“Love Story,” an FX series produced by Ryan Murphy, drops audiences straight into the lives of one of the most talked-about couples of the nineties: J.F.K., Jr., and the style icon Carolyn Bessette. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss how the show re-creates the look and fashion of the era in granular detail while reducing the relationship itself to a generic fairy tale. Despite its many flaws, the show has been embraced with a zeal that reflects the enduring allure of the Kennedys—often said to be the closest thing America has to a royal family. The hosts consider why this political dynasty has so persisted in the popular imagination, discussing everything from the work of the paparazzo Ron Galella to Oliver Stone’s “JFK” and Pablo Larrain’s “Jackie,” two very different treatments of the aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. “Love Story” ’s focus on style underscores how much the family’s legacy lives in aesthetics, which risks obscuring some of the darker chapters of its history. “It does seem like we have ever more efficiently stripped the Kennedys and their image, and their style, from any notions of political power,” Cunningham says. “The look of something and the sort of moral thrust of something are not always one to one working in parallel.”

Read, watch, and listen with the critics:

“Love Story” (2026–)
“Once Upon a Time: The Captivating Life of Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy,” by Elizabeth Beller
“How Can ‘Love Story’ Get Away With This?,” by Daryl Hannah (The New York Times)
“American Prince: JFK Jr.” (2025)
“Seinfeld” (1989-98)
“Jackie” (2016)
“The Kennedy Imprisonment,” by Garry Wills
The photography of Ron Galella
“JFK” (1991)
“A Battle with My Blood,” by Tatiana Schlossberg (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.

On this episode of Critics at Large, with the ninety-eighth Academy Awards just around the corner, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz are joined by their fellow staff writer Michael Schulman to take stock of Oscars season. They discuss the biggest races and consider whether the year’s Best Picture nominees—many of them both critical and commercial successes—might represent a return to the bygone era of “grownup movies.” At the center of all this pageantry is the host: a notoriously tricky role for even the most seasoned performers. Together, the critics revisit the highs and lows of Oscars hosting history, from the long tenure of Bob Hope to the golden age of Billy Crystal. These m.c.s’ success hinges on their ability to walk a fine line, embodying the celebratory spirit of the evening while also poking fun at its absurdity. “It’s about that insider-outsider aspect. You are the court jester,” Schwartz says. “Are you really wanting to be vizier to the king, or are you O.K. in that jester role?”

Read, watch, and listen with the critics:

“Oscar Wars,” by Michael Schulman
“Marty Supreme” (2025)
“Sinners (2025)
“The Secret Agent” (2025)
“One Battle After Another” (2025)
“‘Come to Brazil?’ The Oscars Just Might,” by Michael Schulman (The New Yorker)
“Sentimental Value” (2025)
“The Mastermind” (2025)
“Peter Hujar’s Day” (2025)
Billy Crystal’s opening monologue for the 1990 Oscars
Chris Rock’s opening monologue for the 2005 Oscars
Ricky Gervais’s opening monologue for the 2020 Golden Globes
Nikki Glaser’s opening monologue for the 2026 Golden Globes

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.

When Emily Brontë published “Wuthering Heights,” in 1847, critics were baffled, alarmed, and mostly unimpressed. James Lorimer, writing in the North British Review, promised that the novel would “never be generally read.” Nearly two centuries later, it’s regarded as one of the great works of English literature. In a live taping of Critics at Large at the 92nd Street Y, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss the staying power of the original text and the countless adaptations it’s inspired, from the 1939 film featuring Laurence Olivier to Andrea Arnold’s 2011 version. The most recent attempt comes from the director Emerald Fennell, whose new “Wuthering Heights,” starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, reads as a romantic fever dream. The movie has been polarizing in part for the way it excises some of the weirder and wilder aspects of its source material. But what’s discarded—or emphasized—can also be revealing. “It’s an audacious proposition to adapt a great novel … I don’t think it needs to be faithful, necessarily,” Fry says. “The adaptation itself becomes a portrait of the time in which it’s made.”

Read, watch, and listen with the critics:

“Wuthering Heights,” by Emily Brontë
Kate Bush’s “Wuthering Heights”
Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” (2026)
“Emerald Fennell’s ‘Wuthering Heights’ Never Plumbs the Depths,” by Justin Chang (The New Yorker)
“Barbie” (2023)
“Saltburn” (2023)
“Promising Young Woman” (2020)
“Jane Eyre,” by Charlotte Brontë
“The Communist Manifesto,” by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx (1848)
Peter Kosminsky’s “Wuthering Heights” (1992)
William Wyler’s “Wuthering Heights” (1939)
Andrea Arnold’s “Wuthering Heights” (2011)
“All the King’s Men,” by Robert Penn Warren
“I Love L.A.” (2025–)

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.