Seeing wrestling as an entertainment business is easy; there
are drama-heavy storylines and larger-than-life characters that are the
physical manifestations of good and evil.
We all know that wrestling is not a show of physical prowess, with
wrestlers fighting with all they have for glory and a big belt, yet we still
get upset when a match doesn’t look “real” enough. Stone, Oldenburg, and I share a question,
which they word very nicely in their article: “How can the wrestling fan who
seemingly has penetrated the façade of the match still be caught up in the ‘heat’
of the performance?” Made up of mostly
lower-status individuals, the wrestling fans’ views are probably infused with a
phenomenon termed “working-class authoritarianism,” according to Stone and
Oldenburg. Basically, lower class people
tend to see issues in black-and-white terms, caring more about the triumph of
good over evil more than the development of a plot. (I would argue that the plot matters more
than they give it credit, but I’ll wait a moment to talk about that.) Good
triumphing over Evil. That’s what the fans want to see. Why is it, then, that good doesn’t always
win? Why does the company, who is in
business to entertain us, allow our heroes to be beaten?
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Good, Evil, and Glory
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I promise I'll comment with something more substantial later, but oh my gosh, Melissa. Haha. I burst into audible laughter at the end of your post.
I laughed too.
There's an inherent tension here of providing a compelling story today and being able to string this along for episodes (or to a pay-per-view). Similarly, fans are likely to only wait so long before they presume the face can't win and will likely grow tired if the face always wins (especially with little challenge).
This also reminded me of certain types of heel champions. Lord Steven Regal at WCW TV champ comes to mind. He seemed beatable and thus many would watch expecting this would be the time he drops the title, yet he managed by DQ, etc. to prolong his rein. Very similar to how Gino Hernandez was presented in the WCCW documentary as well.
A lot of great points here, Melissa, but I wanted to expand on one that I brought up only at the very end of our class discussion--that the serialized nature of wrestling demonstrates a complication of the "Why the Bad Guy Wins" argument that Campbell is only able to touch on briefly here. By that, I mean that wrestling's serialized nature means that many heroes go down in an effort to ultimately build a "final" hero to win. What the article leaves out is that Jim Duggan was not successful in taking out Yokozuna. In fact, Yokozuna eliminated Jim Duggan from the WWE, just as Doink the Clown eliminated Big Boss Man from WWE. Both ended up going to rival WCW eventually. That means you have to have "fallen heroes" in a larger, serialized quest for justice...but, of course, complicated by storylines of the heel who never keeps winning. A serialized story means that, just like in the world of soap opera, we know very well that any moment of triumph for the pro wrestling face means that disruption and pain is only shortly behind. The champion wins his grudge match, only to be jumped immediately after the match by the next heel waiting in line to take it from him. This means the hope of vanquishing evil may never be extinguished. But it also means that feeling of triumph over evil as well can only be fleeting.
What's so interesting about wrestling is it's ability to keep viewers around despite it pissing these same viewers off week after week. There are so many fans I've come across that complain about the WWE day in and day out, they complain about the story line decisions, the wrestlers, the marketing. But they still tune in every week and buy every pay-per-view. Because there is always that hope, that chance, that things will go the way they want them to. Wrestling is an addiction. That serialized story line set-up is hard to tear yourself away from.
Well, it's interesting. There are a few things at play. Some frustration is good. You want to keep people frustrated to the point that they'll keep watching to see their frustration resolved. As I mentioned in another post, it's like on a soap opera when a couple gets married. If someone doesn't interrupt the wedding, then you know the couple is about to have something terrible happen to them after the wedding--a happy, resolved couple does not a show make. In fact, when a couple gets married and then stays happy, it often means they're about to "get bumped way down the card" (in wrestling terms) or that they are getting written off the show. Similarly so for wrestlers...I do think that WWE sometimes takes its most dedicated fans for granted, figuring they'll stick around no matter what...and could put a little more thought not on literally giving fans what they say they want but rather understanding and trying to cater to their sensibilities, even if you're not "pleasing them" with every match outcome. (For instance, some fans may grumble if John Cena wins...but listening to them literally would make no sense. On the other hand, fans groan every time they do that finish I mentioned in class where someone's music hits and the guy in the ring abandons his match to just stare up the ramp until he gets rolled up and pinned. Fans griping about a silly ending to a match that is overused is the sort of feedback they might want to pay closer attention to...
Frustration is good as long as there is an eventual payoff and that the general expectations of fans are usually met. For example, as long as a face eventually stops the Foreign Menace, frustrating endings up to this point may be forgiven. However, if every main event ends in an inconclusive ending, whether this is in the territory days or Pay Per View days, fans will eventually turn away.
Post a Comment