The long-running fascination and controversy surrounding Donald Trump, particularly during his early days as a real estate mogul on “The Apprentice,” continue to be a hotbed of discussion and, more frequently, legal disputes. The recent portrayal of Trump by Sebastian Stan in Ali Abbasi’s biographical film has stirred up a storm, presenting Trump in a less-than-favorable light. This cinematic endeavor has so deeply unsettled the former president that his legal team has threatened the filmmakers with cease-and-desist letters, upholding their duty to protect Trump’s larger-than-life reputation.
The premiere of Abbasi’s film at the Cannes Film Festival received a standing ovation, yet the reception from Trump’s camp was predictably adversarial. However, this begs the question: Is satire even potent when it involves someone like Trump? By 2024, when Trump’s life itself is akin to an elaborate satire, the challenge is figuring out how to effectively satirize someone who’s seemingly been a performance artist on the political stage all along. Trump’s existence has consistently been a spectacle, transforming supposedly serious discourse into something resembling a chaotic three-ring circus in ways that outpace televised satires like “Veep” or “Succession.”
Satire, at its core, serves a crucial cultural function: it lampoons, pokes holes in the facade of power, and lays bare its absurdities. Yet in the era of Trump, satire’s cutting edge seems to have lost its critical bite. The problem isn’t one of accuracy, but rather, that it’s consistently one-upped by reality itself.
Trump represents a unique “post-satire” persona. His mix of swagger, bluntness, and a reality TV-inspired self-image creates a character seemingly immune to the standard tools of satire. Attempting to mimic or mock Trump is akin to parodying a character who’s already a self-made caricature. Despite The Apprentice’s attempts to exaggerate Trump’s deficiencies for dramatic purposes, the risk remains: the film may not misfire because of poor craftsmanship, but because Trump has, for decades, been a walking punchline. Why parody a figure when his absurdity outstrips any fiction?
Comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have adeptly used satire to transform young adults into political enthusiasts with their fiery takedowns of past administrations since the Bush era. Their late-night jabs managed to slice through the political landscape, particularly when targeting figures operating within conventional frameworks. Bush, despite his gaffes, was still satirical material that worked within traditional constraints. Trump, however, flourishes amidst chaos, making the satirical approach less effective.
The complexities of political satire in contemporary American cinema, especially when it deals with creatures like Trump, seem more like a sagging defeat rather than triumph. These comedic forays appear toothless and outdated, hanging onto a setup now dismantled by Trump’s very existence. Filmmakers like Adam McKay, known for titles such as “Don’t Look Up” and “Vice,” are criticized for their overt messaging—perhaps subtlety has lost its place in a world where blatant madness is the usual order.
.
Consider Trump’s continual onslaught of tweets, wherein he deftly managed to satirize himself with each keystroke. Be it spelling errors like “covfefe,” or juvenile attacks on rivals such as “Crooked Hillary” and “Sleepy Joe,” Trump’s ludicrous self-portrayal offered a type of satire comedians found difficult to outdo. His rhetoric didn’t require embellishment, simply replication, hence “Saturday Night Live’s” decision to use verbatim excerpts from his diatribes. The act of parodying Trump became superfluous as he consistently did the heavy lifting for satirical creators.
The dilemma faced by satirists today is clear: how to critique and parody a figure who comfortably inhabits his reality as if it’s performance art? It seems the proverbial game is rigged. Even Alec Baldwin’s notable impersonation of Trump on “SNL,” which garnered both praise and denouncement, began waning as Trump aged in the public eye. Trump not only shrugged off these portrayals; he seemingly enjoyed them, wrapping them into his own narrative of being maligned by the media.
This situation points towards satire’s overall diminishing influence against the behemoth of Trump’s image. It’s not simply that Trump is a hard object of satire, but that any attempt to do so has lost its rebellious edge. Rather than diminishing his image, satire has inadvertently nourished his vast mythos, rendering him more unassailable.
Likewise, satire in Indian cinema rarely bears the same sharpness towards political figures as its Western counterpart. Indian films often default to hero-worship or melodrama, and any venture into political parody is sporadic. Bollywood occasionally dabbles in satire, but a cultural trend towards venerating political figures renders edgy satire financially unsound and fraught with peril. Unlike Trump’s self-parody, Indian politicians maintain crafted, untouchable personas, limiting cinematic critiques without controversy or backlash.
Gone are the times when satire like “The Dictator” or mockumentaries such as “The Interview” set high standards for political mockery. The genre must evolve in a landscape blurred by its own subjects.
As “The Apprentice” makes its way to theaters, it exposes critical questions about satire’s role in documenting and reflecting on amplified personas. Trump, who’s long proven unassailable to satire, turns critique into spectacle, thereby reinforcing his brand. For a showman of his caliber, this might just be the most precarious punchline of all.
