Interview: Matt Hovde, Director of UNELECTABLE YOU, Discusses Political Satire

What's the difference between the candidates in 2016 and political satirists? Answer: They both say the same things but they sound better from the satirists. This quip is probably not funny enough for me to start a career in satire, but Chicago's Second City comedy troupe is about to show Southern Californians that it doesn't have any such problem. On Saturday evening, November 5, 2016, at 7 p.m., at Riverside's Fox Performing Arts Center, members of the troupe will apply their unique comedy style to this election season, in a performance of UNELECTABLE YOU: THE SECOND CITY'S COMPLETELY UNBIASED POLITICAL REVUE. UNELECTABLE YOU, jointly presented by Second City and Slate Magazine, is a fast-paced combination of sketch, improvisation, music, and multi-media that takes a hard-hitting look at the United States' election process in general and the improbable events of 2016 in particular.

The show's director, Matt Hovde, is the Artistic Director of the Second City Training Center, and a founder of the Galileo Players sketch group. He was born in Chicago, grew up in Omaha, and graduated from TCU. His directing credits include the 100th REVUE WHO DO WE THINK WE ARE?; SKY'S THE LIMIT (WEATHER PERMITTING); Studs Terkel'S NOT WORKING; AMERICA: ALL BETTER!; ROD BLAGOJEVICH SUPERSTAR!; CAMPAIGN SUPERNOVA; BETWEEN BARACK AND A HARD PLACE; and THE BEST OF THE SECOND CITY. Despite his considerable experience skewering - oops, I mean poking fun at - U.S. political happenings, he does not list politics as one of the things he enjoys best; those are games, science, and sandwiches.

The Fox PAC is located at 3801 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, Phone: 951-779-9804, about 120 miles from San Diego, 70 miles from parts of the San Fernando Valley and West LA, 57 miles from Long Beach, 55 miles from Palm Springs, and 45 miles from Anaheim.

UNELECTABLE YOU is recommended for ages 16 and up. Tickets may be purchased online at RiversideLive.com or at the Fox Performing Arts Center box office Tues-Friday from 12pm-6pm and Saturday from 12pm-4pm. Ticket prices are $31-$61 plus fees. The doors open for the performance at 6 p.m., on Saturday, November 5, 2016, and the show starts at 7 p.m. It will run approximately two hours, with a brief intermission. Call 951-779-9800 with any questions.

The Fox's web site is is www.riversidelive.com/ . UNELECTABLE YOU's web site is www.unelectableyou.com/.

Broadway World recently interviewed UNELECTABLE YOU's director Matt Hovde, by email. We fixed one typo and eliminated the name of a newspaper, but otherwise, Mr. Hovde's answers are unedited.

Broadway World: Politics and satire fit together as well as baseball and popcorn. Still, a renowned comedy troupe and a respected magazine rarely work together to skewer politicians. How does the creative process work between the two entities involved in UNELECTABLE YOU?

Matt Hovde: We knew when we had the idea to do an election themed show that we wanted to partner with an expert on the subject, and we thought that Slate would be a great collaborator. They seemed to have a good sense of humor (and they know way more about politics than we do. They're REALLY smart). We approached them with the idea to do a Second City style show - a collection of sketches and improvisation - but with the material viewed through the Slate lens of irreverent analysis. So we pitched them a ton of premises/sketch ideas and they helped us shape them in to a point of view that reflected both brands.

BWW: Some campaigns are funnier than others. How do you manage to skewer both sides equally when one side deserves ridicule more than the other?

MH: Yes - this revue is completely unbiased! We say so in the title. Which means it's certainly not true. We do give roughly equal attention to both candidates in the show, as one of our theses is that this election is driven by two very unpopular candidates. We've had Republicans see the show and love it because they are pleased to see so many Hillary jokes. But giving equal time to each candidate doesn't mean the satire has the same weight. Part of the Trump phenomenon is the severity of some of the outrageous statements and actions that he has made during this campaign, and when we make fun of those things, we don't pull any punches.

BWW: In your opinion, do reporters and comedians sometimes take unfair advantage of something seemingly minor? I'm thinking of such things as Al Gore's sighs during his first debate against George W. Bush in the 2000 election, Bill Clinton's smoking without inhaling, and Gary Johnson's blanking on Vicente Fox's name.

MH: Oh we certainly do. That's where a lot of humor comes from - tiny details that might not be immediately obvious, but when highlighted become more meaningful. Comedians are trained to listen attentively, and to find patterns that can become comedic games. So when Trump sniffles on the microphone, it's funny to exaggerate that. Sometimes, those tiny things are harmless, but sometimes they become a symbol for some greater narrative. It was very hard for many to take Sarah Palin seriously after Tina exaggerated her faux folksiness.

BWW: How do you leave your own biases behind when you're satirizing controversial subjects, such as Dick Cheney's views on torture, Sarah Palin's apparent lack of qualifications to be vice president, Vladimir Putin's possible attempts to interfere in the upcoming election, and similar issues?

MH: I don't think we do leave our biases behind. Comedians are shaped by their experiences and point of view as much as anyone else. For satire, it is pretty much essential. That doesn't mean we take ourselves too seriously, or can't find the hypocrisy in our own bias - some of our best material comes from self flagellation. We have no problem making fun of ourselves, which helps balance out the bias. When it comes to specific issues like those you describe, we just embrace that sometimes we will be uncomfortable, and that the audience might be too. Comedy is not always milk and cookies. Hmmm. That makes me want milk and cookies.

BWW: What do you think about the press's attempts to be fair by allegedly bringing up false equivalents? Is that a concern in satire as well? (I'm referring to such things as reporting that Joe Schmo was convicted of killing and eating people, and adding that Tom Smith got a speeding ticket.)

MH: This ties right in to the answer for your earlier question - that equal time doesn't necessarily mean equal weight. I'm not sure how the press evaluates their priorities on false equivalence, but to my eye it can be an effective way to make a subtle point about how those things are not equivalent. Which can be funny. We have a scene in UNELECTABLE YOU where Hillary Clinton takes some heat for her missteps, and she responds by shouting them next to Trump's missteps as if to say: my flaws are not even remotely as horrifying as his! So the false equivalence ends up being a comedic gift.

BWW: In your view, can satire educate members of the public in ways that straight reporting and straight political comedy cannot?

MH: I think satire is really good at illuminating the ills of the world in a fresh and perhaps insightful way, but I try to be pretty cautious about promising education through satire. I think that presumes quite a bit about an audience and how they think. We don't always know where their coming from, or what they will take away from our sketches. Often we end up either preaching to the choir, or turning people off. I don't think a Trump supporter sees a scathing joke about Trump's misogyny and says, "Wow that was hilarious, I learned something, and it changes my opinion!"

Sometimes, in fact, they take away the opposite of what we intended. We had a scene that ran during a previous election that was two couples in a car arguing about politics. Liberals watched that scene and thought it was clearly mocking Conservatives, but Conservatives thought the opposite. So sometimes we have to just interpret the world as we see it and let people draw their own conclusions.

BWW: There is currently a debate going on in political comedy circles, especially SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE (SNL), whether satirists should refrain from making an "unelectable" candidate look better, or, conversely whether satirists should portray candidates with reprehensible views as reprehensible. What's your take on this issue?

MH: I like comedians and politicians to sleep in separate beds, so to speak. If we see something a candidate does or says as ridiculous, or reprehensible, I think we must call it out as such. But once you're in league with a politician it makes it harder to claim that you came to those conclusions of your own free will. Or it can arouse suspicion of tampering with integrity of the comedy. If you work for the Lotto commission, you're not allowed to win the lotto. It just doesn't look right.

I don't like that SNL had Trump on as a host. I thought it was an endorsement, of sorts, and it undercut their satire of him up to that point. It felt like a gimmick, and softened the sting of the material they had been doing about him. Now I also think they've hit him very hard in recent weeks, and I think it's horrible that he has since denounced the show and called for its cancellation. But that doesn't erase the compromise of having him on in the first place. These are very blurred lines to me.

Second City has resisted corporate sponsorship over the years for this same reason - it clouds a comedian's ability to be a skeptical voice of criticism when they are partnering up with the targets of that commentary. (Also, to clarify, our partnership with Slate is not a sponsorship, it is a collaboration. We didn't pay them for their name or vice-versa, we co-developed the content of the show, which is an approach we've taken many times - we love creative partnerships. I mention this because [a large newspaper] mis-characterized our relationship in a review of UNELECTABLE YOU).

###

PHOTO CREDIT: Kirsten Miccoli

To post a comment, you must register and login.