Is Michael Rapaport Ruining The Traitors?

by

Season four of The Traitors is back, and you can count on a few things: stylish looks from Alan Cumming and Lala, chilly breakfasts for the contestants, and one player who’s stirring up drama both in the house and among viewers. Last year, that player was Tom Sandoval, who arrived at the castle with a lot of negative attention due to his highly publicized breakup. However, he eventually won fans over with his energetic personality and enthusiasm for the show, constantly stealing the spotlight. This season, Michael Rapaport is filling a similar role. Like Sandoval, he doesn’t have any obvious allies among the reality stars or gamers, and he’s proving to be a divisive figure.

Many people recognize Michael Rapaport as an actor, though some might remember him from a particularly frustrating season of Justified. Others know him for his controversial views on Palestine and his criticism of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. For those unfamiliar with him, it might be surprising to see this outspoken personality on The Traitors, and they might wonder how long he’ll last. After the show’s three-episode premiere, Vulture critics Roxana Hadadi and Nicholas Quah discussed whether Rapaport is a positive or negative addition to the cast.

Spoilers through episode three, “Show Me Your Faces,” lie ahead.

Let me state this upfront: I’m not trying to defend Michael Rapaport. Honestly, like most people watching, I find him irritating and a poor player. If he actually tries to run for mayor of New York City in 2029, I suspect he’d be just as frustrating. What I am arguing for is why he’s a good addition to the show’s cast. I believe having someone who stirs things up is valuable, especially after four seasons when things can become predictable and people start forming tight groups. And Rapaport, because he’s difficult to get along with, perfectly fits that role. It seems you don’t share that view.

Roxana Hadadi: We’re not going to spend time debating Rapaport’s character outside of the show itself. We could be here all day just agreeing about how unpleasant he is.

NQ: No, no. Please do.

Let’s shift our focus from just what he’s contributing and talk about the bigger picture of the season as a whole.

Like usual, the contestants are split into three main groups: the reality TV stars from The Real Housewives, who tend to stick together; the strategy players from shows like Survivor and Big Brother, who also quickly form an alliance; and a third group of well-known personalities who don’t have any pre-existing connections. It’s tough for those in the third group – including Donna Kelce, chef Kristen Kish, comedian Ron Funches, and Rapaport – because they don’t have immediate bonds with anyone else and have to work extra hard to earn the trust of the other players and find a group to join. I feel for Rapaport, as he’s entering the game knowing he’s the odd man out and that he’ll need to make friends quickly to stay in the competition.

Sandoval faced similar criticism last year, feeling he needed to overcome public perception to prove himself as both a competitor and a strategist. He’s been working to improve his image through shows like Special Forces: World’s Toughest Test, and it’s been gradually changing people’s opinions. However, this isn’t about Sandoval; it’s about Rapaport. I just want to explain why I don’t understand Rapaport’s strategy, and I don’t find his disruptive behavior entertaining. I think it’s simply loud and annoying. Nick, am I missing something?

I don’t believe temporary annoyances or unpleasant moments are necessarily negative, particularly in a game like this where things usually balance out. Those rough patches actually make the good parts feel even better. Honestly, I doubt Rapaport will last very long in the competition.

It’s easy to compare Rapaport to Sandoval, considering his initial role as a villain, but I think he’s actually a response to past contestants like John Bercow and Lord Ivar Mountbatten. They were both very quiet and didn’t really impact their seasons. Bercow was essentially just there to be eliminated quickly, and while Ivar surprisingly won last season (which I’d forgotten!), he mostly faded into the background. Rapaport, however, is a different kind of easy target. His loud and annoying personality might actually be useful to the other players. If you’re a Traitor, he can distract attention. If you’re Faithful, voting him out might not reveal a Traitor, but it would still feel good. That’s not insignificant!

It’s funny how quickly you forget about some of the contestants! I think Ivar really benefited from Gabby and Dylan’s popularity to win. But honestly, I predict a lot of the guys will be eliminated quickly. I don’t see Mark Ballas or Eric Nam making it very far, simply because they’re part of that third group of competitors. There are always a few quieter guys who stick around until everyone starts questioning why they’re still there.

It’s not that Rapaport feels bad about being potentially eliminated, but he doesn’t seem very effective as a “Faithful” player. He tried too hard to fit in with the other players, even claiming he was “one of them,” but he couldn’t handle being questioned when Porsha called him out about Candiace’s false accusation. He gets easily offended and lets his defensiveness control his choices, like when he quickly suspected Yam Yam of being a “Traitor” simply because they didn’t get along. Honestly, his attempt at a “Traitor” song during the roundtable was just awkward. He hasn’t really helped in either challenge so far. I believe it’s okay to be unlikeable if you can still contribute to the game or provide some entertainment, but he’s not doing either.

Honestly, I find him more amusing because of how other people respond to him than anything he actually does. It’s enjoyable to see the cast come together, even those who usually disagree, and share their dislike for him. That’s what makes good TV, in my opinion. The storyline with Tiffany, where she’s using him as a shield, is also funny and a clever move.

I’m starting to think he’s not actually bad at the game, or that there’s even a right way to play right now. Everything is based on gut feelings at this point, and if his strategy was truly terrible, he’d be gone already. It’s almost enjoyable to watch him stumble into a strategy where his unpleasantness is so unexpected that it keeps him safe. He’s already lasted longer than two other players simply because people don’t see him as a serious competitor. Maybe this is an unusual way to watch the show, but America is full of diverse perspectives, so who knows?

I often wonder how things would have played out if Alan had identified him as the traitor. It probably wouldn’t have been pleasant, since he doesn’t seem like a team player, but it’s possible the resulting drama could have been really interesting. What are your thoughts?

I think Rapaport would have been a really good Traitor! People were so confused by his chaotic behavior that they couldn’t figure out his strategy, and that could have been an advantage. The current Traitors are two of the Housewives – Candiace and Lisa Rinna (though I think having two is a bit much) – along with Rob Rausch from Love Island (who, surprisingly, a lot of people find attractive!), and Donna Kelce was revealed as a Traitor. It was interesting how quickly people suspected Donna, because she seemed like an unlikely pick from Alan, and many pointed out she’s seen as ‘America’s mom’ and that Taylor Swift fans would be upset if she was eliminated early. As for Rapaport, he creates so much drama, but it’s so random that people can’t decipher his intentions. While that confusion would be useful for a Traitor, it’s terrible if you’re trying to be a Faithful and build trustworthy relationships.

NQ: Dang, you’re talking me into thinking he might actually win this thing.

RH: Nick, we have very different tastes in television.

Read More

2026-01-09 20:55