No. of Recommendations: 3
Trump is not Czervik. Czervik is crude and boorish, which Trump is also. But he's not a bigot, not an inept business man, nor does he crap all over the little guy. That's Smails. So I submit Smails is closer to Trump, and Smails definitely is the bad guy in the movie.
Neither is an exact parallel, of course. But Czervik is an excellent illustration of how an exceedingly wealthy person can appeal to the common man. Czervik is boorish, aggressive, inconsiderate, certainly sexist and mean, not above a little rule-breaking, and above all the wealthiest person in the movie. But he's positioned as one of the "good guys" that the audience is expected to root for. Plus, he's transgressive - he's in the chaos agent slot in the narrative, the one who violates the rules of behavior that the folks in charge want to impose.
That's because while Smails is a bigot, he's also an elitist, priggish snob. He holds enormous power in the movie by virtue of his fitting in just so into the classist, elitist structures that govern the club. So the audience roots for Czervik, because Czervik embodies the liberation fantasy against people like that. He's rich enough, and so completely indifferent to the things that Smails values (and can bestow), that Smails has no power over him.
Trump isn't identical to Czervik, but he fulfills that aspect of the role. He's got lowbrow tastes and values, and doesn't care that the people with highbrow tastes and values disdain him for that. He's rich, but isn't snobby. Because he's hated by the folks that many working class people regard as elites, he is seen as being outside of the 'elite' class - even though he's wealthy. He's positioned in opposition to the folks who are telling the working class that they're "bad" for having the tastes and values they have. He punctures the sanctimony and self-righteousness of the elite class in a way that working class voters enjoy.
That's why he's got the support - and the audience - that he has.
