//

Interview: Jena Friedman on Soft Focus, Guns, and Consensual Probing

The Daily Show alum talks about her savagely funny Adult Swim series Soft Focus.

Jena Friedman
Photo: Adult Swim

To watch Soft Focus, former Daily Show writer-producer Jena Friedman’s savagely funny series of television specials on Adult Swim, is to experience a kind of perverse satiric dissonance. Even on a network that’s practically made dissonance its brand identity, Soft Focus reveals its wild heart by refusing to acknowledge the madness it interrogates via its familiar news-adjacent TV-tabloid format. After a perfunctory 45-second intro and title sequence, the show’s creator and star sets the tone for viewers: “In tonight’s episode we explore love and human connections. But first, rape.”

That’s right, rape is our introduction to Soft Focus, which airs on a channel whose biggest stars—Rick & Morty—have become unofficial mascots of your friendly neighborhood dispensary. Though what follows isn’t as stark as it reads on paper, the show’s tabloid style provides ample straight-faced cover to convince three college frat guys to take part in an experiment. Each is given a creepily lifelike sex doll and a few basic instructions: take it everywhere, treat it with respect, and, above all, do not have sex with it.

Flash-forward to the exit interview, and despite the gobsmacking absurdity of going on a shopping spree and having dinner and drinks—not to mention movie night on the couch—with an inanimate object, the trio emerge improbably chastened by the experience. Soberly and without objection, all three have seen the experiment to its conclusion. Whether this reflects an unexpected fealty to the scientific method, or just the fear of being exposed as sloppy drunks who don’t respect the personal boundaries of voluptuous plastic, isn’t immediately clear. However, when their host enters the room with an accusatory stare and some foreboding forensics, none of the men can conceal their mortified panic.

“How do you explain that there was a waxy, viscous substance inside one of the dolls’ vaginas?” Friedman demands of the stammering dope in a backwards Red Sox hat, before revealing that it was all a misunderstanding. “It turns out that it was one of my staffers who came inside the doll.” Hearing the latter line the first time, I found myself mouth agape at the dark audacity of the moment. And that’s not an exception for an episode also featuring an impromptu staging of The Dating Game with New York’s infamous “cannibal cop,” a since-released formerly married man whose fantasies about murdering and eating his wife nearly sent him to prison.

Episode two of Soft Focus lessens the high-wire stakes, but only by degrees, taking on sexual harassment in both the workplace and online gaming. And it closes with another familiar tabloid fixture with a potential murder in his past: anti-virus software magnate and on-camera assault-rifle enthusiast John McAfee.

If that sounds like a lot of spoilers for the introduction to an interview, it’s out of contextual necessity. For possible televised ancestry, you’d have to look across the pond almost 20 years ago, when Chris Morris’s brilliant Brass Eye series was first shaking up unsuspecting viewers on BBC4. Coincidentally, I spoke to Friedman just after she returned from a trip to the U.K. to test out new stand-up material for a possible special later this year.

I recently re-watched the first two specials, and one of the things that struck me was the “casting,” for lack of a better word. For the segment with the frat guys and the “real dolls,” those weren’t actors. How did you find them?

Without really revealing how the sausage is made, I worked with the producers who worked for [Comedy Central’s docu-reality series] Nathan for You and also worked for [Adult Swim’s] The Eric Andre Show, so they’re the ones who are probably better with that question.

I just wondered how many of the people initially recruited for the “experiment” actually made it into the show.

Advertisement

We always obviously get people something to sign before they ever talk to us. It was the same way at The Daily Show. I work really hard not to take people out of context, but at the same time, given the nature of it being partially a hidden-camera show, you want to get people’s honest reactions, because that’s really where a lot of the comedy comes from. So there’s a dance of making sure that they know that, just making sure that you’re in the bounds of what’s legal, and they also morally feel safe and never threatened. But if people know it’s a joke, you don’t get the honesty. It’s a tricky balance.

How difficult is it to keep up the appearance of “journalistic neutrality” when one of the subjects is displaying abhorrent behavior? There are a few moments in both specials where some of the men are quite callous and defiant about their disinterest in viewing you, or any other female for that matter, as a human being.

What do you mean?

I mean, since it’s a comedic show, you don’t have the same standards to uphold, especially when a subject’s terrible behavior is self-indicting. And actually leans into the comedy you’re after.

Well, not everyone is going to learn something. Not everyone’s take something away from the experience.

One guy is even asked, “Did you learn anything from this experience?” And he just crosses his arms and says “Nope!” He’s so proud of it in a way that’s almost…presidential.

[laughs] You’re not going to reach everybody. And whether we reached that specific guy, there’s always the chance to reach a lot more people watching.

Is that important to you, the reach people?

In a way, sure. In the moment, I’m focused on just getting people to relax into what we’re doing. We’re not trying to be an after-school special or something. We’re just trying to make something funny that says something more. If not everybody hooks into it, that’s a reflection of reality.

Advertisement

When I was watching again, I was wondering if “reaching people” was a motivation at all. For instance, in Brass Eye, they don’t care if you learn or not. In fact, they’re almost daring you not to learn.

It’s a very British sensibility. I don’t know if we could get away with doing Brass Eye here. They barely got away with it. I mean, that show lasted how long? I love that show though. It’s definitely not funny to say that you want people to learn from what you’re making, but I think that if people can take something positive away from it, that’s always the goal. In our campus rape segment, I just wanted college guys to be having a conversation about what consent means.

There’s a real fearlessness to that segment, not just the subject, but the frankness of the conversation.

We all have these blind spots and these taboo subjects that we’re afraid to talk about. If you can find a way in through comedy, I think it’s a net positive.

You did a segment on sexual harassment in online gaming. Most of the guys didn’t seem interested in having an honest conversation, or even hearing what women had to say, for that matter.

For me, that specific “world” was incidental to the larger issue of how some men act in environments around people who are essentially strangers. We’ve seen so much crazy stuff come out with these men in power doing such shitty things to men and women without power. So we created the virtual reality “game” in the episode to give the male gamers an idea of what it’s like on the other side.

Without giving away too much, the game actually involved a male porn actor doing a remote “performance” in another location. Some of the reactions were pretty amazing. What did the guys say when the cameras stopped?

While it’s important for me to hold my “character” during filming, our intention is always to act ethically with the people who agree to participate.

I was thinking about one guy who threw his VR headset across the room at one point, although he seemed to be in good spirits right afterward.

Advertisement

That guy slid into my DMs and asked me for an internship, like, two days later. So, he’s fine, I think.

Do you feel the same ethical responsibility with the more “public” figures like John McAfee or the cannibal cop?

Well, McAfee’s running for president so I felt like he was fair game. And I read in the New York Post that the cannibal cop is dating again, so the game show idea seemed like a good avenue to talk about that.

So, McAfee, he’s really serious about running for president? The way he talks about it is so ridiculous that I wasn’t sure.

He says he’s serious. It was the pretext for us going to see him.

You guys had to meet him at a secret location, because I think he’s still evading extradition to Belize for the “unsolved” murder, yes? In the segment, he’s literally waving an assault rifle, while also surrounded by more armed bodyguards. Were you ever worried?

Because he’s running for president, I just didn’t think we were unsafe. When he was waving it around, that was a little scary. There was one moment where I looked up and said, “Hypothetically, please don’t shoot.” The guy accidentally had his gun pointed at me, but it was resting on his knee, like he was listening to the interview and didn’t realize. But it can be intimidating trying to talk to somebody and be funny and get the questions you want to ask while they’re armed.

Plus, he literally is still fleeing a murder in another country. A murder detailed in a prominent documentary not too long ago.

But again, he’s running for president. His personal life aside, many of his views aren’t repugnant. He’s a libertarian. He believes that people should be able to have autonomy over their bodies. It’s not like you’re talking to David Duke, you know?

Advertisement

Other than the very likely murder he committed. Possibly while as high as he seems on camera when you talked to him. He’s practically vibrating.

I try not to let guilt cloud what I’m trying to do with an interview like that, because I know some of these public figures feel persecuted by the media. I remember describing my method to one of my producers as “consensually probing,” but apparently the network didn’t love the phrasing.

[laughs] So that’s not going on the promotional materials for the show, then?

I don’t know if “consensually probing” cleared standards and practices. And they’ve been really kind to me, and we’d love to do a third one.

So will there be a third special?

I think so? I’m hoping it comes down to just leaving the consensual probing out. [laughs]

Blue Sullivan

Blue Sullivan has written about music for 25 years, including one of the very first American interviews with Guided by Voices's Robert Pollard and Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood. He's the author of Your Ex-Boyfriend Will Hate This.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.