the larger so-called resistance? They have been mostly ineffective — to the degree they have even been active and present. Since Trump has returned to power, the Democrats, for example, have decided that waiting for Trump and his MAGA Republicans to overextend themselves and for the American people to realize that they are victims of the Big (and little) Con is a viable strategy. Applying military strategy to the realm of 'normal' politics, Trump is continuing his shock and awe campaign, and the Democrats are trading space for time. Focusing in on Trump's speech to Congress last week, the Washington Post describes the efficacy and result of this plan by the Democrats as: The Democrats showed last week that presidential addresses to Congress are no place to formulate a resistance. Almost everything they did during President Donald Trump's appearance highlighted weakness rather than strength. They had not one strategy but several. The sum was less than the parts. Many Democrats came away worried that their party is even weaker than it appeared after Trump's victory in November, and for now, Democrats might be left to hope that Trump and the Republicans will make enough mistakes to offer them a way back. But that is only one part of a comeback strategy if Democrats are to become broadly competitive. The Democrats were handcuffed from the start Tuesday night as they sought to project the right amount of opposition. Too boisterous and unruly in their disagreements and they would embarrass themselves, playing into Trump's hands and highlighting their powerlessness. Too passive and they would further anger their demoralized base that is looking for a spark of life from the leadership of the party. They were passive, yes, while trying to project mild resistance. Winning by default and counting on one's enemy to self-sabotage is not a viable strategy in an existential struggle. Such a strategy is also not very compelling for a public that is increasingly alienated, tired, afraid and mired in learned helplessness, as they see Trump and his MAGA movement and American fascism's domination as inevitable and soon to be the new norm instead of as forces and outcomes that are contingent and still very much in doubt. In an attempt to make better sense of the Democratic Party's weak and passive approach to political battle in the Age of Trump and their ongoing failures of strategy and messaging — and potential ways to correct them and find victory — I recently spoke with M. Stephen Fish, a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. His new book is 'Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Nation, and Restoring Democracy's Edge.' This is the first part of a two-part conversation. How are you feeling? Trump has been back in the White House for eight weeks. His shock and awe campaign has been very effective. What are you doing to balance yourself and maintain some perspective — assuming you have been able to? His shock-and-awe campaign has been theatrical, but I'm neither shocked nor awed. Trump isn't doing anything he didn't promise to do, and his opening round has been more of a shit-show of bluster and flip-flops than an irresistible offensive. The key to remaining balanced is to focus on the fight and to give as good as we get. Trump's high-dominance style has carried him this far, but he also has many weaknesses — if Democrats finally start to push their advantage. If Trump really follows through on everything he's initiated since January 20, the economy will tank, veterans will quit receiving their benefits on time, American kids will be crippled by polio and dropping dead from measles, and America will become a contemptible international pariah and wholly-owned Kremlin subsidiary. And if Trump backs down, he'll look weak. Either way, I'm sure you'll agree the Democrats will have a lot to work with. But no matter how bad things get, none of it will stick to Trump unless the Democrats make it stick. Otherwise, Trump will continue to smash through every disaster and maintain his hold on the political arena. What are your thoughts on ? Carville said the Democrats should 'roll over and play dead' and 'allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight and make the American people miss us.' That does not seem like a winning strategy in an existential struggle for America's democracy. Carville is typically a fighter, and I know he isn't proposing passivity as a long-term strategy. But, his New York Times piece does basically call for the same losing tactics the Democrats have been pursuing for years: Stand back, cede the narrative and headlines to Trump, and then wait for everybody to realize just how awful he is and rush to support the Democrats. That's largely the way Biden ran his reelection campaign until he stepped aside; in fact, he explicitly said that he intended to make the election a referendum on Trump. Here we had a president who had been in power for almost four years and had racked up impressive accomplishments, including producing a roaring economy, but rather than make it about the Democrats' triumphs, he chose to make it about Trump. That approach displayed timidity, pessimism, defeatism, and lack of self-confidence, which is why Trump was clobbering Biden in the polls even prior to voters realizing the extent of Biden's weakness during his debate with Trump. Then, when Harris first stepped out as the party's nominee-presumptive after Biden's withdrawal, she offered a much higher-dominance act, but she then reverted to a low-dominance, let's-make-it-about-Trump approach. During the 2024 campaign, you and I had a series of conversations here at Salon and elsewhere. You also had an opinion essay in the New York Times warning that Trump is a high-dominance leader and that he had a high chance of winning if the Democrats did not adjust. They didn't listen to you — or me or the others who were publicly warning about Trump's popularity. Harris launched her campaign with a high-dominance performance but then faltered soon after her great debate with Trump. History will likely look back at that pivot as one that crystallized the Democratic Party's failings and imminent defeat. Absolutely. As you'll recall, between the time Harris took over as the Democrats' candidate in mid-July and the debate on September 10, she was a boss. She called attention to herself and her own great plans, projected exuberance, and limited her Trump-time to telling the truth about how horrible he is and not fit to be president. Armed with that approach, she electrified Democrats, put Trump on the defensive, and took the lead in the polls. But then her campaign reverted to ceding the spotlight to Trump, making the campaign a referendum on him and calling on everyone to be horrified by his appalling behavior. The moment her campaign switched gears, which happened shortly after Harris shellacked Trump in the debate, you could hear the air hissing out of the tires and watch Trump get his momentum back. And as it turned out, all the groups the Democrats strove to stir to wounded umbrage weren't much moved, and they weren't impressed by the Democrats' constantly being overcome by the vapors. The partisan gender gap between 2020 and 2024 actually shrunk, with Harris proportionally losing more women than men compared to Biden's performance in 2020. And Trump made enormous strides with Hispanics and smaller but still substantial gains among Blacks and Asian Americans. How much more evidence do the Democrats need that letting Trump be Trump and then hoping to pick up the pieces when he falters doesn't work? Trump acts, and the Democrats stand back and wait for him to stumble. But Trump's bungling has never been enough to bring voters over to us in sufficient numbers to stop him and rout Trumpism. Until the American people see the Democrats take down Trump themselves, he's going to seem like a boss. Trump and his MAGA movement are winning, and quite easily. They know that storytelling and showmanship are the keys to winning and advancing their agenda. Why are Trump and his propagandists so good at this? Why are the Democrats so bad at it? Democratic operatives still seem to think that Jack and Diane Sixpack sit down to the kitchen table shortly before the election and calculate which candidate stands closer to them on 'the issues,' offers them more stuff, and 'cares about people like them.' But there's no evidence that anything of the sort actually takes place, and you can't make a compelling story out of 'the issues,' promises to add a dental option to Obamacare and patronizing reflections on how much people are hurting. It's especially ludicrous to focus on voters' purported despair rather than your own great exploits and plans while your own party is in power, which was the case in 2016 and 2024. While Biden was still running, he did finally try to step out late in the campaign and claim credit for the roaring economy, but he was far too impaired by then to offer a forceful, resonant message. Beyond that, he was shut down by fretful Democratic party operatives and politicians who told him: How can you talk about 'Bidenomics' when polls say so many people aren't 'feeling the benefits'?! When Harris first stepped out as the nominee, she was all jauntiness and humor/quick wit/cheek, but she then sank back into the party's old habits. When asked whether people were better off than they were four years ago, Harris refused to answer. Why? Because polling showed that many people weren't happy with the economy. When asked about immigration, she consistently intoned: 'Our immigration system is broken.' No doubt that line played well in the Democrats' focus groups. Never mind that her party had been in power for almost four years; the people were supposedly struggling to make ends meet and the immigration system was broken. Under her and Biden. And when asked how her policies would differ from Biden's, she said she couldn't think of anything. Why? We can't be sure, but by some accounts, she was afraid of offending Biden. This is what poll-driven, fear-based, irrationally risk-averse messaging looks like. It thrills no one. It changes no minds. It leaves your opponent's story as the one everybody hears. Donald Trump's story is basically: When I'm in power, you will enjoy the greatest economy in the history of the world. When the Democrats are in power the economy is horrible. Trump and his propagandists and other surrogates and messengers fill in his story with all kinds of facts and figures, many of which are not true, just pulled out of the ether. But Donald Trump does have a story, and it does convince a lot of people. Trump tries to shape public opinion rather than just respond to it. What would a more compelling message from Harris have sounded like? Kamala Harris could have said something like this: You're goddamn right we're better off than four years ago! Back then, unemployment was 15 percent; under me and Biden, it's lower than it's been since the 1960s. COVID pushed inflation up, but Biden and I hammered inflation down to 2 percent — exactly where the Fed says it should be. Our economy is leaving other rich countries in the dust; it's growing faster than all of them. America is the innovation capital of the world. Real wages have been growing for a year-and-a-half running. New business start-ups and corporate profits are surging. Every time I check the numbers, the Dow is setting records. When Trump left office, the Dow was 31,000; today it's 42,000. Dream on, Mr. Trump! Fast growth, plunging inflation, rock-bottom unemployment — economists said it couldn't be done. Oh, and by the way, the budget deficit is half of what Trump left us with four years ago. This is what Democrats do: We come in and clean up the messes made by our Republican predecessors. Roosevelt did it after Herbert Hoover. Clinton did it after the first Bush, Obama did it after the second one, and Biden did it after Trump. But you ain't seen nothin' yet. Under me, we're going to make Biden's good economy even better. Way better. No more kids in poverty in the richest, greatest country on Earth. Watch for the Dow to break 50,000. Why the hell not? Today's Democrats do not have a brand or compelling identity, and they are horrible political salespeople. Trump's recent address to Congress is an example of Trump as the master of spectacle. For his audience it was perfect. Those outside of TrumpWorld and the MAGAverse thought his speech was a failure. Nothing surprising there. Trump's speech was grand theater. Vintage Trump, complete with all the props: The ranting about the Democrats' supposed perfidies, the proclamation of a new Golden Age and the adoring families of the victims of violence perpetrated by undocumented migrants. The Democrats' responses, unfortunately, were also largely predictable, and altogether pathetic: Rep. Al Green getting thrown out for standing and waving his cane at Trump; the pink dresses (I still don't get what that was supposed to mean); and the indignant flashing of the ping-pong paddles with their various messages. Then there was the flurry of Democratic responses on talk shows over the following several days. On Stephen Colbert's show, Pete Buttigieg tore into Trump for not dwelling on people's economic pain and for failing to lower egg prices. But most abject of all was the Democrats' formal response to Trump's speech, delivered by the new senator from Michigan, Elissa Slotkin. American democracy is being dismantled by fascists and Trump is trashing a world order that has ensured American preeminence and prosperity for the past 80 years. Putin is very pleased. What did Slotkin have to say? 'The Middle Class is the engine of our country…Michigan literally invented the Middle Class!… We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on: Groceries. Housing. Healthcare. Your car.' Of course, she hit on other points as well, but never did she offer anything other than the bromides the Democrats have been mouthing for as long as anybody can remember. Nowhere was there the slightest sense of urgency, alarm, anger, or fight. I'm sure Slotkin is a wonderful person, but it's also noteworthy that she won her Senate race by 0.3 percent in a state where Gov. Gretchen Whitmer whipped her MAGA opponent by 11 points. Rather than turn to the harder-edged Whitmer — or, for that matter, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Rep. Eric Swalwell, Senator Ruben Gallego, Senator Adam Schiff, or Gov. Josh Shapiro — to let loose on Trump, the Democrats chose Slotkin to make her heartfelt pitch for — what else? — the put-upon middle class.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Jeremy Strong on the Dark Legacy of Roy Cohn: ‘We're Living in His World Now'
Iranian-Danish director Ali Abbasi's 'The Apprentice,' the tale of how a young Donald Trump fell into the orbit and under the spell of the venal lawyer Roy Cohn in the 1970s, struggled to get financing and a U.S. release after its premiere in Cannes last May. But it did unexpectedly well in Oscar nominations, with Sebastian Stan breaking into the Best Actor category for his performance as Trump and Jeremy Strong landing a Best Supporting Actor nomination for playing Cohn, a vicious fighter and closeted gay man who gave the would-be tycoon rules for survival that he still uses: always attack, admit nothing, deny everything and never admit defeat. What led you to Roy Cohn?Another filmmaker had approached me five or six years ago about playing Roy. There wasn't a script, but I went and I watched some of the documentaries. Matt Tyrnauer's ('Where's My Roy Cohn?') was a really brilliant documentary. And then I went down the rabbit hole because I'd never really encountered a human being like him, both monstrous and childlike at the same time. He is part ghoul, part Lost Boy, part kingmaker, part Iago. What did it take to get you from being fascinated by him to agreeing to play him for Ali Abbasi?Gabe Sherman had written a great script that was based on extensive research and journalistic veracity. And Ali was this sort of punk-rock Lynchian filmmaker, and I thought that the alchemy of these two would yield something interesting. Rilke said, 'Surely all great art is a product of having been in danger.' I'm always looking for a plank to walk out on, and I couldn't find a longer, bigger, more treacherous, precipitous plank to walk out on than trying to play Roy Cohn. So then it becomes a matter of trying to immerse yourself in the character as much as you can?Yeah. I've done historical characters before, in 'The Big Short'and 'Selma'and '(The Trial of the) Chicago 7.' And if I have a way of approaching it, it involves trying to do all the research, reading every book. Roy wrote a few books. Sidney Zion wrote a great book on Roy and there's a tremendous amount of archival material. He was on a lot of talk shows, he was a total talk show whore. And so there's a real plethora of Roy. There's a fantastic interview that he did with Gore Vidal that I watched until my eyes turned blue and fell outta my head. (Grins, points to his eyes.) That's why they look like this. It's just endlessly observing and studying and interrogating and becoming a kind of forensic detective on an emotional and spiritual level. And talking to people who knew him. Ken Auletta, who had interviewed him for Esquire in 1977, said that of all the people he'd encountered — and he wrote on (Harvey) Weinstein and others — that Roy was the most monstrous person he'd ever encountered. He's like a clusterf–k of a person, if I can say that. It was impossible to reconcile aspects of his character, and I think that's correct. I think they were unreconciled in his life, and that's what created so much pain. But really, the denial of his own nature and the level of self-deception, the denial of reality — that's his legacy, I think. Self-denial was the dark heart of it for me. Is it exhausting to immerse yourself in a guy like that?You know what's interesting? I remember talking to (Robert) Downey before I started. He had seen the Tyrnauer documentary, and he said, 'He's such a gleeful guy.' He was exactly right. Roy was gleeful. So while others think he's despicable and call him one of the worst humans of the 20th century — I don't know that I agree with that, but he was up there — he was gleeful. He had a tremendous charismatic force, and that was one of the things that endeared people to him, I dare say, and one of the things that endear people to his successor. I thought about Roy sort of hanging over the Capitol rotunda (on Inauguration Day). And part of what he passed on, besides the dark arts of dissimilation and deception, was this denial. There really is a sense that as we're watching this movie, we are still surrounded by signs of what Roy Cohn no question. I find it very harrowing to watch this film now, which I have done once since Trump was elected. But I would take what you said even further to say that Roy's ideology of brute force and misinformation and aggression is encoded in nearly everything that the president does. It is the well water from which he draws — to me, the poisoned well water. Roy's influence cannot be overstated. I think we're living in his world now, and the film has a great deal to say about how we got here. I didn't go into the film feeling or wanting to feel any sympathy for Roy Cohn, and yet I came out feeling a you. I think as actors, we have to approach whatever we're doing humanistically, to suspend our judgment and try and engage with empathy. This has been controversial, but I would say we should consider having empathy for those that we deem not worthy of empathy. I'm not saying we should condone them. There's a great William Saroyan quote where he says, 'Despise evil and ungodliness, but not men of ungodliness and evil. These, understand.' And I think it's the role of art and film to attempt to understand these people. We're complicit if we've failed to attempt to understand on a human level why these people are the way they are and what infernal engines are driving them. You don't go into these things with a plan or an agenda: 'Oh, I wanna make people feel sympathy for Roy Cohn.' I just allow it to come through me. My friend Joshua Oppenheimer, who made the incredible documentary 'The Act of Killing,' texted me and mentioned the end of that film. Joshua was on a rooftop with a man who was a death squad leader, who was coughing (and retching) as he stared into the abyss of his own wasted life, in Joshua's words. And I think he felt that Roy Cohn was doing that in this film. That was my experience — that for a moment, the veil of self-deception and denial was lifted and he was staring into a searing regret for the infinite emptiness of his own wasted life. That made me feel that his life was a tragedy, and I felt pity for him. Ali Abbasi is not known for being understated and naturalistic, and Cohn and Trump were guys who operate on a theatrical level I love that. You don't want to make them more of a caricature than they had made themselves. So how do you figure out how big you can go?That's such a great question. I think it has to be finely calibrated. I would say two things. Some of my favorite performances ever, that I've been most inspired by, contain an element of theatricality and are heightened. Laurence Olivier, in his autobiography, talks about this term that he called theatrical courage, which to me, if there are virtues that actors can have, the two that mean the most would be vulnerability and theatrical courage. And theatricality can mean size, but it also must be utterly grounded in truth. And the other thing I would say, and this is something that Stella Adler said, she said that you can be as large as life. It's not a matter of being big. It's about being as large as life. No more, no less than what they are. I think you have to calibrate it to the subject. What I attempted to do was not interpret Roy. I attempted to inhabit Roy as I saw him, with a levelheaded gaze. Roger Stone knew Roy well, and he told me he felt like he was in the room with Roy. It's funny to say, because I never thought I would feel gratified by a compliment from that person, but that was gratifying because what you want to do is not embellish it. You want to hit the bullseye in terms of rendering them with accuracy and then allowing it to catch fire. To me, work is meaningless unless it catches fire. I don't know how to explain that, but we all sort of know what that means. A version of this story first appeared in the Down to the Wire issue of TheWrap's Awards magazine. Read more from the issue here. The post Jeremy Strong on the Dark Legacy of Roy Cohn: 'We're Living in His World Now' appeared first on TheWrap.
