Satiristas Page 24

  RICHARD MONTOYA: I myself tried getting laughs off a fucking switchblade, and we had our lowrider sketches and all that shit in the beginning, too, but somewhere along the line you realize if you take that road, before you know it you’re Marlon Brando in the backseat in On the Waterfront. We decided that since stereotypes and archetypes exist, we’ll use the fuck out of them, but try to flip them over somehow.

  Our cholo gangbanger character ends up doing a Shakespeare sonnet; something else is going on, he’s different from what you’d assume. That’s how we turn using stereotypes into satirizing them. Our farm worker would end up on top in some way, with some dignity, some respectability. Most other Latino comedians end up the butt of their own joke; the stereotypes remain true for them.

  There’s this really great collective on the Internet called the Latino Comedy Project. They do really great edgy stuff; so smart and so knowing. They did a parody of the movie trailer for 300—

  PAUL PROVENZA: It’s fucking brilliant! I’m glad you mentioned that piece; it’s a perfect example of subverting stereotypes or contextualizing them to make bigger, important points. And an excellent illustration of elevating parody to satire, nailing the look and feel, and using actual lines from the original trailer about Spartans, but about Mexican immigrants: “The mightiest army couldn’t defeat them. An entire nation couldn’t stop them…” Instead of spears and swords and maces, they’re wielding brooms and rakes, swinging bags of oranges—

  RICHARD MONTOYA: And the 300 becomes 300 million as it counts them coming across the border—

  PAUL PROVENZA:—“Coming soon…and bringing cousins.”

  They used all those clichés, but for a reason. By showing stereotypes they’re basically saying, “Whatever you believe about them, they will come over the border, you can’t stop it, you will not win that battle, period.” It’s a powerful joke, and a powerful statement: Mexicans will come here no matter what, accept it and deal realistically with it.

  Modern immigrants juxtaposed with ancient Spartans also, to me, evokes a comment on the idea of putting up a stupid fucking wall: China did that in 200 BC! Are we seriously doing that now? It subtly drives that home, too.

  RICHARD MONTOYA: It’s all of that. Such a wise, knowing bit of comedy. That’s what we try to do in our work. It’s not the kind of thing someone like Carlos Mencia does. It just isn’t.

  I’m very proud of this group and how we’ve always been handling dynamite with some of our stuff, generally with great care and much thought. I watch Mencia and feel like there’s dynamite there that’s not being handled very well at all. And sure, his show’s hugely successful, but…Come on. That kind of stuff just adds to the clamor and noise; we all know that Lou Dobbs take already.

  It’s hilarious that we’re the second most vilified group in America now, right below Al Qaeda. They’re not even looking for bin Laden but they’ll do anything to find five Mexicans hiding in a trunk trying to support their families. And no one cared much about all those “jobs those foreigners took from Americans” when janitors and maintenance people died in the World Trade Center. They only seemed to care about middle class, white businessmen and -women who died there.

  That’s the kind of dynamite we’re talking about, so we have to inspect and handle it carefully.

  RICK SALINAS: And gleefully. Political theater groups were always so heavy. With comedy, we talk about racism, homophobia, classism, sexism, all these really heavy subjects, and they’re digging it.

  We did “American Border Gladiators,” a takeoff on the gladiator/sports thing, but also a serious comment on what happened recently in Riverside County where sheriffs beat up all these immigrants. The prize is a green card to live and work in America if you can survive that, which is “The American Border Gladiator Challenge.”

  People laugh and high-five through the whole piece, but later on, it’s, “Whoa…” And the real meaning behind the comedy hits them: what price does one actually have to pay to become an American citizen?

  DAVID FELDMAN

  AS AN EMMY-WINNING writer behind the scenes at The Daily Show, Real Time with Bill Maher, Dennis Miller Live and Roseanne, David Feldman is responsible for some of America’s most biting satire and comedic commentary of the past decade. You’ve just never heard of him. Perhaps because in his own stand-up career, Feldman’s taken the ultimate contrarian track, making sure at every turn that the audience hates him. He explains why an audience’s visceral reaction is more important than any joke itself, and why “cunt,” “nigger,” and “kike” are so bad they’re good.

  DAVID FELDMAN: My next project is a documentary called I Hate My Cleaning Lady. I interview white people who complain about their cleaning ladies. It’s like the ultimate pornography: white people complaining about someone who crawled through a sewer and ran hundreds of miles through a desert, dreaming and hoping to make their life better by cleaning people’s toilets. It’ll just be all these white people bitching and whining.

  I think that’d make a great documentary. I’m just afraid that half the people who see it will walk out, going, “Wow. It really is tough to get good help.”

  PAUL PROVENZA: I will never understand why you’re not bigger in this business, Feldo.

  DAVID FELDMAN: I know why I never made it big in stand-up: I make people feel dirty for laughing.

  It’s been an interesting spiral downward. When I started, the audience hated me before I even said a word. I think it’s because I look like the guy who fired them or gave them an F. I tried to get onstage and just be silly fun, you know: “I was going to get a new car today, but they were all locked.”

  But people were, “Ah, fuck you. We hate you; we don’t need that shit from you.”

  So I put on a clown suit. Actually wore a clown suit onstage and did political humor. I discovered hiding behind a character gives you all kinds of freedom. Eventually I took off the clown suit and began doing this faux Right-wing character, kind of my version of what Stephen Colbert’s doing now with far greater success and way bigger paychecks.

  Then I heard Dana Carvey say in an interview, “You need to ‘slide into the skid.’ Find what people hate about you the most and pursue that.” To find your biggest fear on stage, dive right into it, and poke around there.

  I thought, “The audience absolutely hates me, so maybe if I make myself so despicable, so hateful, they’ll tolerate laughing at me.”

  I asked, “What do I find most despicable about a human being?” Self-righteous ness, immorality, lying, hypocrisy…and I decided all my jokes would reflect all that and reveal a horrible human being.

  It doesn’t matter if I mean any of it or not, it’s how does it affect you when I say it? If you think something’s offensive, I’ll play with that—and with the fact that I know it’s offensive; I know I’m being an awful person.

  I want to provoke; I want you to go, “Ooh,” and then antagonize you with it. You know when you play with a cat he’ll swipe or bite you a little, but it feels kinda good ’cause you’ve made a connection and he’s just playing and it’s fun to get him excited? But you know that he knows if he cuts too deep it hurts, and neither of you wants that, ’cause then everybody’s fun is over? It’s that very thin line I like being on with a crowd.

  PAUL PROVENZA: That biting and scratching is “affectionate.”

  DAVID FELDMAN: Yeah. So’s the way his tongue feels on my balls, but audiences really couldn’t handle when I did that.

  I get off on pushing the crowd away and luring them back in. And when they get close again, pushing them away again. Oh, wait—that’s my parenting skills.

  It’s just fun to make people think differently from what they assume. I look like your next-door neighbor or the guy in the next cubicle at work, so as this average-looking family guy, where can I take you? Maybe I’m an average-looking family guy with a Vietnamese kid tied up under the floorboards.

  Really, I would like people to like me—

  PAUL PROVENZA: That ain�
��t gonna happen.

  DAVID FELDMAN: I know! So if I just get them laughing I feel it’s a successful evening.

  PAUL PROVENZA: Do you care about changing people’s minds?

  DAVID FELDMAN: I think you can change people’s behavior, but can’t really change minds. Supreme Court rulings force racists to serve black people at lunch counters, but they still hate them as they serve them. It’s like when I courted my wife: I acted as if I were a normal, decent human being; acted and changed my behavior till eventually I kind of outwardly resemble enough of a human being that she doesn’t leave me.

  But you can’t change anyone’s mind, certainly not with political humor. I think all you can do is provoke them.

  PAUL PROVENZA: Then why even bother with political or social commentary?

  DAVID FELDMAN: To encourage seeing things differently.

  Example: during the primaries, I did something about Rush Limbaugh hating John McCain. What was that about? It didn’t add up to me. So I started with the presumption that Limbaugh was, as always, just working for his corporate paymasters. All those pundits are just businesses, making money off the Republican Party and corporations. So…Why would Limbaugh’s “patrons” want McCain portrayed as moderate? To lure unsuspecting Democrats over to McCain! They know everyone hates Rush Limbaugh—and his brother Ann Coulter, who’s hung like, unbelievable, by the way; I saw him in the shower once. They knew undecided Democrats would think, “If Coulter and Limbaugh hate McCain, how bad can he be?”

  I honestly believe that’s the true angle on that story, too.

  PAUL PROVENZA: I want to deconstruct that little bit of comedy. You’re making a big satirical point in that bit, but along the way mention Ann Coulter’s dick.

  DAVID FELDMAN: I was very complimentary about her penis.

  PAUL PROVENZA: I’d be thrilled if you talked about mine as generously, but mentioning Ann Coulter’s dick (a) plays into the status quo idea that strong women playing hardball with big boys are not real women, and (b) feels a lot like making fun of Ronald Reagan’s haircut or neck flaps. It’s not political commentary, and deflects discussion from a substantive challenge to her, which is what really matters.

  Nick Doody, a terrific U.K. comedian, did a great bit about this, regarding Bush: “To criticize Bush for being dumb is to ignore a whole tsunami of wrong.”

  Easy jokes get in the way of important things. Summing it up, he says, “It’s a good thing Hitler didn’t have a lisp.” Granted, Ann Coulter’s dick was just a grace note to a substantive point, so you deftly get the best of both worlds, but you see my point?

  DAVID FELDMAN: Yes, and I used to agree, but the older I get, the more Freud is dismissed, the less we delve into anybody’s past and really look at who they are personally, the more I believe attacking them personally is the right way to go.

  I’ve dealt with Republicans; I know their game. They’ll argue politics until it gets too rational, then they’ll attack you personally, knowing that because you’re enlightened and liberal you won’t stoop to that level, but it all boils down to: “Look at YOUR life.”

  You want to talk family values? Then let’s look at your family; at your values. Every Republican I know who’s for the war either has an incredibly small penis or is impotent, racist, hateful, in a horrible marriage, or is just some money-hungry pig. So where is the discussion? You still think the war in Iraq is right? Let’s talk about your penis then, because that’s part of the problem. Because Freud is no longer so highly regarded, nobody is discussing your penis. I need to discuss your penis.

  PAUL PROVENZA: It’s so hard to tell when you’re being serious and when you’re not.

  DAVID FELDMAN: I know. The Vietnamese kid says the same thing.

  And I am being serious. When discussing politics with Republicans, I believe it’s necessary and right to attack them personally. Rush Limbaugh’s a thrice-divorced drug addict talking about family values; how can you not attack him personally? That’s all that matters!

  Attacking people in the audience personally is right, too. Going after what they claim to believe or are lying to themselves about is important.

  PAUL PROVENZA: It’s substantive to talk about Larry Craig looking for a blow job in a men’s room, because since he is an anti–gay rights guy, the hypocrisy is meaningful. But the same jokes wouldn’t have the same meaning if it was Barney Frank.

  DAVID FELDMAN: Barney Frank should be arrested for not getting a blow job in a men’s room. He’s letting down his core voters.

  PAUL PROVENZA: We’ll get back to that later in private, but by your logic, jokes about Bush as “stupid” qualifies as actual political commentary, not just easy jokes. What about Clinton blow job jokes? Was any of that substantive political commentary?

  DAVID FELDMAN: Going after him for lying about a blow job sidetracked us. We took our eye off the ball because of it. We weren’t joking about Osama bin Laden or foreign policy or anything else substantive. We focused on the obvious, which was ultimately just blow job jokes, since it was pretty much covered long before it ended. But I see your point. Maybe it’s just…moral relativism?

  PAUL PROVENZA: Like the infamous Supreme Court definition of pornography: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it?”

  DAVID FELDMAN: Yeah. And by the way, I’ve still never seen any pornography yet, because everything I’ve ever seen was just beautiful.

  The thing about that Clinton episode is that Newt Gingrich was getting hummers from a mistress the whole time; Livingston, who replaced him, was having an affair; Henry Hyde was, too. There was substantive material to be had there about hypocrisy, political opportunism, lots of things. But we were too busy doing blow job jokes handed to us on a platter.

  I’ve got other bones to pick with comedians, too. Like the word “fuck.” It’s destroying stand-up comedy. I have one simple rule for any comic opening for me: “Don’t say ‘fuck.’”

  They go, “What about freedom of speech?”

  I say, “Say ‘cunt.’ Say ‘nigger.’ Say ‘kike.’ I beg you to say ‘kike’ or ‘cunt.’ Just don’t say ‘fuck.’”

  They’ll say, “Those words are worse than ‘fuck.’”

  And I say, “Exactly. There’s no challenge in using ‘fuck.’ You’re not being edgy, not saying anything new, not challenging any conventions or offering anything about society or the human condition. ‘Fuck’ is easy, so you’re just using it to punch up weak material. I’ve done this awhile; I know the only reason you say ‘fuck’ is because this joke is so weak it can’t get a laugh without it, this joke needs attitude because there’s nothing else there, that one needs it for rhythm. You want to be edgy and confrontational? Say ‘cunt’ or ‘kike’ or ‘nigger,’ because if you say those words, you’re in very dangerous territory and will have to have a damn good reason for having said them, and that’s a challenge. If you’re getting away with using those words then you’ve somehow elevated them, and most likely it’s because you’re doing compelling, well-thought-out comedy with them, and that would be truly edgy. ‘Fuck’ brings nothing of value, and it’s harder to do things that aren’t coarse or low-brow after you’ve been saying it all night.”

  I really believe if you rid stand-up of the word “fuck,” we’d all be able to talk about more important things on stage more often.

  PAUL PROVENZA: So “nigger,” “kike,” and “cunt,” create a degree of difficulty that raises the comedy bar?

  DAVID FELDMAN: They’re far from easy to use in comedy, so if you’re getting away with them after the first time you did and got the shit beat out of you, you’d have to be playing with truly substantive, meaningful material or you wouldn’t be able to use them a second time. But there’s nothing challenging about saying “fuck” in a nightclub, and it won’t make any material anything more than it is without it.

  I don’t like comics talking about their own religion or race much, either. I think it’s un-American, a distraction from the real issues in this country.
Like the vast economic divide and the control that corporations have. That’s all that matters to me. The only candidate worth voting for is one who says, “You’re not black, not Jewish, not Hispanic, not gay, not whatever interest group. What you are is not rich, and one paycheck away from losing your house and health insurance, that’s what you are.” Forget this identity politics we’ve fallen prey to, it’s just haves and have nots, that’s it. When you talk about being black or being Jewish or anything else, you bore me. I’m sure it’s a profound, complicated experience being a lesbian in this country, it’s just irrelevant to what’s really wrong with America, and you’ll continue to have all those same issues unless we all get together and deal with the people who control the money.

  PAUL PROVENZA: But there’s no significant presence of non-white power and wealth. Don’t race issues matter when addressing class divisions?

  DAVID FELDMAN: Here’s how I judge it: is your material or the idea easy? If you’re talking about race and it’s hard to accomplish, then you’ve probably done something worthwhile that I’d enjoy. If it’s easy comedy to do, it’s not going to be anything we don’t already know and I don’t enjoy it. If it’s difficult, takes me out of my comfort zone, challenges what I think about it, then I feel you’ve given me something of value. But 99 percent of it is overbearing Jewish mothers, Mexicans riding in one car, Asians can’t drive, and, yes, I know, “Jewish women don’t give blow jobs.”

  PAUL PROVENZA: But you do provoke people when you say that, so at least there’s that.

  DAVID FELDMAN: That must be why I said it even though I’m completely against saying it.

  It’s instinctive. I can’t help being hateful. Growing up, I took perverse joy in trying to prove there was no Holocaust to my Jewish parents over dinner. I’d convince kids at Hebrew school that Israel is actually just a real estate concern and we invented this Judaism “myth” to justify it, but it’s really just a big gated community, and we invented this fake spiritual path to convince people we’re “entitled” to the property so we could get it at a deep discount.