History will not look fondly on lawyer Roy Cohn. Not only
will books be written about condemning the man, and deservedly so, but this
film will also be a part of that negative look at his life and times. But there
will still be a problem with that reflection of Cohn and this film bears that
out.
Cohn came to prominence when was the prosecutor for the U.S.
Department of Justice in the trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. The film
paint a picture of him as a heartless, determined prosecutor in the case but at
the same time (as with many who talk about it) fails to note that recent
documents have proven that they were indeed guilty.
He then increased his notoriety by assisting Senator Joseph
McCarthy during his investigation into communist infiltrating the country.
Using any means necessary to achieve their goals this would eventually lead to
the downfall of McCarthy as he took things too far, many times encouraged by
Cohn. Labeled a witch hunt and known for the blacklisting of many in Hollywood,
the hearings have gained a reputation for being an attack on upright citizens.
Again while the film covers this it doesn’t acknowledge that recent documents
have proven much of what McCarthy claimed was true.
As the film notes these two incidents helped catapult Cohn
into the limelight, a celebrity status that he not only enjoyed but relished
in. It also led him to a lucrative career as a lawyer who would use any and all
means he could find to win his cases. For Cohn there seemed to be no right or
wrong, there was just winning. This led him to become a lawyer representing the
well-known and wealthy including the owners of Club 54, George Steinbrenner,
Aristotle Onassis and a then business owner and developer named Donald Trump
among others.
The film delves into the personal life of Cohn as well,
noting that while he publicly admonished, prosecuted and condemned homosexuals
in public he was one himself behind closed doors. The film portrays this as
perhaps not so much a secret as a well-known fact that few discussed. It even
highlights one of his partners in interviews.
The film uses many interviews with various people as it
paints the picture of a man who was controlling, vindictive and an all-around
sleaze ball. The type of lawyer that you would hate to face in court but who
you would love defending you. It also notes much of his involvement with
political figures in the past as he worked on various campaigns. At the same
time you have to wonder how much help he could have provided as he was getting
older about this time. The same thought ran through my mind knowing that he
died in 1986.
While he died 30 years before Trump was elected as President
of the United States, it doesn’t stop director/producer Matt Tyrnauer from
attempting to link Cohn and Trump together in a political sense. While Cohn
represented Trump back in the late 70s as his lawyer, Tyrnauer tries to create
the impression that Cohn was the mastermind that created the political figure
that has become Donald Trump. This gets mentioned throughout the film and is
perhaps its biggest fault.
What could have been an illuminating documentary about the
life of Cohn it ends up being a diatribe of anti-Trump sentiment. I wondered
about this while watching the film and then viewing the extras it became clear
as Tyrnauer states that his interest in the story began when Trump was elected
and how he saw something wrong in that. It is an admission of sorts that the
true story here was to paint a picture that could or could not actually have
taken place, but that innuendo and supposition might be able to do damage.
This is not a view of support or condemnation for Trump. But
when film makers, documentarians in particular, make their goal not to tell the
story of their subject but to sway people’s beliefs then the category of their
films changes from documentary to propaganda. That was something that Roy Cohn
was a master of which makes it a bit unusual to view a movie that condemns the
practices of Cohn using the same methods in their depiction of him.
Cohn was not a good man and this documentary does prove
that. But its obvious intent to be something more than that mars the end
result. For that reason I consider this film more a personal view of its
creator about the subject and trying to tie it to something it sholdn't be and less offering a historical background.
No comments:
Post a Comment