'The Apprentice' had 'A concept of a plan': Questionable filmmaking undermines solid performances

Content warning: sexual assault

Making a film that adequately portrays former President Donald J. Trump feels impossible, especially amid this year's election cycle. Yet, director Ali Abbasi and crew smartly honed in on a very specific and tumultuous time in Trump's life to create a serviceable biopic that grounds such a larger-than-life figure. 

"The Apprentice" chronicles Trump's (Sebastian Stan) rise to power and his toxic relationship with one of New York's most infamously corrupt lawyers: Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong). 

If there's one thing that needs to be praised, it's Sebastian Stan's remarkable transformation into Trump. Stan never dons Trump's infamous vocal intonations, instead opting to copy Trump's cadence, which works remarkably well for a feature film. Around halfway through the movie, you just start seeing Donald Trump.

All of his unique mannerisms, from the silhouette of his hair to how he purses his lips, are captured to perfection. Any lesser actor would have just done a lousy impression, but Stan's rendition of Trump, in the film's first half, gives him this distinct layer of humanity, making his eventual transformation all the more bleak.

Strong also performs admirably well and juggles both sides of Cohn's personality, from the cartoonishly evil to the genuinely pathetic. When the film begins, Strong's portrayal feels a little over-the-top and comical, with an ever-present "Kubrick stare." But as the story progresses, Cohn's persona unravels and Strong becomes a pitiful wreck, as he should.

Technically speaking, "The Apprentice" makes a remarkably bold choice by cropping the frame to a 4:3 aspect ratio and dousing the image in film grain and scan lines. This seemed like an attempt to ground the film's narrative and remind viewers that these events happened and are rooted in reality. Still, choosing to film with a high-quality digital camera and degrade the footage in post feels woefully cheap. 

One wonders how the film would've looked if it had taken an approach akin to Spike Lee's "Bamboozled" by filming with an actual old-school camera and sparingly using film. This method could have allowed for a much more visually engaging and authentic way to show Trump's rise in power as he goes from running lousy condominiums to luxurious skyscrapers.

Instead, the film flashes a quick montage and time skips from the late 70s to the 80s, which feels extraordinarily jarring. In five minutes, Stan goes from your typical fish out of water into the Trump we all know. His performance is excellent, but the sudden switch between personas feels rather clumsy and haphazard. In general, the film lacks a lot of subtlety, ultimately preventing it from being truly special.

This lack of nuance comes to a head in one particular scene near the film's conclusion, which bars it from any sort of recommendation. The scene contains a dramatization of Donald Trump allegedly sexually violating Ivana Trump (Maria Bakalova) in graphic and, quite frankly, horrifying detail. 

Now, any biopic of Donald Trump should explain his extensive history of sexual assault and violence. The film would undeniably feel incomplete without including this aspect of Trump's life.

But, choosing to actually show it on screen feels exceptionally misguided. Ivana Trump died in 2022, so there's no way of knowing if she, as the victim, would have approved of her trauma being portrayed on screen for thousands to watch. In essence, the filmmakers, most of whom were male, are actively profiting off of a woman's assault without a single iota of consent. 

There was absolutely a more nuanced way of delving into Trump's history of sexual abuse, and all of the filmmakers should feel ashamed that they refused to find it. For a film that aims to criticize Trump and, more broadly, capitalism's tendency to destroy and disregard people, this failure feels profoundly ironic and ultimately undoes the whole film.