Reality television is all about artifice, and contestants on “The Bachelor” often seem more interested in becoming influencers than in finding a spouse—but “The Golden Bachelor,” a new spinoff starring a seventy-two-year-old widower named Gerry, has been hailed for its surprising sincerity. On this episode of Critics at Large, the staff writers Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss how the show eschews—and, at times, reinforces—the tropes that have polarized viewers of the ABC franchise, and what a genre known for its phoniness can reveal about actual human emotions and experiences. The hosts consider other depictions of sex and romance at this stage of life, including Philip Roth’s memorable rendering of an older man’s libido in “The Dying Animal” and HBO’s “And Just Like That . . . ,” a rare look at older women’s erotic prospects. Then, they take a step back to examine how series like “The Bachelor” have shaped our conception of love stories writ large. “The Golden Bachelor” ’s insistence on the vitality of its contestants can feel like a step forward, but what does it mean that the show is so fixated on what Schwartz calls “a second teen-agerdom”? “The boomers set a model for what it is to be young that persists for all the generations that have followed,” she says. “Now here they are again, saying, ‘We’re here; yes, we’re older; and we want to get old in our own way.’ ”

New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.

Is “The Golden Bachelor” Too Good to Be True?

Critics at Large is a weekly culture podcast from The New Yorker. Every Thursday, the staff writers Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss current obsessions, classic texts they’re revisiting with fresh eyes, and trends that are emerging across books, television, film, and more. The show runs the gamut of the arts and pop culture, with lively, surprising conversations about everything from Salman Rushdie to “The Real Housewives.” Through rigorous analysis and behind-the-scenes insights into The New Yorker’s reporting, the magazine’s critics help listeners make sense of our moment—and how we got here.

Society & Culture

Personal Journals

History

Philosophy

Places & Travel

The rap superstars Drake and Kendrick Lamar have been on a collision course for a decade, trading periodic diss tracks to assert their superiority—but earlier this month the long-simmering beef erupted into a showdown that said as much about the artists as it did about the art. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz examine how the back-and-forth devolved from a litigation of craft into a series of ad-hominem attacks alleging everything from cultural appropriation to pedophilia. They discuss the way rivalries function in the creative world, fuelling new work and compelling audiences to pay closer attention to it than ever before. The hosts also consider other feuds of note, from a nineteenth-century debate over Shakespearean actors that ended in violence to the writer Renata Adler’s blistering takedown of the film critic Pauline Kael in The New York Review of Books. Why do so many of these schisms revolve around fundamental questions of authenticity and belonging? And, once they start to spiral, is there any going back? “Conflict can be productive emotionally and also artistically,” Schwartz says. “But this is not a place that we can permanently reside.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“DAMN.,” by Kendrick Lamar“To Pimp a Butterfly,” by Kendrick Lamar“Control,” by Big Sean featuring Kendrick Lamar and Jay Electronica“First Person Shooter,” by Drake featuring J. Cole“Like That,” by Future, Metro Boomin, and Kendrick Lamar“Push Ups,” by Drake“Taylor Made Freestyle,” by Drake“Back to Back,” by Drake“euphoria,” by Kendrick Lamar“6:16 in LA,” by Kendrick Lamar“meet the grahams,” by Kendrick Lamar“Not Like Us,” by Kendrick Lamar“THE HEART PART 6,” by Drake“Stormy Daniels’s American Dream,” by Naomi Fry (The New Yorker)“The Perils of Pauline,” by Renata Adler (The New York Review of Books)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.

Kendrick Lamar, Drake, and the Benefits of Beef

Over the past several years, true crime’s hold on the culture has tightened into a vice grip, with new titles flooding podcast charts and streaming platforms on a daily basis. This week on Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz take stock of the phenomenon, first by speaking with fans of the genre to understand its appeal. Then, onstage at the 2024 Cascade PBS Ideas Festival, they continue the discussion with The New Yorker’s Patrick Radden Keefe, whose books “Empire of Pain” and “Say Nothing” are exemplars of the form. The panel considers Keefe’s recent piece, “The Oligarch’s Son,” which illuminates the journalistic challenges of reporting on sordid events—not least the difficulty of managing the emotions and expectations of victims’ families. As its appeal has skyrocketed, true crime has come under greater scrutiny. The most successful entries bypass lurid details and shed light on the society in which these transgressions occur. But “the price you have to pay in sociology, in anthropology, in enriching our understanding of something beyond the crime itself—it’s fairly high,” Keefe says. “You have to remember that this is a real story about real people. They’re alive. They’re out there.” This episode was recorded on May 4, 2024 at the Cascade PBS Ideas Festival, in Seattle, Washington. Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“UK True Crime Podcast”“My Favorite Murder”“Empire of Pain,” by Patrick Radden Keefe“Say Nothing,” by Patrick Radden Keefe“Paradise Lost,” by John Milton“A Loaded Gun,” by Patrick Radden Keefe (The New Yorker)“The Oligarch’s Son,” by Patrick Radden Keefe (The New Yorker)“Capote” (2005)“In Cold Blood,” by Truman Capote (The New Yorker)“The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst” (2015, 2024)“Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders,” by Curt Gentry and Vincent Bugliosi“Law & Order” (1990–)“Dahmer—Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” (2022)“The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story” (2016)“O.J.: Made in America” (2016)“Lost Girls: An Unsolved American Mystery,” by Robert KolkerNew episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.

Our Collective Obsession with True Crime

From “Raging Bull” to “A League of Their Own,” films about athletes have commanded the attention of even the most sports-skeptical viewers. The pleasure of watching the protagonist undergo a test of body and spirit, proving their worth to society and to themselves—often with a training montage thrown in for good measure—is undeniable. Luca Guadagnino’s steamy new tennis film, “Challengers,” applies this formula in a different context, mining familiar themes like rivalry and camaraderie for their erotic potential. On this episode of Critics at Large, the staff writers Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss how recent entries like “Challengers” and last year’s Zac Efron-led wrestling drama, “The Iron Claw,” reflect a more contemporary view of masculinity than their predecessors do. The hosts also assemble their “hall of fame” of sports films, including Spike Lee’s “He Got Game,” the nineties classic “Cool Runnings,” and the rom-com “Love & Basketball.” They argue that the genre, at its best, offers auteurs the chance to embrace their instincts. “For our most stylish filmmakers, I would just lay down the gauntlet. If you want to express to us your personal vision, do a sports movie,” Cunningham says. “Because we’ll know what you care about: visually, sensually—we will know.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Challengers” (2024)“The Iron Claw” (2023)“Rocky IV” (1985)“Black Swan” (2010)“A League of Their Own” (1992)“Cool Runnings” (1993)“Raging Bull” (1980)“He Got Game” (1998)“Love & Basketball” (2000)“A League of Their Own” (2022—)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.

Why the Sports Movie Always Wins

“Civil War,” Alex Garland’s divisive new action flick, borrows iconography—and actual footage—from the America of today as set dressing for a hypothetical, fractured future. Though we know that the President is in his third term, and that Texas and California have formed an unlikely alliance against him, very little is said about the politics that brought us to this point. Garland’s true interest lies not with the cause of the carnage but with the journalists compelled to document it. On this episode of Critics at Large, the staff writers Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz debate whether the film glamorizes violence, or whether it’s an indictment of the way audiences have become inured to it through repeated exposure. The hosts consider Susan Sontag’s “On Photography,” which assesses the impact of the craft, and “War Is Beautiful,” a compendium that explores how photojournalists have historically aestheticized and glorified unthinkable acts. From the video of George Floyd’s killing to photos of Alan Kurdi, the young Syrian refugee found lying dead on a Turkish beach, images of atrocities have galvanized movements and commanded international attention. But what does it mean to bear witness in the age of social media, with daily, appalling updates from conflict zones at our fingertips? “I think all of us are struggling with what to make of this complete overabundance,” Schwartz says. “On the other hand, we’re certainly aware of horror. It’s impossible to ignore.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Civil War” (2024)“Ex Machina” (2014)“Natural Born Killers” (1994)“The Doom Generation” (1995)“War Is Beautiful,” by David Shields“On Photography,” by Susan Sontag“Joan Didion: The Center Will Not Hold” (2017)New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.

“Civil War” ’s Unsettling Images

Since the turn of the millennium, HBO’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm” has slyly satirized the ins and outs of social interaction. The series—which follows a fictionalized version of its creator and star, Larry David, as he gets into petty disputes with anyone and everyone who crosses his path—aired its last episode on Sunday, marking the end of a twelve-season run. On this episode of Critics at Large, the staff writers Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss the show’s “weirdly moving” conclusion as well as its over-all legacy. Then they consider other notable TV endings: some divisive (“Sex and the City”), some critically acclaimed (“Succession”), some infamously rage-inspiring (“Game of Thrones”). What are the moral and narrative stakes of a finale, and why do we subject these episodes—which represent only a tiny fraction of the work as a whole—to such crushing analytic pressure? “This idea of an ending ruining the show is alien to me,” Cunningham says. “I won’t contest that endings are different—distinct. Are they better? I don’t know.”Read, watch, and listen with the critics:“Curb Your Enthusiasm” (2000-24)“Seinfeld” (1989-98)“Sex and the City” (1998-2004)“Succession” (2018-23)“The Hills” (2006-10)“Game of Thrones” (2011-19)“Breaking Bad” (2008-13) “Little Women,” by Louisa May Alcott

Is “The Golden Bachelor” Too Good to Be True?

Download our free app to listen on your phone