Critics at Large | The New Yorker

Many of this year’s most talked-about releases were, in some sense, diagnostic: from Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners” to Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another,” films offered up assessments of the nation’s ills. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss these and other reflections of American life, which arrive at a time when reality itself feels more nebulous than ever. Then, the hosts consider the “broken mirror” of A.I., and how the second Trump Administration’s effort to erase unflattering chapters of U.S. history has further muddied the distinction between fact and fiction. Despite these dark developments, the art that’s emerged from this moment, much of it focussed on activists and renegades seeking change, also functions as a warning against stasis. Cunningham says, of the cultural shift: “This fixation on democracy on the ground—whether it’s violent or not, whether it’s misguided or not—I hope describes a yearning for more action. A move away from the mirror, and out into the streets.” Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Sinners” (2025)“Fruitvale Station” (2013)“ ‘Sinners’ Is a Virtuosic Fusion of Historical Realism and Horror,” by Richard Brody (The New Yorker)“Eddington” (2025)“ ‘Eddington’ and the American Berserk” (The New Yorker)“Gimme Shelter” (1970)“One Battle After Another” (2025)“One Paul Thomas Anderson Film After Another” (The New Yorker)“Bugonia” (2025)“Art in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” (The New Yorker)“Our Fads, Ourselves” (The New Yorker)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.Critics at Large is a weekly discussion from The New Yorker which explores the latest trends in books, television, film, and more. Join us every Thursday as we make unexpected connections between classic texts and pop culture. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

We all know the formula: it begins with a dead body, and quickly introduces a motley crew of outlandish characters, each with a motive for murder. The whodunnit genre has been a cultural fixture since the days of Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie—the latter of whom has been outsold only by the Bible and Shakespeare. Recently, though, the murder mystery has achieved a new level of saturation, with streaming services offering up a seemingly endless supply of glossy thrillers. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss how these new entries are updating the classic form. “Wake Up Dead Man,” the latest of Rian Johnson’s “Knives Out” movies, slyly incorporates social commentary, while shows like “Search Party” and “Only Murders in the Building” poke fun at the figure of the citizen sleuth. In our era of conspiracy theories and vigilante actors, there’s also a dark side to the archetype. “This desire to be the hero and to follow the logical trails and take things into your own hands—it's very appealing, if you do it right,” Schwartz says. “It’s great if you catch the right guy. If you don’t, and you catch the wrong one, the entire foundation of society crumbles.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Knives Out” (2019)“Glass Onion” (2022)“Wake Up Dead Man” (2025)“Big Little Lies” (2017-)“The White Lotus” (2021-)“And Then There Were None,” by Agatha Christie “Rian Johnson Is an Agatha Christie for the Netflix Age,” by Anna Russell (The New Yorker)“The Mirror Crack’d from Side to Side: A Miss Marple Mystery,” by Agatha Christie“Only Murders in the Building” (2021-)“Nicole Kidman Gives Us What We Want in the Silly, Soapy ‘Perfect Couple,’ ” by Vinson Cunningham (The New Yorker)“The Residence” (2025)“The Adventure of the Speckled Band,” by Arthur Conan Doyle“Search Party” (2016-22)“The Hound of the Baskervilles,” by Arthur Conan DoyleThe “Encyclopedia Brown” books“Clue” (1985)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.Critics at Large is a weekly discussion from The New Yorker which explores the latest trends in books, television, film, and more. Join us every Thursday as we make unexpected connections between classic texts and pop culture.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Since it was penned more than four hundred years ago, Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” has been in production nearly continuously, and has been adapted in many ways. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz consider why this story of a brooding young prince has continued to speak to audiences throughout the centuries. They discuss the new film “Hamnet,” directed by Chloé Zhao, which recasts the writing of “Hamlet” as Shakespeare’s response to the death of his child; Tom Stoppard’s absurdist play “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”; Michael Almereyda’s 2000 “Hamlet,” which presents the protagonist as a melancholy film student home from college; and other adaptations. What accounts for this story’s hold over audiences, centuries after it was written? “I think it endures because every generation has its version of the incomprehensible,” Cunningham says. “It’s not just death—it’s politics, it’s society. Everybody has to deal with their own version of ‘This does not make sense and yet it is.’ ”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Hamnet” (2025)“Hamnet,” by Maggie O’Farrell“Hamlet,” by William ShakespeareKenneth Branagh’s “Hamlet” (1996) Michael Almereyda’s “Hamlet” (2000)“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” (1990)John Gielgud’s “Hamlet” (1964)Robert Icke’s “Hamlet” (2017, 2022)“Every Generation Gets the Shakespeare It Deserves” by Drew Lichtenberg (The New York Times)“Hamlet and His Problems" by T. S. EliotNew episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.Critics at Large is a weekly discussion from The New Yorker which explores the latest trends in books, television, film, and more. Join us every Thursday as we make unexpected connections between classic texts and pop culture. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The American musical is in a state of flux. Today’s Broadway offerings are mostly jukebox musicals and blatant I.P. grabs; original ideas are few and far between. Meanwhile, Jon M. Chu’s earnest (and lengthy) two-part adaptation of “Wicked”—an origin story for the Wicked Witch of the West that first premièred on the Great White Way over twenty years ago—has struck a chord with today’s audiences. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss “Wicked” before stepping back to trace the evolution of the musical form, from the first shows to marry song and story in the nineteen-twenties to the seventies-era innovations of figures like Stephen Sondheim. Amid the massive commercial, technological, and aesthetic shifts of the last century, how has the form changed, and why has it endured? “People who don’t like musicals will often criticize their artificiality,” Schwartz says. “Some things in life are so heightened . . . yet they’re part of the real. Why not put them to music and have singing be part of it?”This episode originally aired on December 12, 2024.Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Wicked” (2024)“The Animals That Made It All Worth It,” by Naomi Fry (The New Yorker)“Ben Shapiro Reviews ‘Wicked’ ”“Frozen” (2013)“Hair” (1979)“The Sound of Music” (1965)“Anything Goes” (1934)“Show Boat” (1927)“Oklahoma” (1943)“Mean Girls” (2017)“Hamilton” (2015)“Wicked” (2003)“A Strange Loop” (2019)“Teeth” (2024)“Kimberly Akimbo” (2021)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.Critics at Large is a weekly discussion from The New Yorker which explores the latest trends in books, television, film, and more. Join us every Thursday as we make unexpected connections between classic texts and pop culture.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Vince Gilligan’s new show, “Pluribus,” opens with an unconventional apocalypse. A benevolent alien hive mind descends on Earth, commandeering the bodies of all but a handful of people who appear to be immune, including a curmudgeonly writer named Carol Sturka. Though the world that the “joined” are building seems ideal—no more crime, efficient resource distribution, an end to discrimination—it doesn’t leave much room for Carol’s messy humanity. Is it worth it? On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss “Pluribus” and other perfect societies imagined and enacted by artists and thinkers, from Thomas More’s 1516 satire, “Utopia,” to the Shaker movement and beyond. They reflect on why these experiments have rarely held up to scrutiny or benefitted more than a select few, and why we keep coming back to them anyway. “I’m not the most optimistic person,” Fry says. “But if you’re stuck in pessimistic, dystopic thinking, are you foreclosing on greater promise or greater potential of imagination?” Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Pluribus” (2025–)“Breaking Bad” (2008-13)“Better Call Saul” (2015-22)“The X-Files” (1993-2002)“The Giver,” by Lois Lowry“Utopia,” by Thomas More“Les Guérillères,” by Monique Wittig “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977)“The Testament of Ann Lee” (2025)“The Hunger Games,” by Suzanne Collins“Utopia for Realists,” by Rutger Bregman“Ragtime” (1996)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.Critics at Large is a weekly discussion from The New Yorker which explores the latest trends in books, television, film, and more. Join us every Thursday as we make unexpected connections between classic texts and pop culture.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices