How “Sinners” Revives the Vampire

In a new installment of the Critics at Large advice hotline, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz field calls from listeners on a variety of cultural dilemmas, and offer recommendations for what ails them. Callers’ concerns run the gamut from the lighthearted to the existential; several seek works to help ease the sting of the state of the world. “I can’t say that we will solve those deeper issues,” Cunningham says. “But to share art with somebody is to offer them a companion.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:The New York Issue of The New Yorker (May 12 & 19, 2025)“Birds of America,” by Lorrie Moore“Eighth Grade” (2018)“Gilead,” by Marilynne Robinson“Danny, the Champion of the World,” by Roald Dahl“Midnight Diner” (2016-19)“Sentimental Education,” by Gustave Flaubert“Middlemarch,” by George Eliot“My Life in Middlemarch,” by Rebecca Mead“How the Method Made Acting Modern,” by Alexandra Schwartz (The New Yorker)Charles Schulz’s “Peanuts”“First Reformed” (2017)“Better Things” (2016-22)“The Functionally Dysfunctional Matriarchy of ‘Better Things,’ ” by Alexandra Schwartz (The New Yorker)“Odes,” by Sharon OldsTJ Douglas’s “Dying”Mozart’s “The Magic Flute”“Peppa Pig” (2004—)Aaron Copland’s “Billy the Kid”Dennis Wilson’s “Pacific Ocean Blue”Caetano Veloso’s “Ofertório”Crosby, Stills & Nash’s début albumNew episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The vampire has long been a way to explore the shadow side of society, and “Sinners,” Ryan Coogler’s new blockbuster set in the Jim Crow-era South, is no exception. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss what “Sinners,” which fuses historical realism with monster-movie-style horror, illuminates about America in 2025. They trace the archetype from such nineteenth-century texts as “The Vampyre” and “Dracula” to the “Twilight” moment of the aughts, when Edward Cullen, an ethical bloodsucker committed to abstinence, turned the vampire from a predatory outsider into a Y.A. heartthrob. What do he and his ilk have to say today? “The vampire is the one who can unsettle our notions, and maybe give us new notions,” Cunningham says. “The vampire comes in and asks, ‘But have you considered this?’ ” Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Sinners” (2025)“Black Panther” (2018)“The Vampyre,” by John Polidori“In the Blood,” by Joan Acocella (The New Yorker)“Dracula,” by Bram Stoker“Dracula” (1931)“Love at First Bite” (1979)“The Lost Boys” (1987)“True Blood” (2008–14)“Twilight” (2008)“What We Do in the Shadows” (2019–24)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

For nearly as long as we’ve been waging war, we’ve sought ways to chronicle it. “Warfare,” a new movie co-directed by the filmmaker Alex Garland and the former Navy SEAL Ray Mendoza, takes an unorthodox approach, recreating a disastrous real-life mission in Iraq according to Mendoza’s own memories and those of the soldiers who fought alongside him. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss how “Warfare” ’s visceral account brings us closer to a certain kind of truth, while also creating a space into which viewers can project their own ideologies. The hosts consider how artists have historically portrayed conflict and its aftermath—referencing Virginia Woolf’s depiction of a shell-shocked soldier in “Mrs. Dalloway” and Vietnam-era classics such as “Apocalypse Now” and “Full Metal Jacket”—and how “Warfare,” with its emphasis on firsthand experience, marks a departure from much of what came before. “That personal tinge to me seems to be characteristic of the age,” Cunningham says. “Part of the emotional appeal is, This happened, and I’m telling you. It’s not diaristic—but it is testimonial.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Warfare” (2025)“Apocalypse Now” (1979)“Full Metal Jacket” (1987)“Beau Travail” (1999)“Saving Private Ryan” (1998)“The Hurt Locker” (2008)“Zero Dark Thirty” (2012)“Barry” (2018–23)“Mrs. Dalloway,” by Virginia Woolf“In Flanders Fields,” by John McCraeNew episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The tension between art and commerce is a tale as old as time, and perhaps the most dramatic clashes in recent history have played out in Hollywood. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz explore how moviemaking and the business behind it have been depicted over the decades, from Lillian Ross’s classic 1952 work of reportage, “Picture,” to Robert Altman’s pitch-black 1992 satire “The Player.” In “The Studio,” a new Apple TV+ series, Seth Rogen plays a hapless exec who’s convinced that art-house filmmaking and commercial success can go hand in hand. At a moment when theatregoing is on the decline and the industry is hyper-focussed on existing I.P., that sentiment feels more naïve than realistic. And yet the show’s affection for the golden age of cinema is infectious—and perhaps even cause for optimism. “Early auteurs were people who knew Hollywood and could marshal its resources toward the benefit of their vision,” Cunningham says. “I wonder if now is the time for people who are seasoned in the way of Hollywood to really think about how it can be angled toward making art.” Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“The Studio” (2025–)“Veep” (2012-19)“The Player” (1992)“The Pat Hobby Stories,” by F. Scott Fitzgerald“Picture,” by Lillian Ross“Why Los Angeles Is Becoming a Production Graveyard,” by Winston Cho (The Hollywood Reporter)The New Yorker’s Oscars Live BlogNew episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Gossip, an essential human pastime, is full of contradictions. It has the potential to be as destructive to its subjects as it is titillating to its practitioners; it can protect against very real threats, as in the case of certain pre-#MeToo whisper networks, or tip over into the realm of conspiracy. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz consider the role gossip has played in society over the centuries. They discuss Kelsey McKinney’s new book on the topic, “You Didn’t Hear This from Me,” which Schwartz recently reviewed in The New Yorker, and consider instructive cultural examples—from the Old Testament to “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.” Today, many celebrities have embraced being talked about as a badge of honor, even as new technologies allow questionable assertions about anyone—famous or otherwise—to spread more freely and quickly than ever before. “Just being in public makes you potentially fodder for gossip,” Schwartz says. “I do worry about a world in which privacy is compromised for everybody.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“You Didn’t Hear This from Me: (Mostly) True Notes on Gossip,” by Kelsey McKinney“Is Gossip Good for Us?,” by Alexandra Schwartz (The New Yorker)“A Lover’s Discourse,” by Roland Barthes“Grease” (1978)“The House of Mirth,” by Edith Wharton“The Custom of the Country,” by Edith Wharton“Moses, Man of the Mountain,” by Zora Neale Hurston“Emma,” by Jane Austen“Gossip Girl” (2007-12)“The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” (2010—)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The first episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” released in 2009, consisted mostly of its host smoking weed, cracking jokes, and futzing with technical equipment. But Rogan quickly proved adept at the kind of casual, nonconfrontational interviews that have made the show such an enormous success in 2025: it regularly tops podcast charts and features hours-long conversations with the most powerful figures in politics. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz are joined by fellow staff writer Andrew Marantz to discuss where Rogan’s podcast sits within a growing new-media ecosystem that hinges on parasociality. Marantz recently profiled the Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who spends hours online every day addressing a viewership of tens or hundreds of thousands, to whom he issues leftist takes on the news in real time—alongside a healthy dose of gym content. Figures like Rogan and Piker, both of whom have won the loyalty of young men, stand to shape not only the views of their audiences but the art of politics itself. “Being able to hang in a kind of unscripted way. . . I think it just becomes more and more essential,” says Marantz. “There turns out to be a huge voting bloc of people who will, No. 1, vibe with you, and, No. 2, think about what you’re saying.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:Joe Rogan’s November, 2024 interview with Theo VonJoe Rogan’s February, 2025 interview with Elon Musk“The Battle for the Bros,” by Andrew Marantz (The New Yorker)Hasan Piker’s Twitch channel“This Is Gavin Newsom”New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

In 1939, reviewing the beloved M-G-M classic “The Wizard of Oz” for The New Yorker, the critic Russell Maloney declared that the film held “no trace of imagination, good taste, or ingenuity.” The use of color was “eye-straining,” the dialogue was unbelievable, and the movie as a whole was “a stinkeroo.” This take might shock today’s audiences, but Maloney is far from the only critic to go so pointedly against the popular view. In a special live show celebrating The New Yorker’s centenary, the hosts of Critics at Large discuss this and other examples drawn from the magazine’s archives, including Dorothy Parker’s 1928 takedown of “Winnie-the-Pooh” and Pauline Kael’s assessment of Al Pacino as “a lump” at the center of “Scarface.” These pieces reveal something essential about the role of criticism and the value of thinking through a work’s artistic merits (or lack thereof) on the page. “I felt all these feelings while reading Terrence Rafferty tearing to shreds ‘When Harry Met Sally…,’ ” Alexandra Schwartz says. “But it made the movie come alive for me again, to have to dispute it with the critic.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Lies, Lies, and More Lies,” by Terrence Rafferty (The New Yorker)“Bitches and Witches,” by John Lahr (The New Yorker)“Don’t Shoot the Book-Reviewer; He’s Doing the Best He Can,” by Clifton Fadiman (The New Yorker)“The Feminine Mystique,” by Pauline Kael (The New Yorker)“The Wizard of Hollywood,” by Russell Maloney (The New Yorker)“The Fake Force of Tony Montana,” by Pauline Kael (The New Yorker)“Renoir’s Problem Nudes,” by Peter Schjeldahl (The New Yorker)“Humans of New York and the Cavalier Consumption of Others,” by Vinson Cunningham (The New Yorker)“The Great Sadness of Ben Affleck,” by Naomi Fry (The New Yorker)“President Killers and Princess Diana Find Musical Immortality,” by Alexandra Schwartz (The New Yorker)“Obscure Objects of Desire: On Jeffrey Eugenides,” by Alexandra Schwartz (The Nation)“Reading ‘The House at Pooh Corner,’ ” by Dorothy Parker (The New Yorker)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

For many of us, daily life is defined by a near-constant stream of decisions, from what to buy on Amazon to what to watch on Netflix. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz consider how we came to see endless selection as a fundamental right. The hosts discuss “The Age of Choice,” a new book by the historian Sophia Rosenfeld, which traces how our fixation with the freedom to choose has evolved over the centuries. Today, an abundance of choice in one sphere often masks a lack of choice in others—and, with so much focus on individual rather than collective decision-making, the glut of options can contribute to a profound sense of alienation. “When all you do is choose, choose, choose, what you do is end up by yourself,” Cunningham says. “Putting yourself with people seems to be one of the salves.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Could Anyone Keep Track of This Year’s Microtrends?” by Danielle Cohen (The Cut)“The Age of Choice: A History of Freedom in Modern Life,” by Sophia Rosenfeld“The Federalist Papers,” by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay“What Does It Take to Quit Shopping? Mute, Delete and Unsubscribe,” by Jordyn Holman and Aimee Ortiz (The New York Times)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

“The Pitt,” which recently began streaming on Max, spans a single shift in the life of a doctor at an underfunded Pittsburgh hospital where, in the course of fifteen gruelling hours, he and his team struggle to keep up with a seemingly endless stream of patients. The show has been praised by lay-viewers and health-care professionals alike for its human drama and its true-to-life portrayal of structural issues that are rarely seen onscreen. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz parse how “The Pitt” fits alongside beloved medical shows like “E.R.” and “Grey’s Anatomy.” While the new series upholds many of the tropes of the genre, it’s set apart by its emphasis on accuracy and on the daily struggles—and rewards—of laboring toward a collective goal. At the heart of “The Pitt” is a question that, in 2025, is top of mind for many of us: does the for-profit medical system actually allow for humane care? “Faith in these institutions has eroded,” Schwartz says. “At the low point of such faith and trust, what happens to build it back?”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“The Pitt” (2025-)“E.R.” (1994-2009)“Grey’s Anatomy” (2005-)“This Is Going to Hurt” (2022)“House” (2004-12)“The Bear” (2022–)Doctor Mike’s YouTube channelSteveoie’s YouTube channelNew episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

“Severance” is an office drama with a twist: the central characters have undergone a procedure to separate their work selves (“innies,” in the parlance of the show) from their home selves (“outies”). The Apple TV+ series is just the latest cultural offering to explore how the modern world asks us to compartmentalize our lives in increasingly drastic ways. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz trace the trope of the “double” over time, from its nineteenth-century origins in such works as “Jane Eyre” and “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” to the “passing” novels of the nineteen-twenties and thirties. Today’s Oscar front-runners are rife with doubles, too, including those seen in  the Demi Moore-led body-horror film “The Substance” and “The Apprentice,” in which a young Donald Trump fashions himself in the image of his mentor, Roy Cohn. At a time when technological advances and social platforms allow us to present—or to engineer—an optimized version of our lives, it’s no wonder our second selves are haunting us anew. “I think the double will always exist because of the hope for wholeness,” Cunningham says. “It's such a strong desire that the shadow of that whole self—the doppelgänger—will always be lurking at the edges of our imagination.” Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Severance” (2022—)“The Substance” (2024)“A Different Man” (2024)“Frankenstein,” by Mary Shelley“The Apprentice” (2024)“Passing,” by Nella LarsenKey and Peele’s sketch “Phone Call”“Jane Eyre,” by Charlotte Brontë“Lisa and Lottie,” by Erich KästnerWilliam Shakespeare’s “As You Like It”“The Uncanny,” by Sigmund FreudEdmond Rostand’s “Cyrano de Bergerac”New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices