Connect with us

Entertainment

Who's afraid of Roy Cohn? Not Jeremy Strong

Published

on

Who's afraid of Roy Cohn? Not Jeremy Strong

Brutal. Vicious. Crooked. Cruel.

So filmmaker Ali Abbasi’s new biopic “The Apprentice” describes its dominant figure, a New York and Washington, D.C., power broker who lies, cheats, charms and browbeats his way into the uppermost ranks of American business and government.

No, it’s not Donald Trump. It’s Roy Cohn.

As the film depicts with garish flair, the pugilistic, Bronx-born attorney — who first came to prominence prosecuting Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage, then served as chief counsel to Sen. Joseph McCarthy during his anticommunist witch hunt — took Trump under his wing in the 1970s, handing the ambitious real-estate developer’s son a fiendish playbook for success. Attack, attack, attack. Deny everything. Never admit defeat. By the time of his disbarment and death from AIDS complications in 1986, however, the roles were reversed, and Cohn lost sway with his erstwhile mentee as Trump stepped out of his shadow.

Throughout “The Apprentice,” Cohn comes across not only with his renowned ferocity, but also with uncommon empathy, courtesy of actor Jeremy Strong.

Advertisement

“If Roy Cohn walked into this room right now, I don’t think I would want to shake his hand,” says Strong, 45, seated in a bar off the sun-dappled courtyard of the San Vicente Bungalows on an early fall afternoon. “But from the distance of a piece of work and trying to understand him — humanistically and creatively — I had to find, for lack of a better word, love. Which is a bit of a grenade to say out loud.”

Fresh off a silent meditation retreat in upstate New York, the “Succession” star folds the same circumspection into nearly all of his stacked, erudite sentences, which are peppered with literary allusions (Kafka’s “The Zürau Aphorisms”) and film-industry names (Danish director Tobias Lindholm). At times Strong pauses so long that I launch into my next question, only to be interrupted by the continuation of an apparently unfinished thought. He denies being “gun shy” about press since the publication of a viral 2021 New Yorker profile in which a number of his collaborators — some named, others anonymous — looked askance at the lengths to which he’ll go to embed himself in a character.

“I think I’m a fairly earnest person, and that’s gotten me in trouble,” Strong insists, “but I’m not interested in camouflaging or disguising myself. Life is too short.”

Strong, left, as Roy Cohn, with Sebastian Stan as Donald Trump in “The Apprentice.”

(Festival de Cannes)

Advertisement

The topic at hand isn’t just the life and times of Roy Cohn, of course. When “The Apprentice” premiered earlier this year at the Cannes Film Festival, the Trump campaign swiftly threatened a lawsuit, calling the film “pure malicious defamation” and suggesting it “should not see the light of day.” Then, as if the former president’s wish had come true, the project languished for months without a distributor. Despite repeated reassurances from Abbasi, Strong, writer Gabriel Sherman and actor Sebastian Stan, who plays Trump, that “The Apprentice” was not a political polemic but a character study, it seemed plausible, as recently as August, that the film would remain on the shelf until after next month’s election, if not indefinitely. (It was ultimately picked up by Briarcliff Entertainment.)

“We sort of narrowly escaped the jaws of being effectively censored in this country,” Strong says. “That’s something that happens in Russia, North Korea. Not democratic countries. I think people in Hollywood were really wary of touching this, and that was disheartening.”

In theaters Friday, “The Apprentice” arrives in the home stretch of a bruising, chaotic presidential election campaign, sure to be scrutinized as closely as any film of the fall. Supporters of the Republican nominee will likely follow the Trump camp’s lead in calling the movie — in which Trump rapes first wife Ivana (Maria Bakalova) and undergoes multiple cosmetic surgeries — a hit piece, while his most ardent opponents may see any attempt to humanize Trump or Cohn as beyond the pale.

Given the fraught political environment, Strong strains to frame his approach to the character as a historian might, decoupling understanding from endorsement. Although he uses words like empathy, kinship and love to explain how he got under Cohn’s skin, he also describes the attorney as a “cancerous conundrum” and a “demonic Peter Pan.”

Advertisement

“God, it’s really dangerous,” Strong says. “I feel like I could get in trouble for saying anything positive about him. When I say these things, I only really mean them in a creative arena, because creatively a character like Roy is like Iago. You don’t want to say anything nice about Iago. But as an actor, Iago is one of the great roles. This feels like one of the great roles.”

Strong is not alone in his estimation. As a key character in Tony Kushner’s Pulitzer-winning 1991 play “Angels in America,” Mike Nichols’ 2003 HBO miniseries adaptation thereof, the 1992 TV movie “Citizen Cohn,” last year’s miniseries “Fellow Travelers” and numerous documentaries, Cohn has inspired more major films and TV series than even Harvey Milk. His many portrayals have resulted in two Tonys, an Emmy and a Peabody. I ask Strong if he thinks there’s any merit to the criticism about straight actors playing gay characters, and receiving acclaim for doing so, when such opportunities and plaudits remain a rarity for out gay actors.

“Yes, it’s absolutely valid,” Strong says. “I’m sort of old fashioned, maybe, in the belief that, fundamentally, it’s [about] a person’s artistry, and that great artists, historically, have been able to, as it were, change the stamp of their nature. That’s your job as an actor. The task, in a way, is to render something that is not necessarily your native habitat. … While I don’t think that it’s necessary [for gay roles to be played by gay performers], I think that it would be good if that were given more weight.”

Then, as I begin to follow up, he interjects, “What do you think?”

I think it’s complicated, if I’m being honest. I think it might be passé of me even to ask about it. At least for cis, white gay men, who have consistently dominated LGBTQ+ representation in film and television, the flagrantly stereotypical performances — the ones that treat the character’s sexuality as if it were another layer of hair, makeup or wardrobe — are now few and far between. It’s hard to muster one’s revolutionary fervor for Cohn, the man the “Bad Gays” podcast once labeled “the polestar of human evil.”

Advertisement

And yet that is exactly what makes this real-life character — a closeted, self-hating homosexual who helped launch the Lavender Scare and remained silent about the AIDS crisis even as it killed him — an ideal test case. The fact remains that no out gay man has ever won an Oscar for playing a queer character in the 96-year history of the Academy Awards. Meanwhile, this season alone could conceivably add two more names — Strong and Daniel Craig for “Queer” — to the list of nine straight men who’ve previously done so. (The numbers for women, and nominations, are scarcely any better.) In light of the disproportion, one can’t help but draw the conclusion that pundits and voters still understand playing gay as one mark in the column for “outstanding performance.” Which raises the question: Might a gay actor get more credit if he opted to play our community’s most notorious supervillain, instead of another tragic hero we’re determined to uplift? Would that appear, to the film academy’s approximately 10,000 members, a little more like “acting,” and less like life?

Compared with Pacino’s outraged and outrageous Cohn, spraying a vulgarian’s spittle across Nichols’ magisterial “Angels,” Strong’s performance is a model of white-knuckle control, swaggering when Cohn exerts his power, wilting when he can’t. When Cohn learns that Trump has gifted him fake-diamond cuff links for what will turn out to be his final birthday, Strong invests the petty indignity with pathos, as a man who would step over anyone to get ahead realizes he’s subject to the same ruthless forces. Along with Will Brill’s turn in “Fellow Travelers,” painting Cohn as practically lovesick for his partner in anticommunism, G. David Schine, “The Apprentice” is the closest any screen actor has come to reflecting the description of the attorney on the AIDS Memorial Quilt: “Bully. Coward. Victim.”

“What I do feel, whoever plays any part ever, is that you have to take these things as seriously as you take your own life, and it is not a game, and that these people and their struggles and the experiences you’re trying to render are not a plaything,” Strong says. “If I didn’t believe that I could understand on some deep level his anguish and turmoil and his need, and the sort of Gordian knot that every character has but Roy has particularly — if I didn’t believe that I could understand it or connect to it in a way that is faithful or voracious, I wouldn’t have done it. I certainly don’t do these things just for my own self-aggrandizement.”

An actor in a hat looks into the lens.

“You have to take these things as seriously as you take your own life,” says Strong of diving into the role of Roy Cohn. “And it is not a game.”

(Marcus Ubungen / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Strong has become an almost scholarly fount of biographical information about Cohn, littering our conversation with enough details about the man’s home decor (porcelain frog figurines), taste in poetry (Joaquin Miller’s “Byron”) and dinner order at Le Cirque (Bumble Bee tuna, off-menu) to give Cohn‘s biographers a run for their money.

When Abbasi offered the role to Strong, the actor was already familiar with Cohn, not only from “Angels in America,” but also from the research he did after being approached to play Cohn in another film project about five years ago. Signing on to “The Apprentice” sent Strong’s prep work into overdrive, including studying video of Cohn to learn his “sui generis” voice — a hectoring New York sneer that’s authoritative but rarely loud — and interviewing Cohn profiler Ken Auletta. Strong says Cohn also represents his most dramatic physical transformation.

“I haven’t had to alter my body in that way,” says Strong, who underwent a doctor-supervised “starvation diet” and a regimen of tanning booth visits and biweekly spray tans to match Cohn’s notoriously leathery look. “He was obsessed with his physical appearance. He had a tremendous amount of vanity.”

With an Emmy for “Succession” and a Tony for this spring’s revival of Henrik Ibsen’s “Enemy of the People” under his belt, and Oscar buzz for his performance in “The Apprentice” already building, Strong’s own motivations are evolving. While career disappointment once spurred him, he is now just “looking for a limb to go out on.” I liken it, during the course of our conversation, to gymnast Simone Biles developing never-before-attempted vaults to challenge herself.

“I no longer feel thwarted in that way and I can pay my rent,” Strong says. “And I don’t take any of that for granted because it happened late for me. I have the luxury of choice and the luxury, more importantly, of getting to choose things that matter most to me, things that feel meaningful. I want to keep pushing myself — that Simone Biles thing of finding new ways to find the frontier and work that kind of requires a radical courage to do. Which for me is most things, because I find it all pretty fearful.”

Advertisement

After we’ve parted ways, Strong texts me a quote by Bruce Springsteen — “The pressures of the business are powerless in the face of what is real” — from music journalist Fred Goodman’s history “The Mansion on the Hill,” which Strong is reading to prepare to play Springsteen manager Jon Landau in the upcoming biopic starring Jeremy Allen White. I, too, am a collector of quotations, and after joking that newspaper stories should have epigraphs, I suggest one, from Wallace Stegner, that seems apropos to our conversation about Cohn: Present your subject in his own terms, judge him in yours.

“That’s a good one,” Strong texts. “For actors too.”

Movie Reviews

‘Deep Water’ Review: Renny Harlin’s Double-Dip Disaster Movie — Plane Crash + Shark Thriller — Has His Signature Schlock Touch

Published

on

‘Deep Water’ Review: Renny Harlin’s Double-Dip Disaster Movie — Plane Crash + Shark Thriller —  Has His Signature Schlock Touch

When a once-successful director finds himself stranded in a wilderness of misguided projects and indifferent audience response, he may try to reignite inspiration by going back to the ingredients of an iconic hit. If he can replicate the perfect storm of elements that made the earlier film work, maybe the new movie will put him back on top.

This kind of thing happens often enough — examples range from William Friedkin shooting for a West Coast “French Connection” with “To Live and Die in L.A.” to John McTiernan making “Die Hard with a Vengeance.” But we’re in a far more degraded realm of return-to-glory-days syndrome when it’s Renny Harlin out to recapture the low-trash spark of “Deep Blue Sea,” his well-liked exploitation action thriller. Talk about a 1999 movie that wasn’t about the brave new movie future!

It was about killer sharks (with enhanced intelligence!) eating people, and about a scientific experiment — something to do with curing Alzheimer’s — that was there to fill up the space between chompings. But “Deep Blue Sea,” whose big star was Thomas Jane, went down as a summer sleeper (it bit its way to $73 million domestic), and the nostalgic fondness that a lot of people have for it surely fed into why we’re now getting “Deep Water” (opening May 1), Harlin’s most lavishly scaled production in quite some time.

In the 1970s, disaster films had titles that described exactly what they were. “The Towering Inferno” was about a towering inferno, “Earthquake” was about an earthquake, and then there were films like “Meteor” and “Avalanche” and “The Swarm” and “The Hindenburg” and “City on Fire.” In that spirit, “Deep Water,” which is very much a neo-’70s disaster film. should have been called “Airplane Crash into a Sea of Jaws.” As it stands, the word in the film’s generic title that echoes that earlier Harlin movie is more than a bit ironic, since “deep” is just the word to describe what Renny Harlin’s movies are not. They are shallow. They are dramatically flat. They do not have interesting characters even on a schlock B-movie level. As a director, he has a sixth sense for how to reduce actors to walking slabs of pulp.

Yet there’s no denying that Renny Harlin, in his utilitarian action-hack way, has some chops. “Deep Water” starts out by introducing the main players on an intercontinental flight from Los Angeles to Shanghai. Aaron Eckhart, with his likable downcast valor, is the First Officer, a stalwart fellow who’s a bit of a ne’er-do-well (that’s why he’s never become a captain); he’s suffering from an oblique family trauma we can kind of suss out. Ben Kingsley is the captain, a jaded overseer on the verge of retirement who is introduced singing “Fly Me to the Moon” in a karaoke bar, where he somehow imagines that his crooning is going to have a seductive effect on the flight attendants seated at a table. (The truth is that he looks rather frighting in his sand-brown goatee.)

Advertisement

We’re also introduced to the passengers, who are real Jane and Johnny one-notes, though we do take special notice of Dan (Angus Sampson), a long-haired slovenly bellicose chain smoker whose bulky red plastic suitcase the camera tracks onto the plane. For a while, we think it must have a bomb in it. It doesn’t, but it does contain something that randomly ignites, setting a fire in the cargo pod, which becomes an explosion, which ricochets into the cabin, at which point a hole gets blown in the side, one of the engines catches fire, and this thing is going down.

It doesn’t take excessive skill to make a plane crash scary, but Harlin executes this one with stylish flamboyance, as bodies get sucked out of the plane and flying wine bottles turn into shrapnel. Our heroes want to try landing at an airport in Guam, but that plan goes out the window, as they barely manage to ground the plane in the middle of the ocean.

There were 257 passengers aboard, all but about 30 of whom are now dead. The plane is in pieces, the main two chunks being the cockpit and the fuselage, both of which have been reduced to floating canisters with wires popping out of the sides. The plane’s pieces are now, in effect, life rafts (though there are some actual oversize yellow inflatable rafts aboard that will come into play). If the proper distress signal was set off (there’s some question about whether that happened), they should be rescued in a matter of hours. But until then…sharks!

They are mako sharks, which to my movie-trained eyes don’t look all that different from the great white shark in “Jaws,” as they flop their giant razor-toothed mouths aboard the rafts. “Jaws” was scary because it was about anticipation and sudden fear and the power of suggestion. “Deep Water,” on the other hand, has little in the way of suggestion, which is why it’s more gory than scary. Harlin stages the shark attacks in an overt here-ya-go way, with the one consistent suspense issue being whether the shark will consume a victim whole or bite off his or her limb or simply leave them with a nasty gash (which happens quite often).

Meanwhile, two bros (one American, one Chinese) start off as enemies but get over that, the scurrilous Dan continues to assert what a dick he is by smoking and snapping at everyone, and Eckhart’s character bonds with Cora (Molly Belle Wright), the now-orphaned young girl aboard, which triggers a reappraisal of his own domestic situation. Human drama! Not. (Or, at least, not very much.) Yet there’s a way in which it matters not, since even back in the ’70s the “human drama” of disaster films was just the frame on which to hang the sensationalist fantasy of death porn and survival. “Deep Water” isn’t terrible for what it is, but what it is is disaster product.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Entertainment

Jada Pinkett Smith asks court to make Will Smith’s former friend pay her $49,000 legal bills

Published

on

Jada Pinkett Smith asks court to make Will Smith’s former friend pay her ,000 legal bills

Jada Pinkett Smith is asking a judge to make Bilaal Salaam cover the $49,000 in legal fees she racked up fighting claims he made in a December lawsuit.

According to a motion filed April 20 and obtained by The Times, Pinkett Smith is asking that Salaam pay $49,181.23, consisting of “reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred” in connection with Pinkett Smith’s successful special motion to strike Salaam’s complaint, “plus further fees and costs associated with this motion.”

Salaam — Will Smith’s former best friend of 40 years who also goes by Brother Bilaal — filed a lawsuit against the “Bad Moms” actor in December, alleging emotional distress and seeking $3 million in damages.

Salaam claimed that in September 2021, he attended a private birthday party for Will Smith at the Regency Calabasas Commons. According to his lawsuit, he was in the lobby of the movie theater when Pinkett Smith approached him with about seven members of her entourage and threatened him. Salaam’s suit claims that Pinkett Smith told him he would “end up missing or catch a bullet” if he kept “telling her personal business.” She also allegedly pressured him to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

In November 2023, Salaam appeared on the “Unwine With Tasha K” podcast and alleged that he walked into Duane Martin’s dressing room and saw Will Smith having a sexual encounter with the “All of Us” actor. He also made claims about Pinkett Smith’s sexual habits.

Advertisement

Pinkett Smith swiftly responded during an appearance on “The Breakfast Club” and said that Salaam started the rumors as part of a broader “money shakedown” and that his claims were “ridiculous and nonsense.”

“It’s not true and we’re going to take care of it,” she said. “We’re about to take legal action.”

Salaam beat Pinkett Smith to the courthouse and sued her in December, but Pinkett Smith asked the judge to toss the case in February.

According to the motion filed this week, the former “Red Table Talk” host argues Salaam should pay her hefty legal bills because she “prevailed on her anti-SLAPP motion” and the court struck all allegations relating to media statements “that formed the basis for Plaintiff’s three causes of action, as well as additional allegations regarding a cease-and-desist letter.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Michael’ Review: A Perfect Puzzle With Major Missing Pieces

Published

on

‘Michael’ Review: A Perfect Puzzle With Major Missing Pieces
Lionsgate

SPOILER NOTICE:

The following movie review does not contains direct spoilers for the film Michael, however general information in regards to the plot, characters, key climax points, biographical information and themes explored in the film will be heavily discussed. Please read at your own discretion, or after seeing the film in theaters.

There have been, so far, four films that aim to depict some portion of the beautifully tragic life of late pop music pioneer Michael Jackson, otherwise known to the world as The King Of Pop.

You’ve got The Jacksons: An American Dream, the near-perfect 1992 ABC miniseries that gave MJ, his brothers and verbally abusive father Joe Jackson equal screen time in order to make for a proper origin story. Then there’s Man in the Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story, an abysmal 2004 VH1 TV movie that acts as a spiritual sequel yet truly should’ve never been made. Almost a decade ago we got Michael Jackson: Searching for Neverland, the 2017 Lifetime Network attempt to cover his final years of life, told from the perspective of two bodyguards employed by him for merely two-and-a-half years.

Today (April 24), the world finally gets to see Michael. The 2026 true-to-form biopic boasts the biggest budget compared to the previous three projects, distribution handled by the renowned Lionsgate Films, a director’s chair occupied by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Brooklyn’s Finest) and MJ’s own nephew, Jaafar Jackson, starring in the titular role alongside a glowing supporting cast that includes Colman Domingo (Rustin), Nia Long (Love Jones), Miles Teller (Divergent) and Larenz Tate (Menace II Society) just to name a few. Not to mention, it’s got full backing from The Jacksons family and 100% musical clearance to assure his biggest hits are heard on the big screen.

Advertisement

With all that said, you might be expecting a masterpiece that borrows the best aspects from the original and rights the wrongs of the last two. Unfortunately, that’s not the case when it comes to Michael. Thankfully though, there’s so much more to love about this film in addition to a very strong potential for more.

Yes folks, we may very well be getting the first-ever sequel to a biopic sometime in the near future.

RELATED: You, Me & Tuscany Review – Sappy, Sweet, C+ Rom-Com

Before we get ahead of ourselves by discussing a potential sequel, let’s first start off with what you get out of Michael. The film covers Joe’s formation of The Jackson 5 in 1966 and ends with MJ’s iconic 1988 Wembley Stadium stop on the Bad Tour. The filler in-between covers their Chitlin’ Circuit days, the Motown era, run-ins with Gladys Knight and The Pips, finding his voice with Off The Wall, the epic creation of Thriller, the Motown 25 NBC special and the infamous Pepsi burning incident. Each of these scenes are done with great detail and a passion from all involved to get it as close to the real-life moments. However, what’s missing stands out like a sore thumb.

Both Rebbie and Janet are nowhere to be found — they each requested their likeness not be depicted — and neither is MJ’s longtime muse, Diana Ross. It was reported that actress Kat Graham was actually casted in the part, only to later have her scenes cut completely due to legalities. Off The Wall also gets painted as his solo debut of sorts, completely ignoring the four successful solo albums that preceded it when he was just a preteen. Also, while it’s perfectly clear who the movie is about based on the title, it does feel a bit off to see the closest people in his life demoted to barely-speaking supporting characters, save for Domingo’s powerful portrayal as mean ol’ Joe, Long as the ever-caring Mrs. Katherine and longtime bodyguard Bill Bray played by KeiLyn Durrel Jones.

Advertisement

On the positive side, Michael ultimately does more good than confusion. Jaafar is simply captivating when it comes to embodying his late superstar uncle, nailing everything from those easily-recognizable voice inflections to the classic dance moves. The film ends in 1988, right before MJ invests in Neverland Ranch, so don’t expect the heavy topic of his acquitted child sexual abuse allegations from 1993 and 2003 to be brought up either — well, yet anyway.

If in fact a “Jackson” sequel is in the works, we can only hope his full story is told with care, respect and most importantly the truth. Other important aspects we’d hope to see be depicted include an honest look at his vitiligo journey, the toll he suffered mentally as a result of the trials, the marriage, the kids, the dichotomy of balancing unprecedented riches against a substantial amount of debt and, yes, the prescription drug abuse that ultimately ended his life.

Overall, for everything Michael lacks there is something just as good to love about the film, and the potential for a sequel gives us hope that the best is still yet to come.

Watch the trailer for Michael below, and see for yourselves how The King Of Pop’s story began as his latest biopic hits theaters starting today:

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending