唐·錢德爾不愿透露漫威角色“羅迪”,即戰(zhàn)爭機(jī)器未來的命運(yùn),害怕被狙擊手干掉?!拔沂窍胝?wù)劊看我婚_口腦袋上就會出現(xiàn)狙擊槍瞄準(zhǔn)的紅點(diǎn),所以只能閉嘴,”他對《財富》雜志說。他能討論的是新一季《黑色星期一》,一部以上世紀(jì)80年代為背景的黑色喜劇,劇中他扮演非常激進(jìn)且無道德觀念的華爾街交易員莫·門羅。
第一季主要內(nèi)容是莫和他手下詭計多端的員工們實施一項計劃,十年當(dāng)中充斥著揮霍無度、種族主義、性別歧視和同性戀恐懼癥等各種行為,最終引發(fā)了所謂的1987年股市大崩盤。第二季共同出演的有雷吉娜·赫爾、安德魯·蘭內(nèi)斯、保羅·謝爾、凱西·威爾遜和肯·馬里諾,故事從股市崩盤之后開始,莫被陷害謀殺,他的前同事們則開啟了新一輪行動:引誘、勒索政客們,目的是讓他們放松對銀行的管制。
最近,在股市因冠狀病毒疫情而風(fēng)雨飄搖之際,《財富》雜志采訪了錢德爾。他表示也在關(guān)注股市,“感覺就像閉著眼睛坐過山車”。
3月15日第二季首映禮之前,55歲的錢德爾談?wù)摿嗽搫∪绾畏从程乩势諘r代的政治和金融貪婪、如何一邊走攻擊性喜劇路線一邊討論嚴(yán)肅問題、氣候變化行動主義,以及2020年民主黨應(yīng)該做的事。
為簡明起見,以下對話進(jìn)行了摘編。
這一季的總體構(gòu)想怎樣?
嗯,主要是還原角色。莫方面,我猜主要看他的出身,然后看看他的最終歸宿,看看布萊爾(安德魯·蘭內(nèi)斯飾)怎么發(fā)展——顯然是在上升,還有道恩(雷吉娜·赫爾飾)怎么走下坡路。我們覺得兩人朝相反方向發(fā)展,然后再想辦法讓兩人復(fù)合比較有趣。我想首先應(yīng)該把局面弄亂,然后再看能做什么。
長發(fā)造型的創(chuàng)意從哪來的?
可能受一些打扮時髦又喜歡賺錢的女性啟發(fā)吧。(笑)這些都是我們思考的事?!霸煨蛻?yīng)該是什么樣?”答案是要尊重時代。整個濱水區(qū)都充滿了80年代風(fēng)格,玩這種造型當(dāng)然很有趣。
從那十年中挑出最荒謬的部分講故事,一定很轟動。
最有趣的是大家都很認(rèn)真。我的意思是,要回顧那個年代,然后說,“真的嗎?當(dāng)時是那樣的?”人們都在嘰嘰喳喳地討論,”你為什么要參與其中?“這部劇最有趣的地方是找到文化接觸點(diǎn),痛斥諷刺很多事。
到了90年代就不能用同樣的方式嘲笑,因為傷痛記憶還很真切。
是啊。90年代,我們到了90年代也沒好多少。
劇里有很多小笑話和深刻諷刺。拍攝的時候,演員有很多即興發(fā)揮嗎?
當(dāng)然,我們排練的時候開很多玩笑,很多變成了正式開拍的臺詞。聯(lián)合編劇大衛(wèi)(卡斯普)和喬丹(卡漢)對此持開放態(tài)度,并會予以鼓勵。他們不停地講笑話,講得最好的人當(dāng)然會勝出。我們很鼓勵即興創(chuàng)作。每個人都想讓對方笑,看看“到底能多好笑?”
扮演這樣一個沒有太多顧慮或道德準(zhǔn)則的角色想必很自由。
當(dāng)然。正因如此我從一開始就想演這個角色。這家伙是直接做事都是出自本能,風(fēng)格是“射擊,準(zhǔn)備,瞄準(zhǔn)”。他就是這種人。
進(jìn)入那種思維方式是什么感覺?對于當(dāng)年的交易者來說,除了能賺多少錢,從不考慮其他后果。
現(xiàn)在也沒什么不同。當(dāng)然了,現(xiàn)在規(guī)定要多一些,而且…嗯,這是斷斷續(xù)續(xù)的,對吧?有監(jiān)管,然后管理部門介入,想把好處都搶走。逐利真的是人性。投資是個零和游戲。順風(fēng)順?biāo)臅r候盡可能多賺錢,規(guī)則往往比較寬松。尤其是那個年代,規(guī)則只限于監(jiān)管強(qiáng)盜大亨,有點(diǎn)像狂野西部。我們做研究的時候跟很多人談過,有很多親身經(jīng)歷過那個年代的人說,“是的,所有人都瘋了,每個人都在拼命撈錢。為了贏無所不用其極?!边@就是底線。
真的,光賺錢還不夠。把另一端的交易對手弄得郁悶,這讓人感覺良好。一定要打垮交易的對家才行。我有個經(jīng)歷過那個年代的好朋友,那段時間他體重暴增,每天晚上酗酒,心臟病隨時可能發(fā)作。后來他金盆洗手,再回頭看的時候說,“哦天吶,當(dāng)時我瘋了。我太病態(tài)了,”市場文化就是這樣。不留戰(zhàn)俘。
劇中主要在諷刺80年代的荒謬,但很多笑料都源自悲哀的事實:性別歧視、種族主義、貪婪腐敗等等,這一季主要涉及什么問題?
這一季我們肯定會討論更多政治話題。不能劇透,但可以說我們在探究當(dāng)時的文化差異。種族主義、性,角色的經(jīng)歷,還有更多的問題。劇中會還原很多事的原委。
考慮到當(dāng)前時代,本季不可避免會深挖政治背景吧?
好吧,我們明顯想影射現(xiàn)在,讓節(jié)目接地氣,貼近當(dāng)今現(xiàn)實。但對安德魯(蘭內(nèi)斯)的角色布萊爾來說,研究怎樣搞定銀行似乎也是自然的進(jìn)步,他們在想,“需要搞定哪些人,具體該怎么做?”政治也是要研究的領(lǐng)域,有時會導(dǎo)致很惡劣的動機(jī)。
很悲哀。
確實很悲哀。但這是喜劇,所以我們主要用笑話、低俗玩笑之類去表現(xiàn)。這就是我們的目標(biāo),得保持平衡,既要做好記錄又要淡化一些色彩,最后回到批駁人性的荒謬。不要把氛圍弄得太低沉,但也別害怕觸及黑暗,因為我認(rèn)為這部劇很有彈性,能把兩種(情緒)同時表現(xiàn)。有演員去表演,就盡量表現(xiàn)。
劇中背景下你也能說一些攻擊言論,如果放到2020年肯定沒法說。
是有點(diǎn)難把握,對吧?界限很明確,因為當(dāng)時人們就是那樣說話,那樣工作,那樣互動。很多話現(xiàn)在肯定不會說,當(dāng)時人們就是如此溝通。如果不去了解,就不夠尊重真實。但一定要注意說到點(diǎn)上,這樣才能讓2020年的觀眾理解現(xiàn)實意義。所以我們總是在打擦邊球,邊緣到底多寬并不知道,越線了才知道。
就像現(xiàn)在的喜劇一樣。想突破極限,但也要意識到某些事只是種族主義或性別歧視,有些笑話沒有提出任何觀點(diǎn),也并不好笑。
沒錯。笑點(diǎn)應(yīng)該有意義。要記住希望達(dá)到什么目的。要讓觀眾有代入感,另一方面要盡可能尊重原貌地扮演角色,所以要用劇中年代的語言和比喻方式。
為本季做研究時,你關(guān)注特朗普放松金融業(yè)管制有什么感受?
令我震驚的是,他有很多支持者似乎不知道底線是什么。他們支持的這位總統(tǒng)要給收入最高的1%人群減免1萬億美元的稅。我不明白具體情況,只能想,“哦,好吧,這一定是種族主義或部落主義。”這不合邏輯,但不知怎的他們愿意支持。不知道怎么回事。我想,可能是信念吧。也許他們會獲利的,能從稅收減免中得到好處。其中的邏輯我反正不懂。
就像,氣候變化也變成紅藍(lán)之爭(紅色代表共和黨,藍(lán)色代表民主黨——譯者注),而不僅是“地球上人類”面臨的問題。類似問題現(xiàn)在都很棘手。必須選擇一派,而不只是選擇自己相信的觀點(diǎn),所以會遇到各種問題。比方說你是保守派,就得贊成保守派的所有觀點(diǎn);如果你是自由派,又必須贊成所有自由派的觀點(diǎn)。不能去分析。這樣很危險。
不容許存在細(xì)微差別。一定要加入一派。
是的,“選一派,站好隊?!边@是因為人們對環(huán)境和收入不平等深感絕望,在某些方面也無可厚非。很多情況真實存在,我們能感覺到,動物都喜歡這樣,對吧?我們總認(rèn)為人類比動物高級得多,但我們遇到老虎也只會從一塊石頭躲到另一塊石頭上。這就是人類的DNA。害怕的時候就是很容易被操縱,現(xiàn)在就是這種情況。失去理智,完全由情緒控制,感覺就是,“我需要在一群人里,不能一個人呆著。那邊有老虎!”
很多人現(xiàn)在對氣候變化不作為感到絕望。你能分享些讓人們保持希望的事嗎?
首先,關(guān)注度極其高?,F(xiàn)在不管誰會獲得民主黨提名,所有候選人都把氣候變化列入政綱,而且都知道這個問題很關(guān)鍵。已經(jīng)沒法粉飾。這是件大事,也是很大的變化。第二,我覺得年輕人都非常關(guān)注。謝天謝地,我們有格雷塔(桑伯格)和AOC(亞歷山大·奧卡西奧-科特茲)這樣的人,還有綠色新政。公眾意見接近頂點(diǎn)。希望我們能夠重新加入,加入全球社會推動環(huán)保進(jìn)程。我們知道必須去做。別無選擇。
人們有個特點(diǎn),如果感覺不會直接影響自己就不愿采取行動。只要有點(diǎn)抽象,就感覺像是只跟別人有關(guān),很多人都不會行動。必須想辦法說,“不,這是氣候變化,確實會影響到你。這是發(fā)生在你身邊的事?!闭f服教育需要不斷努力和創(chuàng)新。一定要不停地講故事,而且希望不會成真,“水會漫過膝蓋。佛羅里達(dá)會消失?,F(xiàn)在能明白我在說什么了嗎?”
我是“解決方案項目”組織的董事會成員,希望推動城市同意采用100%的綠色能源,主要跟一線社區(qū)、貧困社區(qū)和有色人種社區(qū)打交道,相關(guān)社區(qū)往往會直接承受不采取行動應(yīng)對氣候變化的后果,也要努力從草根層面采取行動,拓寬人們的視野。我們在各地都有成功案例,解決方案也往往來自必須直面問題的人,有些社區(qū)就介紹了遇到液壓開采,或廢水從工廠直接流到孩子上學(xué)的地方時如何抗?fàn)帯K麄冊谇熬€跟大公司戰(zhàn)斗并取得勝利,但這并不是全國的重點(diǎn),還有很多其他問題迫在眉睫。我們需要斗士的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。我們需要總統(tǒng)和政府帶領(lǐng)大家解決問題,要做到身先士卒。
今年大選中你打算保持活躍嗎?
唔,我想多休息會。(笑)拭目以待吧。先等完成初選有提名候選人,然后開始行動,拼命努力支持他們,把黨內(nèi)團(tuán)結(jié)起來,因為現(xiàn)在是一團(tuán)散沙。我們要團(tuán)結(jié)一致,否則只能再對付特朗普四年。沒準(zhǔn)還要對付8年或12年。他笑著說,但這真是開玩笑嗎?我們可以說這很荒謬,但我們很可能指著世界上很多國家說,“是的,他們也是這么想的?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng))
譯者:夏林
唐·錢德爾不愿透露漫威角色“羅迪”,即戰(zhàn)爭機(jī)器未來的命運(yùn),害怕被狙擊手干掉?!拔沂窍胝?wù)?,但每次一開口腦袋上就會出現(xiàn)狙擊槍瞄準(zhǔn)的紅點(diǎn),所以只能閉嘴,”他對《財富》雜志說。他能討論的是新一季《黑色星期一》,一部以上世紀(jì)80年代為背景的黑色喜劇,劇中他扮演非常激進(jìn)且無道德觀念的華爾街交易員莫·門羅。
第一季主要內(nèi)容是莫和他手下詭計多端的員工們實施一項計劃,十年當(dāng)中充斥著揮霍無度、種族主義、性別歧視和同性戀恐懼癥等各種行為,最終引發(fā)了所謂的1987年股市大崩盤。第二季共同出演的有雷吉娜·赫爾、安德魯·蘭內(nèi)斯、保羅·謝爾、凱西·威爾遜和肯·馬里諾,故事從股市崩盤之后開始,莫被陷害謀殺,他的前同事們則開啟了新一輪行動:引誘、勒索政客們,目的是讓他們放松對銀行的管制。
最近,在股市因冠狀病毒疫情而風(fēng)雨飄搖之際,《財富》雜志采訪了錢德爾。他表示也在關(guān)注股市,“感覺就像閉著眼睛坐過山車”。
3月15日第二季首映禮之前,55歲的錢德爾談?wù)摿嗽搫∪绾畏从程乩势諘r代的政治和金融貪婪、如何一邊走攻擊性喜劇路線一邊討論嚴(yán)肅問題、氣候變化行動主義,以及2020年民主黨應(yīng)該做的事。
為簡明起見,以下對話進(jìn)行了摘編。
這一季的總體構(gòu)想怎樣?
嗯,主要是還原角色。莫方面,我猜主要看他的出身,然后看看他的最終歸宿,看看布萊爾(安德魯·蘭內(nèi)斯飾)怎么發(fā)展——顯然是在上升,還有道恩(雷吉娜·赫爾飾)怎么走下坡路。我們覺得兩人朝相反方向發(fā)展,然后再想辦法讓兩人復(fù)合比較有趣。我想首先應(yīng)該把局面弄亂,然后再看能做什么。
長發(fā)造型的創(chuàng)意從哪來的?
可能受一些打扮時髦又喜歡賺錢的女性啟發(fā)吧。(笑)這些都是我們思考的事?!霸煨蛻?yīng)該是什么樣?”答案是要尊重時代。整個濱水區(qū)都充滿了80年代風(fēng)格,玩這種造型當(dāng)然很有趣。
從那十年中挑出最荒謬的部分講故事,一定很轟動。
最有趣的是大家都很認(rèn)真。我的意思是,要回顧那個年代,然后說,“真的嗎?當(dāng)時是那樣的?”人們都在嘰嘰喳喳地討論,”你為什么要參與其中?“這部劇最有趣的地方是找到文化接觸點(diǎn),痛斥諷刺很多事。
到了90年代就不能用同樣的方式嘲笑,因為傷痛記憶還很真切。
是啊。90年代,我們到了90年代也沒好多少。
劇里有很多小笑話和深刻諷刺。拍攝的時候,演員有很多即興發(fā)揮嗎?
當(dāng)然,我們排練的時候開很多玩笑,很多變成了正式開拍的臺詞。聯(lián)合編劇大衛(wèi)(卡斯普)和喬丹(卡漢)對此持開放態(tài)度,并會予以鼓勵。他們不停地講笑話,講得最好的人當(dāng)然會勝出。我們很鼓勵即興創(chuàng)作。每個人都想讓對方笑,看看“到底能多好笑?”
扮演這樣一個沒有太多顧慮或道德準(zhǔn)則的角色想必很自由。
當(dāng)然。正因如此我從一開始就想演這個角色。這家伙是直接做事都是出自本能,風(fēng)格是“射擊,準(zhǔn)備,瞄準(zhǔn)”。他就是這種人。
進(jìn)入那種思維方式是什么感覺?對于當(dāng)年的交易者來說,除了能賺多少錢,從不考慮其他后果。
現(xiàn)在也沒什么不同。當(dāng)然了,現(xiàn)在規(guī)定要多一些,而且…嗯,這是斷斷續(xù)續(xù)的,對吧?有監(jiān)管,然后管理部門介入,想把好處都搶走。逐利真的是人性。投資是個零和游戲。順風(fēng)順?biāo)臅r候盡可能多賺錢,規(guī)則往往比較寬松。尤其是那個年代,規(guī)則只限于監(jiān)管強(qiáng)盜大亨,有點(diǎn)像狂野西部。我們做研究的時候跟很多人談過,有很多親身經(jīng)歷過那個年代的人說,“是的,所有人都瘋了,每個人都在拼命撈錢。為了贏無所不用其極。”這就是底線。
真的,光賺錢還不夠。把另一端的交易對手弄得郁悶,這讓人感覺良好。一定要打垮交易的對家才行。我有個經(jīng)歷過那個年代的好朋友,那段時間他體重暴增,每天晚上酗酒,心臟病隨時可能發(fā)作。后來他金盆洗手,再回頭看的時候說,“哦天吶,當(dāng)時我瘋了。我太病態(tài)了,”市場文化就是這樣。不留戰(zhàn)俘。
劇中主要在諷刺80年代的荒謬,但很多笑料都源自悲哀的事實:性別歧視、種族主義、貪婪腐敗等等,這一季主要涉及什么問題?
這一季我們肯定會討論更多政治話題。不能劇透,但可以說我們在探究當(dāng)時的文化差異。種族主義、性,角色的經(jīng)歷,還有更多的問題。劇中會還原很多事的原委。
考慮到當(dāng)前時代,本季不可避免會深挖政治背景吧?
好吧,我們明顯想影射現(xiàn)在,讓節(jié)目接地氣,貼近當(dāng)今現(xiàn)實。但對安德魯(蘭內(nèi)斯)的角色布萊爾來說,研究怎樣搞定銀行似乎也是自然的進(jìn)步,他們在想,“需要搞定哪些人,具體該怎么做?”政治也是要研究的領(lǐng)域,有時會導(dǎo)致很惡劣的動機(jī)。
很悲哀。
確實很悲哀。但這是喜劇,所以我們主要用笑話、低俗玩笑之類去表現(xiàn)。這就是我們的目標(biāo),得保持平衡,既要做好記錄又要淡化一些色彩,最后回到批駁人性的荒謬。不要把氛圍弄得太低沉,但也別害怕觸及黑暗,因為我認(rèn)為這部劇很有彈性,能把兩種(情緒)同時表現(xiàn)。有演員去表演,就盡量表現(xiàn)。
劇中背景下你也能說一些攻擊言論,如果放到2020年肯定沒法說。
是有點(diǎn)難把握,對吧?界限很明確,因為當(dāng)時人們就是那樣說話,那樣工作,那樣互動。很多話現(xiàn)在肯定不會說,當(dāng)時人們就是如此溝通。如果不去了解,就不夠尊重真實。但一定要注意說到點(diǎn)上,這樣才能讓2020年的觀眾理解現(xiàn)實意義。所以我們總是在打擦邊球,邊緣到底多寬并不知道,越線了才知道。
就像現(xiàn)在的喜劇一樣。想突破極限,但也要意識到某些事只是種族主義或性別歧視,有些笑話沒有提出任何觀點(diǎn),也并不好笑。
沒錯。笑點(diǎn)應(yīng)該有意義。要記住希望達(dá)到什么目的。要讓觀眾有代入感,另一方面要盡可能尊重原貌地扮演角色,所以要用劇中年代的語言和比喻方式。
為本季做研究時,你關(guān)注特朗普放松金融業(yè)管制有什么感受?
令我震驚的是,他有很多支持者似乎不知道底線是什么。他們支持的這位總統(tǒng)要給收入最高的1%人群減免1萬億美元的稅。我不明白具體情況,只能想,“哦,好吧,這一定是種族主義或部落主義?!边@不合邏輯,但不知怎的他們愿意支持。不知道怎么回事。我想,可能是信念吧。也許他們會獲利的,能從稅收減免中得到好處。其中的邏輯我反正不懂。
就像,氣候變化也變成紅藍(lán)之爭(紅色代表共和黨,藍(lán)色代表民主黨——譯者注),而不僅是“地球上人類”面臨的問題。類似問題現(xiàn)在都很棘手。必須選擇一派,而不只是選擇自己相信的觀點(diǎn),所以會遇到各種問題。比方說你是保守派,就得贊成保守派的所有觀點(diǎn);如果你是自由派,又必須贊成所有自由派的觀點(diǎn)。不能去分析。這樣很危險。
不容許存在細(xì)微差別。一定要加入一派。
是的,“選一派,站好隊。”這是因為人們對環(huán)境和收入不平等深感絕望,在某些方面也無可厚非。很多情況真實存在,我們能感覺到,動物都喜歡這樣,對吧?我們總認(rèn)為人類比動物高級得多,但我們遇到老虎也只會從一塊石頭躲到另一塊石頭上。這就是人類的DNA。害怕的時候就是很容易被操縱,現(xiàn)在就是這種情況。失去理智,完全由情緒控制,感覺就是,“我需要在一群人里,不能一個人呆著。那邊有老虎!”
很多人現(xiàn)在對氣候變化不作為感到絕望。你能分享些讓人們保持希望的事嗎?
首先,關(guān)注度極其高?,F(xiàn)在不管誰會獲得民主黨提名,所有候選人都把氣候變化列入政綱,而且都知道這個問題很關(guān)鍵。已經(jīng)沒法粉飾。這是件大事,也是很大的變化。第二,我覺得年輕人都非常關(guān)注。謝天謝地,我們有格雷塔(桑伯格)和AOC(亞歷山大·奧卡西奧-科特茲)這樣的人,還有綠色新政。公眾意見接近頂點(diǎn)。希望我們能夠重新加入,加入全球社會推動環(huán)保進(jìn)程。我們知道必須去做。別無選擇。
人們有個特點(diǎn),如果感覺不會直接影響自己就不愿采取行動。只要有點(diǎn)抽象,就感覺像是只跟別人有關(guān),很多人都不會行動。必須想辦法說,“不,這是氣候變化,確實會影響到你。這是發(fā)生在你身邊的事?!闭f服教育需要不斷努力和創(chuàng)新。一定要不停地講故事,而且希望不會成真,“水會漫過膝蓋。佛羅里達(dá)會消失?,F(xiàn)在能明白我在說什么了嗎?”
我是“解決方案項目”組織的董事會成員,希望推動城市同意采用100%的綠色能源,主要跟一線社區(qū)、貧困社區(qū)和有色人種社區(qū)打交道,相關(guān)社區(qū)往往會直接承受不采取行動應(yīng)對氣候變化的后果,也要努力從草根層面采取行動,拓寬人們的視野。我們在各地都有成功案例,解決方案也往往來自必須直面問題的人,有些社區(qū)就介紹了遇到液壓開采,或廢水從工廠直接流到孩子上學(xué)的地方時如何抗?fàn)?。他們在前線跟大公司戰(zhàn)斗并取得勝利,但這并不是全國的重點(diǎn),還有很多其他問題迫在眉睫。我們需要斗士的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。我們需要總統(tǒng)和政府帶領(lǐng)大家解決問題,要做到身先士卒。
今年大選中你打算保持活躍嗎?
唔,我想多休息會。(笑)拭目以待吧。先等完成初選有提名候選人,然后開始行動,拼命努力支持他們,把黨內(nèi)團(tuán)結(jié)起來,因為現(xiàn)在是一團(tuán)散沙。我們要團(tuán)結(jié)一致,否則只能再對付特朗普四年。沒準(zhǔn)還要對付8年或12年。他笑著說,但這真是開玩笑嗎?我們可以說這很荒謬,但我們很可能指著世界上很多國家說,“是的,他們也是這么想的。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:夏林
Don Cheadle won’t say what the future holds for his Marvel character, “Rhodey” Rhodes/War Machine, for fear of being taken out by a sniper. “I could talk about that, but the red dots show up every time I start to, so I’m not,” he tells Fortune. But what he can discuss is the new season of Showtime’s Black Monday, the ’80s-set dark comedy in which he stars as the aggressively amoral Wall Street trader Mo Monroe.
The first season followed Mo and his conniving, cocaine-loving employees engaging in a scheme that ultimately brings about the titular 1987 stock market crash, with all the excesses, racism, sexism, and homophobia of the decade played to the extreme. Costarring Regina Hall, Andrew Rannells, Paul Scheer, Casey Wilson, and Ken Marino, the second season picks up after the chaos of that day, with Mo framed for murder while his former colleagues work on their next hustle—charming and blackmailing politicians into deregulating banks.
Fortune recently caught up with Cheadle just as the stock market was reeling owing to coronavirus fears, which he said he was watching “as much as you would if you were riding on a roller coaster with your eyes closed.”
Before the season premiere on Sunday, March 15, the 55-year-old actor spoke about how the show’s profane take on politics and financial greed relates to the Trump era; toeing the line of offensive comedy while discussing serious issues; his climate-change activism; and what Democrats need to do in 2020.
This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
What was the big-picture idea going into this season?
Well, it’s really just visiting these characters. For Mo, sort of his descent, I guess, but then seeing where he ends up and seeing where Blair [Andrew Rannells]—just ascending obviously—and Dawn [Regina Hall] are going in the other direction. We decided it would be interesting to take them in opposite directions and figure out how we can get them back together. I think the first thing to do is blow up the room and then, you know, see what you can do.
And where did the long hair come from?
Probably some very well-adorned women who were trying to make money. [Laughs] These are the things that we kick around—“What’s the look going to be?”—and it’s always based on the time. The styles of the ’80s kind of covered the waterfront, so it’s fun to play with that, for sure.
It must be a blast being able to pick out the most ridiculous parts of culture from that decade and run with them.
Well, the most fun is how seriously everybody took that. I mean, look, we’re going to look back at this era and go, “Really? That’s what we were doing?” Twitter is just going to be something that people are like, “Why did you ever engage?” Some of the best fun about the show is finding those cultural touch points and lambasting all that stuff, lampooning it.
"The styles of the ’80s kind of covered the waterfront, so it’s fun to play with that, for sure," says Cheadle, pictured (right) in a scene with Regina Hall from the second season of "Black Monday."
You couldn’t make fun of it in the same way during the ’90s, because the wounds were too fresh.
Yeah. The ’90s, wait till we get there. It wasn’t much better.
The one-liners and cutting jabs have a really loose feel. Does the cast improvise a lot of it?
We do in the rehearsals, for sure, and then a lot of those things become what we will do in the takes. The cowriters, David [Caspe] and Jordan [Cahan], are very open to that and encouraging of that. They’re joke whores, and, you know, the best answer wins. We really encourage it. Everybody’s trying to make each other laugh and see, “How far can this thing go?”
It must be also freeing to play a character like this who doesn’t have much of a filter or moral compass.
Absolutely. It’s what made me want to play it in the first place. This guy is operating directly from his id. He’s absolutely “shoot, ready, aim.” That’s who he is, for sure.
What’s it like getting in that headspace? It’s so stereotypical of traders from that era who don’t really think of consequences outside of how much money is going into their accounts.
It’s not necessarily that different now. I mean, there are obviously more regulations now, and…well, it’s fits and starts, right? There’s regulations, and then this administration comes in, they want to take all of them away again. It’s just really human nature when you gravitate toward that. That job is a zero-sum game. When that’s your true north, just to make as much as you can, the rules tend to be pretty slippery. And especially at that time, when all of those rules started to come in place to deal with these robber barons at that level, it was kind of the Wild Wild West. When we were doing the research for it, a lot of guys I talked to—some that were there at that time—said, “Yeah, everybody was fucked up, and everybody was just going for it. You do whatever you can do to win.” That was the bottom line.
Really, it wasn't enough just to do well. Somebody had to be smoldering on the other end of the deal to feel good about it. You had to destroy the people that were on the opposite ends of your trades. One of my really good friends who was there—gained a ton of weight, drinking every night, heart attack candidate—and it wasn’t until he got out of it and looked back that he was like, “Oh, my God, I was insane. I was a very sick person.” That was just the culture. Take no prisoners.
So much of the show is skewering the ridiculousness of the ’80s, but a lot of the laughs come from the sad fact that these things haven’t changed: sexism, racism, the corruption of greed, etc. What issues are going to be covered this season?
We definitely dip more into politics this year. I don’t want to give it away, but we’re trying to dip into whatever the cultural sort of divide was at that time. There’s more in that way with racism and sexuality, with what the characters are going through. There’s a lot of grist for the mill.
Was delving into politics this season an inevitability, given the times we live in?
Well, we’re obviously trying to draw allusions to today and ground the show and have there be relevance to where we are right now. But it just seemed also to be a natural progression for Andrew [Rannells]’s character, Blair, to be moving up as they’re trying to figure out how to get a bank, like, “Who do we need to have in our pocket, and how do we go about doing that?” Politics is also another area, as we can see, that lends itself sometimes to the worst kinds of motivations in us.
Sadly.
Very sadly. But it’s a comedy, so obviously we do it with jokes and laughs and fart jokes and stuff. That’s the goal, to find how to play that balance, to be able to hit those down notes but always undercut it and come back to being about how ridiculous these people are. Never let it get too somber, but don’t be afraid to go there, too, because I think the show is elastic enough that it can hold both of those [sentiments] in the same container. When you have the actors to do it, do it.
And setting it back then gives you that sort of leeway to say offensive stuff you can’t get away with in 2020.
Well, that’s tricky, right? It’s a fine line because it’s how people talked, it’s how they worked, it’s how they interacted. These things that you would never say today, that’s how they communicated to one another. If you don’t have some measure of that then you’re not being authentic. But at the same time, you have to tread the line because it can totally take you out for a 2020 audience to hear certain things. So, we’re always walking that line, and often you don’t know how far the line is until you’ve walked across it.
It’s like any comedy these days. You want to push the limits, but you have to realize when something is just racist or sexist and you’re not actually making any points or bringing people in on the joke.
Exactly. You want to make a point of it. You just have to keep in mind what it is you’re trying to accomplish. You want them to be in it, but you want to play these characters for real so you’re going to have them use the language and the tropes that were happening at that time.
Researching this season, how closely are you paying attention to Trump’s attempts to deregulate the financial sector?
It’s like, “Didn’t we just do this dance?” It’s shocking to me how many supporters he has from places that seem to not have an awareness about what the bottom line really is. They’re supporting a President who gave the top 1% a trillion dollars of tax breaks. I can’t really qualify how it works, other than thinking, “Oh, well, it’s gotta be racism or tribalism.” It’s something other than logic, but somehow they’re behind it. Somehow. There’s a belief, I guess, that they’re going to get there, and they’re going to be able to take advantage of these kinds of breaks. It defies logic to me.
Like, climate change becomes a red or blue issue, not just the “human beings on this planet” issue. Every issue like that is now a wedge issue. You have to pick a side, and you can’t sort of cherry-pick what you want to believe in—that’s when we get in these problems. It’s like if you’re a conservative, you have to believe in all of these things, and if you’re a liberal, you have to believe in all of these things. You can’t parse it. That’s dangerous.
There’s no room for nuance. You have to be on a team.
Yeah, “Pick a team, pick a side.” It’s because people, rightly so in some ways, are feeling the real desperation of where we’re at with our environment, with income inequality. These things are real, we feel them, and it’s what animals tend to do, right? We want to think of ourselves as something much more elevated than just an animal, but we’re just trying to get from rock to rock and not be eaten by a tiger. That’s in our DNA. You’re easy to manipulate when you’re afraid, and that’s what we see happening. You get out of your brain and into your emotions, like, “I need a team. I can’t be out here by myself. There’s a tiger over there!”
So many people are despairing over climate inaction right now. Can you share some reasons for people to be hopeful?
First, awareness is as big as it’s ever been. All of the candidates, no matter who’s the nominee on the Democratic side, they’ve all made climate change a part of their platform and know that this is a critical issue. It’s not something they’re glossing over. That’s a big deal, and a big change. Second, I think that the youth are all over it. Thank God we have people like Greta [Thunberg] and AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] and the Green New Deal. There’s a groundswell that’s starting to reach critical mass. Hopefully, we’re able to reengage and be a part of the larger community around the world to push for this. We know we have to get it done. There’s no option.
People often have an inability to act on things that they don’t believe affect them directly. As long as it’s sort of abstract and feels like it’s something that’s happening “over there” to somebody else, a lot of people won’t act. You have to continue to figure out ways to say, “No, this is climate change. This will happen to you. This is happening to you.” That’s going to take constant effort and innovation. You have to tell those stories, and, hopefully, it won’t be, “The water is at your knees. There’s no more Florida. Now, do you see what I’m talking about?”
I’m on the board of a group called The Solutions Project, which is trying to get cities to agree to 100% green energy, dealing with frontline communities, the poor communities, and communities of color that are often the first to have to deal with the results of inaction on climate change, and trying to attempt to get action from a grass-roots level, working to broaden that lens. There are places all over where we’re having success stories and the solutions are coming from people who are having to deal with it—communities showing how to fight when fracking in their neighborhoods or wastewater is coming from factories right into where their kids are going to school. They’re on the front line, fighting these big corporations and winning, but it’s not really a part of the national story, because so many other things are on fire right now. We absolutely need a champion. We need a President and a government that will champion those things and be on the front lines with us.
So how do you plan on staying active during this election year?
Um, I’m going to nap a lot. [Laughs] We’ll see. Once we’re through with this primary and have a nominee, then we’ve just got to get out and really, really, really push and fight for them and try to bring the party together because we’re fractured right now. We’ve all got to get on the same team or we’re just going to deal with four more years of Trump. Or eight years or 12 years. He says that with a smile, but is he joking? We can say that that’s ridiculous, but there are probably a lot of countries around the world we can point to and go, “Yeah, that’s what they thought, too.”