MIT Comparative Media Studies: Pro Wrestling

The Bleeding-Heart Cosmopolitan Appeal of a DDT

2010-03-31T14:56:00.006-04:00

Hey again Sam!

Will have to keep this quick as I'm at work. But I had to post this.

So National Media, a republican polling firm, did a study of sports fandom as broken down by political affiliation. Most results were predictable. Republicans/Centrists dominate most fan bases. Except for a handful: NBA, Tennis, Soccer, and

professional wrestling.

Think about that. Pull a section of a crowd at a RAW taping and pull a section of a crowd at a baseball game, and there is a strong probability there are more liberals in the former.

Now there is somewhat of an easy way out for this : they're predominantly young, which means they skew liberal and seldom vote, case closed.

But there is more to this. First, there was strong enough interest in this class at a higher-educational institution like MIT, whose makeup is pretty liberal. Deadspin (part of the Gawker blog network popular with the hipster crowd) has a Dead Wrestler of the Week feature, drawing in tens of thousands of pageviews (most usually get <10K). Most wrestling fans/writers/bloggers we interacted with were liberal or measured and apolitical at most. We spent months dissecting the theatrical aspects of wrestling events, which can be classified as a pretty liberal pursuit. The wrestlers who are the most over aren't those with the best moveset and the clearest identification with the concepts of good and evil. It's Randy Orton, HHH, CM Punk, and Cena v. 3.0, the gray characters who can deliver a great 5-minute rant.

Whether this result has shifted over time now that the WWE style of presentation has become the norm, and everyone is generally in on the act now, I cannot say. But it is worth mentioning:

Wrestling is not the regional cultural relic of good ol' boy tea partiers. Nor can it just be classified as the new haven for disaffected youth. It speaks to something much more broad.

Viva las Cholitas!

2008-09-11T23:29:00.002-04:00

Hey Sam,

I know that we haven't posted to this since even before the Benoit tragedy, but I wanted to share this article with any of those who stop by the blog still. Nat Geo covered a wrestling league on the outskirts of La Paz, Bolivia, and how women wrestlers use their position to overcome the barriers of tradition and culture that women face in South American life.

The league generally keeps to your more traditional good and evil "separate and simplified sphere of reality" storylines like we saw during the regional days, but there's a twinge of self-reflexivity in there too. I like how the lady heels say "I'm the ones the gringos came to see!"

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/wrestlers/guillermoprieto-text

Enjoy!

WWE and High-Def

2007-05-21T08:30:00.002-04:00

I thought you might be interested in one of my latest Convergence Culture Consortium pieces here.

"Jumped the same shark as fonzi"

2007-05-21T00:07:00.000-04:00

Well, traffic on the blog has died down for a while now especially now that the required postings are complete. The last few weeks have allowed me to reflect on what I have gained from participating as a listener and what - after all this time - has stayed the same for me as a fan.

It's interesting because tonight my friend went to go watch the Judgment Day PPV and he made the comment that I mentioned in the title. Yes, it seems a lot of the show was downright awful. Add to this a number of recent firings, key injuries, and the general disintegration of the 3 separate show structure with WWE, and I'm left feeling like I did well before the class: wrestling is on life support (or a change has got to come).

Yes, now I understand more about what aspects of the show have origins in carnival, how injury send-off angles depict a sacrifice of the body, why fans like the townies at Good Times insist on chanting at the TV screen and why my friends like to razz on them, and how it all ties into the need to sell t-shirts. I think I will approach wrestling in a more thoughtful way. However, it appears I'm still going to spend a majority of my time bitching about how it could be better.

Not that I expected the class to make me a radically different type of fan, or even just a better one. That was part of the class disclaimer, as I remember. I just felt it important to note that for all that has changed, not much really has.

I wanted to thank Sam and the rest of you for letting me come in on Monday nights and add my two cents in, even when I had scarcely any clue about the most recent readings. It's the first time I was a part of any blog community, and I think we did get to develop our own cast of characters and get some discussion going back and forth. Good luck to everyone still taking finals and writing theses. I've enjoyed my time with you.

Another of my segments from UCW

2007-05-15T07:07:00.000-04:00

Here is the transcript of another of my scenes from the wrestling promotion back in Kentucky.

Notes from Sheldon Goldberg

2007-05-11T10:02:00.000-04:00

Sheldon Goldberg sent along a message to be put up on the blog that gives some background to his work on the independent scene. He also suggested folks read his short blog posts here and here.

From Sheldon:

Thank you to all you MIT students for reading this. I suggested to Sam, that since class time is limited and the subject matter so broad, I would give you some links to some of my blog posts and this document you’re reading now. The blog posts cover the subject of “independent wrestling” – what it is, what that broad and general term means and what that expansive category contains. This document will be specific to my company, New England Championship Wrestling – how and why it started, what its goals are and what we’ve gone through along the way.

Some of what I’d also like to touch on with you is the future of this professional wrestling business as I envision it.

I am really looking forward to meeting you all in person and getting further in depth on some of these topics that I’ll be covering with you.

Before I get down to business, let me say that you have had an extraordinary opportunity to learn about the sport and business of professional wrestling from some of the greatest members of its ranks. I told Sam Ford in a recent e-mail, that you’ve probably had more and better schooling on pro wrestling than a good deal of the people who are actually in it. Following J.R. and Mick Foley might seem like a daunting task, but I find that to be an exciting prospect and look forward to some well-informed dialogue.

Introduction to NECW – Playing The Changes

NECW was established in 2000. Prior to its formation, I had been in business with the late “Boston Bad Boy” Tony Rumble – a wrestler, manager and commentator for Mario Savoldi’s ICW promotion, which had national TV syndication in the late 80’s. After breaking away from Savoldi, Rumble started his own local promotion, initially called the Century Wrestling Alliance and later became NWA New England, the New England branch of the National Wrestling Alliance.

With the major territories disappearing and no controlling regional presence to take their place, anything other than WWF or WCW was considered “independent wrestling.” The absence of established wrestling companies promoting locally and regionally did two things: It lowered the entry standards, so that basically anyone who could put together a group of wrestlers, rent a ring and a building, could be a wrestling promoter. It also created an opportunity for those with the skills and knowledge to fill a niche that had been left behind by the national expansion era of pro wrestling.

Taking advantage of these changes in the landscape of pro wrestling would not be an easy task, as almost every aspect of the business had changed. In fact, you could say it was a whole new business entirely.

In 2000, when NECW started up, the local wrestling scene was in a pretty mediocre state. Prior to this, what passed for “independent wrestling” in this area were shows presented mostly by a few promoters who specialized in “sold shows” or “bought shows” as some describe them. The formula was simple. Take one or two or four ex-WWF wrestlers and put them in the main event. Use local wrestlers, mostly wrestling school students, as filler to populate the rest of the card. Sell the events as fundraisers to local police, fire departments, school booster clubs, etc. for a fixed price which includes a profit, and bingo, you are a wrestling promoter with no risk. Shows where the promoter actually rented a venue and sold tickets were not unheard of, but they were not the norm.

In the late 1990’s, the game was changed. It was a combination of factors. WWF started to keep their talent under wraps and not allowing them to take these “third party bookings,” which was the term they used for independent dates. The arrival of DX and “Stone Cold” Steve Austin and their rise in popularity, which included children mimicking the crotch chop and “flipping the bird,” made local schools ban the wearing of WWF T-shirts and the decision to keep wrestling events out of local high schools, where most of these “sold show” events were held. The fundraising shows began to dry up and it was clear – at least to me – that promoting wrestling locally meant re-examining the business model and using a different approach.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Wrestling Company

NECW was started based on an idea that was almost completely against the conventional wisdom of the time. That idea was to recreate the concept of the “wrestling territory” as a local organization using almost exclusively local talent with locals in the lead roles. The events would be held in small venues (500 or less seats) and run on a regular basis, eventually creating a “circuit” of towns, with cheap ticket prices. The shows themselves would be storyline driven and not just a collection of matches. It would be marketed town-by-town on a grass roots basis, with the idea of building a loyal local following.

The easiest way to fully grasp what was being done here is to break it down two ways. There is the wrestling side and the business side.

On the wrestling side, New England was and is an area that produced a lot of pro wrestlers. Killer Kowalski, the legendary villain from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, had one of the first widely known wrestling schools in the country based here in the Boston area. (Kowalski ran numerous “sold shows” off of the students from his school and even had a local TV show for a brief period in the early 80’s.) The school attracted students from all over the country and even some from overseas. Kowalski boasts an alumni that includes some who went on to become big stars in the business, such as Triple H, Big John Studd, Chyna, Perry Saturn and Chris Nowinski. The school also produced local wrestlers some of whom would then go off and open up their own schools. The result was a lot of wrestlers in the area and a significant talent pool to draw from.

On the business side, New England, which was always a top drawing area for the old WWWWF (precursor to the WWF and later WWE), had a great built in fan base. In later years, when ECW would tour to New England, the major cities in the area were always top grossing towns. Even the sold shows that went to suburban towns once a year traditionally drew well. The fans were definitely here.

With the perception of pro wrestling being dominated and dictated by WWE, and the enormous media platform and high level production values that drive that perception, there was real fear that without name stars or TV exposure to create them, that our company wouldn’t draw fans in any great number. Being on TV, when we started, was a simple matter of paying out money to buy a time slot on a local station and supplying them with a tape every week. The problem was that the cost of the time was too high given our economics and the time that TV stations were going to sell you was time that they couldn’t sell or program with anything else, which generally means fringe time when no one is watching TV.

The goal of NECW was to have a circuit of towns run monthly, along with a TV show to support it. It was clear to me very early on that the company was going to have to be grown to reach those goals and that it would take years and patience.

Much of what was done with NECW was patterned after the business model for minor league sports teams with adjustments made for the unique requirements of pro wrestling. As a fan, I wanted to recapture the fan experience of going to the matches on a regular basis and following the story from month to month. There are three keys to the business of NECW:

• Intimacy – NECW presents a wrestling event that is up close and personal, creating an experience that WWE, or any other arena attraction, cannot duplicate.

• Affordability – Like minor league baseball, inexpensive admission is a major key to attracting families with children and making them repeat customers. A recent study published in local newspapers stated that for a family of four to attend a Boston Red Sox game, including parking, refreshments and souvenirs, the cost was $318. The cost for a WWE event is approximately $180. For the same family of four, the cost to see an NECW event is roughly $50.

• Availability – With the locations of our events in suburban area armories, we are able to target those specific areas and the surrounding towns. Families can attend events closer to where they live, eliminating the hassle of driving into Boston and having to find paid parking.

Combine those three elements and you have a very potent combination.

Problems and Patience

The NECW business model did not develop without problems that had to be faced and handicaps that had to be conquered.

Talent: While there were plenty of wrestlers in the area, there was no precedent for what NECW was trying to do. The concept of “local stars” was non-existent. Very few of the talent locally understood the idea of working main events and being the focal point of the promotion. This was a problem that only time has begun to solve. Now, as we close in on seven years of operation, we are seeing “stars” develop from within our ranks that can carry the company in the leading roles. At the same time, there are a lot more companies in the area trying to do what we do. Oftentimes talent is pulled in different directions, though we have managed to stay fairly consistent.

Advertising/PR: Small venues equal small grosses and with Boston being a major media market, the city and surrounding suburbs are high prices when it comes to finding mainstream advertising outlets. Radio is so expensive in Boston, that the cost of a decent schedule far exceeds what a typical event can gross. The negative image of pro wrestling also hurts when it comes to publicity in the mainstream media. While NECW is the most-publicized company of its kind in the region by a very wide margin, free publicity is never easy to get and never a predictable resource.

TV: Television is the life blood of pro wrestling. Without it, you must rely on grass roots effort, street promotion, and whatever advertising you can afford. Without it, it is impossible to truly establish the stories and personalities that comprise the promotion.

Again, I realized early on that solving these issues would take time and patience, as well as some creative solutions.

Answers an Inch at a Time

In a grass roots business like NECW, problems are solved by having a clear set of goals and a path mapped out to reach them. Sometimes that path is traveled in feet and inches and not miles.

Early on in NECW, I knew that the company needed to establish an aura of credibility to be able to grow and flourish. That aura of credibility was demonstrated, first in the wrestling product itself, which was storyline driven and presented seriousl

Secondly, we needed publicity of the right kind. Relationships I’d built up with local media through the years yielded some good stories focused on the NECW as a company. All press was geared as much toward the promotion as possible and not about the wrestlers themselves. This was because the wrestlers changed constantly.

Minor league baseball people will tell you that the most important figure on a minor league team in the mascot, but that’s the only consistent personality present on the team from year to year. In NECW, I filled the role of the mascot – company spokesman, “rule maker and enforcer” in the company storylines, TV announcer and front of the house greeter to those in attendance. There are a multitude of other reasons for me assuming this role – some having to do with convenience and others having to do with wanting to leave a personal impression on our fans.

Lastly, we needed to be on TV. This was going to be the toughest hurdle of all. And while we have not arrived on TV yet, that reaching that goal is eminent. We got to that place by approaching it in a series of steps.

Normally, when a local wrestling promotion wants to be on TV, they first go for local cable access. It’s free and it is TV. The problems with it are that no one really watches it in great number and you have to place the show on systems town by town, which is time consuming and in the end not very effective.

My solution was to go directly to the Internet. Before we had any video up there, our website was attracting roughly 3,000 unique visitors per month – far more than were attending the shows live. It stood to reason that there was interest in our company far beyond the fans we brought in live. By broadcasting matches and conveying the key angles and storylines on an Internet broadcast, we would be opening that window into our business wider to those who were already looking at our site and creating the foundation for an eventual move to conventional television. This was 2004, long before You Tube. In fact, NECW was the first wrestling promotion to produce a weekly original long form TV show specifically for the Internet – a concept that was quickly copied by TNA, WWE and scores of other independent promotions.

I had originally come up with this concept in 1996 when I was working for the late Hiro Matsuda. Matsuda, who was a great wrestler and trainer, as well as a partner in the old Florida territory, had the rights to the TV shows produced by New Japan Pro Wrestling in Tokyo. The shows were edited and re-voiced and syndicated overseas under the name Ring Warriors. We produced a few episodes for the Internet back in 1996 as way to introduce the product to North America, but since few people had Broadband access in 1996, that attempt quickly fizzled. I always knew, even back then, that the Internet would eventually become a viable alternative means of distribution.

NECW TV debuted in November 1994. We even established a separate site – NECW.tv – to host the videos. The concept was an instant success, though not a substitute for conventional TV. It did have a lot of benefits though. The shows get anywhere from 3,000 to 12,000 views a week in over 60 countries. The talent now has a platform to get used to the concept of working matches for TV and to develop promo skills. It is also a means to promote our live events and DVD’s.

Present & Future

In 2006, NECW merged with PWF Mayhem, another local promotion to form a unified company that operates under the New England Championship Wrestling name. At that time, we also launched a “sister” promotion – World Women’s Wrestling – which features an all female roster. Triple W, as we call it, is unique for several reasons. It is the only regularly scheduled women’s wrestling promotion in the country. WWW, like NECW, is storyline driven with women in all the roles men portray in a typical pro wrestling promotion.

World Women’s Wrestling was a way to diversify the company without going outside what it normally does. As a product, it was something that was long overdue in my opinion, and the talent base was there to accomplish it. This is another case of having to grow the talent and the business over time, but the enormous publicity received for the launch benefited both NECW & WWW. The women’s matches on NECW cards are now billed as WWW Feature Matches and storylines cross between NECW and WWW events.

Since the merger and the launch of WWW, NECW’s business has grown steadily and substantially to where sellouts are frequent and new towns are being added.

We have recently made substantial investments in video equipment and physical production as we prepare for an eminent move to conventional TV. We are also setting up our own screen printing shop to produce our own T-shirt and other merchandise. DVD sales will be a growth area, as we ramp up our production capabilities and staff.

Last year, we ran a total of 28 live events. This year, we will be closing in on 50 before the year is up.

Closing Thoughts

NECW is, in my view, what the future of pro wrestling is going to be. It is impossible to compete with WWE on their level for many reasons: the buy in would be enormous, an equal TV platform would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain and the competition for talent on that level would be fierce.

The concept of a local/regional wrestling “territory” is viable and getting more viable as time goes on. Changes in television between technology and channel capacity will open up opportunities for those who are savvy enough to be ready to take advantage of them.

Links

There are some entries in my blog – sheldongoldberg.blogspot.com – that cover the subject of independent wrestling that may shed some more light on our discussion for Monday.

You can also look at some of our recent Internet TV shows – NECW.tv – which will give you more of an insight into our product. Our websites – NECWwrestling.com and WorldWomensWrestling.com – are also good resources.

I look forward to seeing you all on Monday.

Sheldon Goldberg
Co-Owner/Promoter
New England Championship Wrestling

Theatre is a lie!

2007-05-10T17:24:00.000-04:00

It doesn't tell the truth!

And that was Plato's problem with the arts in general and theatre in particular.

Plato's problem rested with the act of persuasion and he somehow thought the the multitudes wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the truth and the lie.

I've noticed that a lot of you have been struggling with William Congreve's "the willing suspension of disbelief" concept. Its really quite simple, you are either 'willing' to believe in the story being told or not!

Theatre attempts an act of persuasion through the art of storytelling. You know that no one really dies during a production of Hamlet, but if the actors, designers, directors and stage managers have done their job its a moot point.

Its the art of storytelling and our reception of it that guides us in our quest to be entertained. There are a myriad of actor-audience receptor theories out there, but most of them miss the point: its just more fun if you can buy into the story!

Professional wrestling is no different than theatre. Its 'actor's' are telling a story and you can either buy into it (say, for example, a David and Goliath match) or not.

It all depends on the level of engagement you are willing to provide. And as long as the actor's don't drop the ball/line/cue, the level is where-ever you want to place it.

Theatre and professional wrestling are both a lie, but then again so is Santa Claus and we all know how much fun it was to believe in that kind of magic.

Thanks for listening and good luck in your journey through academia.

See you at the turnbuckle,

david

the wrestling body

2007-05-09T10:48:00.000-04:00

As I get further into my research topic, I'm amazed at how well the discourse of the body in art applies to the wrestling. Artists have a dense history, especially post-war, of invoking physical danger to get at some deeper truth or challenge normative body images.
What I didn't realize until very recently, is that artists largely adopt the same strategies of dialectics between face and heel with this work. Some of it is meant to shock, to create disgust or distaste for the artist. This is true of Gina Pane, who engages in acts on her own body that invoke anger or disgust in her audience very deliberately. “Put in the right condition by several months of theoretical preparation (notes, sketches, reading and daily practice of existence), as well as by physical preparation (swallowing rotten meat, prolonged standing over lit candles, physical tension, etc.), the body, having become a thinking and suffering matter, transforms itself in a coadjutant of thought” (Pluchart, 'Risk as the Practice of Thought', 40). Also true Vito Acconci, who places himself under a gallery floor and masturbates to exhaustion/ pain.
On the other hand, we see imaging of the liberated body in art, the body that has been freed of its cultural shackles, that uses instruments or physical force to achieve some greater power than previously identified as possible. We see this with Nauman, Chris Burden, Elizabeth Streb. These are bodies engaged to inspire the collective body to a cultural action.
What is interesting is the level of manipulation of reception and formal signifiers in both the wrestling and the performance art context. In both medium, the body is engaged in a way outside of expectations, making it a discursive body. Though the reception is vastly different, the artist's and the wrestler's bodies are both political palettes, meant for working out their own meanings and cultural implications in a social arena:
“In a sense, destruction art is a warning system, an aesthetic response to human emergency that occurs in the lapse between theory and practice in terminal culture; it presents the pain of bodies, the anxiety of minds, the epistemology of technology, the specious claims of ideology, the absence of ecological responsibility, the loss of human integrity and compassion, and the violence that structures both gender and sexual relations. Just as destruction art is the image of resistance in the form of an even, it is also an important means to survival that must be continuously explored” (Kristine Stiles, “Survival Ethos and Destruction Art”, 1992.229).

Final Thoughts on this Course

2007-05-09T10:40:00.000-04:00

Coming into this course, I thought I had a pretty good idea of what wrestling was. I had been a fan for many years and I thought I was pretty knowledgeable in this subject. Now, I see how much more there is to wrestling than just wrestling. Its history spans back to the Greek and Roman empires and has evolved greatly over time. Wrestling also addresses many social issues that might not have been discussed otherwise. By watching and analyzing wrestling on a regular basis, I was able to develop a greater appreciation for wrestling itself.

Originally I thought that wrestling began with the WWE. I started watching wrestling in the early 90s and it was the only wrestling program I knew of. I can see why they would never have mentioned any other wrestling promotion, past or present. The problem with doing this is that wrestling fans may never know the rich history of wrestling or the path wrestling has taken to be what it is today. You are also able to appreciate the pioneers that revolutionized wrestling and were responsible for its early popularity.

Wrestling deals with many social issues that are present in society but are less often addressed. Issues concerning race, sex, politics, and class are just a few that come to mind. The WWE often parodies these issues in a way that is obviously meant to be entertaining, but at the same time allows the audience to make their own judgment on the issue. The way that the fans play as much of a role as the performers, we are show our approval or disproval of different storylines or matches that deal with these topics. The readings in the class helped to give a different perspective on the subject. I was able to make more well-informed judgments after reading different sources and comparing them to my own views. This also made me realize that wrestling could be studied in an academic setting, which would probably make most people laugh at the idea.

I now realize that it is the different styles in wrestling make a wrestling performance unique. I would always look forward to the heavyweights battling in the main even of a PPV and just kind of sit through the other matches to get to it. Only a small fraction of the PPV, however, is actually composed of the main event. The matches before the main event are just as important as the main event itself. You don’t want an audience to be bored by the time the main event comes around so these matches often showcase some of the best talent in wrestling. Hardcore, lucha libre, technical, power, and traditional are the most prevalent styles in wrestling that I can think of. Each one has a different purpose and tells a different story to the audience, which is what I now focus on and appreciate during a performance.

My appreciation for wrestling has dramatically increased in the course of this class. I feel like I have such a greater understanding for the wrestling performance than I ever had. Before, I would watch wrestling mainly for the big matches, storylines, and divas. Now I think that I can watch an entire wrestling show and appreciate every aspect or it. After stepping away from the wrestling scene since I entered college, I now have motivation to continue enjoying what I grew up watching as a kid.

Parody in the WWE

2007-05-09T10:12:00.000-04:00

Parody has become a staple of the wrestling program, especially with McMahon as the figurehead of the professional wrestling. As a dramaturgical device, parody is defined as a composition that imitates somebody's style in a humorous way. In wrestling, parody is most interestingly employed as a means to provide social commentary.

Vince McMahon's regime of professional wrestling has consistently taken themes from ongoing political/social affairs and transmuted them into gimmicks for old and new wrestlers. Almost every major current issue and event over the past years has seen itself become a part of the farce that is the McMahon style of professional wrestling.

Though McMahon's tactics are certainly not new, they do push the envelope of what is considered socially acceptable--would we, could we expect any less.

The wrestling character JBL (John Bradshw Layfield) is a prime example of the WWE's attempt at social commentary. It makes fun of the right wing conservative politician by completely blowing up his views and making him extremely close minded. JBL's character makes us realize how ridiculuous some of his very real opinions may be. We are able to take a step back and see this archetypal character in a different light; we can assess the reality of the claims made.

Another example of the WWE's use of parody was the inception of the RTC (Right to Censor) duo. In this case they do something similar to the JBL character making a parody of the idea of their program as a corrupting influence on young viewers. In actuality, the RTC was a way to retaliate to the claims made by a specific group against the WWE--the PTC (Parent Television Council). The WWE was attempting to discredit their claims by ridiculing the PTCs attempts to censor them. Once again, the WWE was putting a new spin on a specific set of beliefs that existed outside the ring.

McMahon often makes the claim that the WWE may never go out of business. It's kind of hard not to believe him when there is so much fuel for his program in the everyday going-ons of society.

Wrestling in Japan

2007-05-09T09:53:00.001-04:00

The essay that Sam wrote on the WWE in Japanese culture was interesting because it dealt with a subject that isn’t often talked about. I’ve been a wrestling fan for quite some time and the only thing I had head before about wrestling in Japan is that there was a very large Japanese fan base. It was never really described, however, how the Japanese fans perceived the WWE or what the WWE has done to reach out to the Japanese audience.

The first issue that comes to mind in selling the WWE product to Japan is language. It’s hard to imagine the Japanese audience following an episode of wrestling without some sort of translator. This seems like it would take away from the overall effect of the WWE performance. I’ve watched RAW in Spanish before and it gets distracting sometimes hearing the commentators dub over the wrestlers’ voices. You hear the wrestler’s voice then you hear the commentator’s voice at the same time competing with one another. Even though this is entertaining in itself especially when they imitate female voices, I think that Vince saying “you’re fired” would have more of an impact than a translator saying it. Sam deals with this early on in the paper by describing how Shane kicked the translator off of the stage, by the request of the fans, and proceeded to speak in English. This shows that the language of wrestling can be universal because wrestling deals with universal themes and conflicts.

Another issue that came to mind is storylines in wrestling. A storyline that we as Americans find interesting may not be understood at all in Japan. As we have seen, the WWE does try to include storylines that appeal to its fan bases. With Latino fans, you have Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio and with Japanese fans, as Sam mentioned, you have Tajiri. I thought it was interesting how the WWE would play up Tajiri in Japan and make him seem like he was a bigger wrestler than he actually was, even receiving a title shot in Japan. Looking back on the mid 90’s, I’m curious as to whether Japanese fans knew that Yokozuna, one of the WWE’s top stars, was not Japanese. If they did know that he wasn’t Japanese this might’ve been a source of disinterest for Japanese fans during this period.

With little information known on Japan’s interest in wrestling, Sam’s essay serves as a valuable tool. It is the first step to understanding how other cultures perceive wrestling. As a fan, it’s interesting to see how the wrestling performance can relate to cultures outside of the U.S. and that wrestling has a much bigger following than most people can even imagine.

CMS arsenal

2007-05-09T09:51:00.000-04:00

Given the recent discussions revolving around the questions "What is CMS?" I thought it's past due time for a little overview a couple of the background contextualization CMS students would come into the class possessing.

Consensus Media

A consensus media is the dominant media form of a culture, in which conservative, modern, and liberal voices negotiate cultural change and anxieties.

From our current position in history it may be hard to imagine what this means, but consider the age of movies, before television was widespread. Most of the country was at the movies weekly, if not more often, watching the same set of shows, the same set of cartoons and the same sets of news reels. With the advent of television, especially with the broadcast system, the consensus media shifted from the movies to television. Television was more prevalent than movies (it's located in the home) and the limited number of stations meant that every week "I Love Lucy" was being watched by a vast population. Over time, we see development in the way topics are treated in shows. One particular example is the treatment of women: from "I Love Lucy," to "That Girl" to "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," we see increased autonomy of the lead female character, and decreased moderation of this liberal perspective (Lucy was always thwarted in her pursuit of fame, and That Girl lived alone, but displayed reliance on her boyfriend and father.)

Once cable comes into the picture the audience becomes fragmented, and it can be said that today the leading media is the internet, which has yet (and may never) take over the role of a consensus media. Evidence for this comes from situations like 9/11, when the nation needs a central place to gather, which was fulfilled by the news organizations, primarily the televised ones.

A consensus media is defined by cultural group, and so we can look for the same trends in any media form, particularly those linked to a particular culture (even down to wrestling.)

Horse and Buggy

The first cars looked a lot like horse drawn carts, even though the internal combustion engine makes no such restriction on form. We see the same scenario every time a new media arises. Early movies were filmed plays, many thought the cable market would never take off. It is true that we drag history along with us each time, but not because people are not forward thinking: development takes time, especially when exploring the potential of a new media form.

Meaning Making

It is the individual's interaction with a text that gives rise to meaning. Meaning is not something that's packaged by the authors into a text and unpackaged with the audience, but is a result of an interplay between these locations. This relates to the ideas of consensus narratives in an interesting way, and it is important to keep track of from what perspective you're looking at a media.

If there are other terms/concepts anyone is curious about, or thinks should be listed, let me know.

Introduction

2007-05-09T06:35:00.000-04:00

Hello, I’m Sue Clerc. We’ll be meeting tomorrow but I thought I’d give you some background now, and then quickly lower the tone of the conversation by responding to some of your posts.

Catherine Salmon, my co-author, asked me to record Raw and Nitro as Hall and Nash were leaving the WWF, as it was then, to go to WCW. Her cable company didn’t carry TNT…I’m not sure why I also needed to tape Raw. I think the Canadian network might’ve been editing broadcasts. Or it was a cunning plan to get me hooked on wrestling. In any case, I moved from really just taping shows for a friend to saying “no, really, I’m just taping them for a friend oh my God did you SEE THAT?”

Next thing I knew I was badgering Catherine with questions, memorizing the Hart family tree, and holding up lewd signs at Wrestlemania 13.

It’s OK. I’m over it now. In fact, after writing the book chapter and presenting 2 other papers based on wrestling, I stopped watching. Not cold turkey, but I didn’t require a patch or anything. Sure, there was a relapse. Possibly two. But I’m OK now. It’s been months since I looked at a wrestling news website, and I’ve watched bits and pieces of Raw the last couple of weeks but haven’t felt an undertow pulling me back in. I do keep a Mankind action figure in my office. During slow moments at work, he and my Librarian action figure occasionally engage in a match, but she’s pretty useless because only her arms have articulated joints so the only moves she’s capable of are a clothesline and maybe flying leg scissors. Also, Amazing Shushing Action is an even lamer finishing move than the People’s Elbow.

But I digress…

Since this is a university class, maybe I should mention our educational backgrounds. Catherine has a PhD in evolutionary psychology and teaches at Redlands in California. She and Don Symonds published a book about slash, Warrior Lovers, and she has written journal articles about slash. I have a PhD in Culture Studies, a JD, and an MLS. I’m a librarian at Southern Connecticut State University. I’ve written other book chapters about media fandom and presented papers on fandom, wrestling, and other subjects. We have both spent years in the media fan community and that was our basis for the chapter you’re reading—comparing and contrasting wrestling fans with the community we already knew.

As fascinating a work of rare genius as the chapter is, I hope we can discuss other things when we meet. I’m going to try to tack comments onto some of your posts now. Much of what I have to say will be tangential to the original post. As I browsed around last week, sometimes a word or phrase would remind me of an idea I’d had, a random observation, a senior moment of “you kids today with your Cenas and Lashleys…” So if I can get this to work, there will be comments scattered around about suffering, camera work and the 4th wall, and why I liked WWF/E better than WCW, Montreal, the deployment of reality in storylines being similar to historical novels and unlike scripted television, and possibly lascivious remarks about performers.

Not again: Fighting a Giant

2007-05-08T19:39:00.000-04:00

So the writers of the WWE have finally come up with something for the Great Khali to do. It is pretty funny to me that we were talking about how some fan communities like to play booker and when something like this happens I get into that same mode. The last feud Kali had I think was with Kane. And that didn't play out very well. It was as if the writers thought everyone would assume that Khali was angry that Kane was seen as the monster. In fact, I think had an announcer reveal this to the audience. Well that feud did not impress me because all it consisted of was Khali beating down Kane after interfering in his match or Kane walking down the people's ramp with a big metal hook that he only looked at instead of even attempting to swing it. That might be asking too much. But the question came up when JR was here. What do you do with a giant like Khali who is billed as this invincible monster? Chairs can't even hurt him! Well you make him the #1 contender of course.
Now I have already had a problem with John Cena being champion. I really don't think he is that good of a wrestler and even though he looks big and tough. His popularity varies from week to week. The fans will be more likely to cheer for Shawn Michaels and boo more loudly for Edge. So he is stuck in between and what is the solution? Put him up against someone who really makes him look good as a wrestler. It is not that I hate John Cena. I enjoyed his white rapper turn, even finding the word Thuganomics to be one of the best catch phrases since the rock came up with Just Bring It. I also like, "You want some? Come get some!" I can understand that the WWE is banking on Cena on being the future Superstar that will carry the company. But what I raising here is that I don't know how the writers will be able to make this a good storyline. Cena just had his feud with Umaga end so I hope we dont see a repeat, hero vs monster story.
The interesting thing to watch here is how the giant Khali will express himself to Cena and to the crowd. He really doesnt talk and doesn't have a handler right now. So far it has actually been pretty good. I think that walking out with the title belt conveys Khali's total disregard of the champion very well. I do wonder what will happen next. One would think that since John Cena has been beaten down two weeks in a row, he would get even this coming Monday, but it is hard to imagine how. Again, chairs do not work. I am doubtful as to what the writing team can get out of this feud but am still hopeful it will be fresh and actually advance the career of both superstars.
My prediction for Judgement day is that Cena will beat Khali. I think they might try a Hulk Hogan moment where Cena pulls off an FU on his opponent. Now we just saw Edge win the Money in the Bank shot and so he might try to take the title after Cena's battle with the giant.

I spy

2007-05-08T12:47:00.000-04:00

Near the beginning of the course, a few of my posts dealt with my relationship with wrestling texts as a non-fan. I've been thinking of how to follow up with a post about where I'm at now, but it didn't come into focus until a few days ago, when I was watching a Spanish-dubbed RAW. It was already about half over, and I had no overriding reason to watch, but I was channel surfing and there was nothing else on.

All they had done was insert a Spanish "announcer" track over the audio, but the volume and excitement level meant I could only make out the occasional word from the English track. I don't speak Spanish at all. Yet despite the language barrier I always felt I was being given a narrative. This narrative was derived from 1, the visuals and 2, the Spanish announcer's intonation, and was hampered, so far as I can tell by 3, my personal lack of knowledge and context.

Where this puts me: 1, Previously I would look at a match or a 'back stage' bit and see purposeless activity, such as yelling, violence, and bad acting. This is still what I see, but post hoc reflection superimposes motivations onto the characters. That is, I now assign the characters agency. I think this is due to greater familiarity with the physical 'language' of wrestling, which implies that I've learned the representational vocabulary of the melodrama. 2, Similarily, I find that much of the announcer's role is to keep up the energy in counterpoint to the visual, rather than purely giving me information. On the whole it felt a lot like watching the original Iron Chef, with the enthusiastic commentary mostly letting you know that SOMEONE is finding something to be excited about, though in Iron Chef I don't know enough about cooking to feel as comfortable forgoing subtitles. 3, I think if I was a regular viewer, I wouldn't have lost much by not being able to understand any of the words. If I knew more about the characters the narrative I constructed would be more accurate. I was watching Ric Flair and Carlito, and while I know a tiny bit about each, I don't know the specifics of the conflict. Last time I watched RAW Carlito was definding his honor against some old guy. In retrospect I think the old guy was actually Flair or Blassie, but at the time I presumed it was Flair, and this was part of that conflict.

Essentially, watching RAW this time around I had a contextual basis for the wrestling format and actors, but no specifics. (As opposed to if I had watched in English, when I would have had details from commentator and dialogue.) Details would have left me actively reconstructing a story line, which given my experience with clips in class, I usually have little interest in unless I know more about the characters or situation that makes the information useful for understanding something besides current short narrative. A discussion of transparency could take place here: the narratives I construct for myself are supported by my understanding of the format, and do not necessarily rely on specific knowledge.

This may be an atypical response, especially since my experience with wrestling has been explicitly analytical rather than arising from prolonged exposure. But most telling for me was a spontaneous thought I had later that evening. I've been trained to watch events around me, and imagine what would happen if different characters were put in those situations. I was stumbling down the fire escape with a cigarette in my mouth, almost inhaled it by accident and suddenly thought of a wrestler on a staircase, tackled from behind, swallowing a cigarette and belching fire. That was a more physical reinterpretation of events than is my norm, and I'll go so far as to say that is because it was drawing on a different vocabulary. I still don't think I'm a wrestling fan, but maybe I've learned something (useful) after all.

Why Study Profeesional Wrestling?

2007-05-08T12:36:00.000-04:00

Hi Sam,

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I've always liked it!

I would recommend the article itself and I've included the link at the end!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Haecker, Crossing the Line Between Entertainment and Reality: A Sociological Analysis of Collective Behavior in Professional Wrestling

Why Study Professional Wrestling?

The phenomenon that I believe is important for sociological study is how the wrestlers create an “emotional rollercoaster” that takes the fans on a ride into near riot conditions, and after the catharsis moment (the end of the match), all is in harmony once again. The collective unity of the crowd that the wrestlers achieve is an art form but also a systematic manipulation of the crowd. A set of structures are at hand in how the wrestlers use combat to tell the story of the wrestling match. Professional wrestling reproduces the excitement and interaction from its events on a regular basis. While there are many different variations of these interactions, the persuasions are approximately the same. Wrestlers have seen the world in a way very few people experience. They use their influence for the collective behavior of a vast demographic of people with various backgrounds, interests, and ideals. Professional wrestling may yield answers to the study of collective behavior by how it uses predicted responses of crowd reactions on a consistent basis. This achieves a planned outcome that generates the appropriate conclusion for those who control the shows. The outcome of a wrestling match works as a release of emotion and anxiety that has been built from the ground up in a live setting using unaware but primed people. This I believe is an important area of study.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.uwsp.edu/grantsup/
studentresearch/VolumeV/
Haecker.html

Judging the Latino Wrestling Performance

2007-05-08T11:59:00.000-04:00

After reading Serrato’s piece in Steel Chair to the Head and watching the match between Eddie Guerrero and Kurt Angle I was left with two conflicting impressions. Reading and watching something take place are two completely different experiences. When I was reading the piece on Latino wrestlers, it seemed like there was such a negative connotation in their performances. This is something that isn’t as apparent in watching Latino wrestlers perform during a show.

Eddie had fun with his character and even comments that he knows people from his hometown, El Paso, who act the way his character does and serve as a basis for his character. It’s meant to parody a stereotype that already exists in society. Eddie comments that it’s stupid that some people read too much into the character and it’s only meant to be funny. As a Mexican, I think that I was rarely offended by some of Eddie’s antics inside the ring. I thought that most things he did were pretty funny, even the time he rode into the arena in a lawnmower. His trickster character was also fun to watch. I thought it did more than just show how lying, cheating and stealing can get you to the top. It showed how brains can conquer braun. Eddie used his intelligence to have an edge over the opponent in a way that was rarely illegal. I think that the audience had the same type of attitude toward Eddie Guerrero. The way he was received by the fans shows that he was able to convey that his character was meant to be funny.

As an outsider watching or reading about wrestling, it may appear that Eddie Guerrero is giving Latinos a bad name by being glorified for lying, cheating, and stealing. The piece made it seem like the fans were laughing at Eddie and other Latino wrestlers instead of with them. WCW and WWE were then used these stereotypes as a way of keeping these wrestlers down in the business. I don’t know if I believe that the formation of the NWO was a direct result of Latinos gaining more popularity than the big white wrestlers. It seemed like a series of coincidences that were made into an argument. I do agree with the odds being against the Latino wrestlers to win the Heavyweight Championship and being the central figures in wrestling. This article was written, however, before Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio both won the Championship and became big parts of the WWE. I guess it’s only natural that a Latino wrestler won it since Latinos make up one of the largest fan bases.

I think that it is important to experience both forms of communication. I was able to obtain very different perspectives on an important issue in wrestling from reading another person’s views and making my own directly. Reading about some of the historical aspects allows you to make a more complete analysis on some of the more controversial issues in wrestling. I think the best bet would be to make your own judgment after you have more than just a first person point of view.

Minority and Class Culture in Wrestling

2007-05-08T09:38:00.000-04:00

As we've mentioned several times before, the idea of good versus evil is an omnipresent theme in professional wrestling. We've discussed how good and evil are often ideas defined by capitalism whereby hardworking citizens may often find themselves disillusioned by an incompetent and/or indifferent government and individuals who succeed by using underhanded means.

Race has also been used to define good and evil in the wrestling ring. Historically, it was more often the foreigner who was cast as the evil aggressor. Professional wrestling would play off of xenophobic sentiments of the time to invent new characters. Hence personae like Franz Herman, Fritz von Erich, and the Iron Sheik. These villains were pit against familiar American faces.

At the same time, however, fans have been able to identify with minority wrestling characters. These wrestlers have provided a way for foreign, non-American characters to become babyfaces in the ring. Throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s, there were several Mexican-American wrestlers who were able to build a sizable postive following among the general fanbase. More recently, wrestling phenoms like the Rock, Eddie Guerrero, and Rey Misterio, Jr. have been able to command even greater success.

An apparent difference between the two generations of wrestlers has often been noted. While the earlier minority wrestlers were able to be cast in a generally positive light as hardworking, sportsmanlike faces, the more recent generation of minority characters have exploited many existing racial stereotypes. Nevertheless, these wrestlers have been able to enjoy even greater success and appear to be some of the more popular characters of their respective wrestling programs.

While it is easy to align the popularity of minority characters with the minority fan base, there necessarily exists a deeper source of their widespread fame. As veritable symbols of the fruits of hard work and effort, the wrestlers themselves and not simply their characters can be identified as "good" as per the definitions prescribed by the capitalistic view of wrestling. As a result, these wrestlers are able to transcend race and become heroes of the working class.

Just as we've discussed in class, it is social class that has become the ultimate criterion for defining popular wrestlers, especially as wrestling progressed throughout the latter part of the 20th century. Haughtiness and arrogance has rarely if ever been tolerated in the ring. It is the ability of wrestlers to identify with the blue-collar ideals of the fanbase that has become an important determining factor in their success as performers in the squared circle.

The Latino Wrestling Performer

2007-05-08T00:43:00.000-04:00

In his essay from Steel Chair to The Head, Phillip Serrato discusses the waning integrity of the Latino wrestling performer. Serrato focuses on the idea that since the 60s and 70s the role of the Latino wrestler has become increasingly stereotypical casting him in a particularly negative light. He notes the paradox that surrounds this trend considering that issues of racism have improved significantly over time in the U.S.

As a Latino, I had never really considered the implications of Hispanic wrestler's actions in the ring. After watching Cheating Death, Stealing Life: The Eddie Guerrero Story, I began to understand Serrato's take on wrestling. Under the WWE, Guerrero had adopted an even more stereotypical character than he had been used in his WCW and ECW past. His "Latin Heat" persona was, as Serrato cites, a "womanizer" and a "cheat" who was not ashamed of doing anything to win a match.

I must admit that at first, I was a little suprised to see deeply Latin Heat fell into a lot of stereotypes surrounding Mexican-American culture. As I studied his antics a bit more, I realized that though his character did play with many stereotypes it was nothing particularly malicious. I wasn't especially offended by what Latin Heat did or said. In Serrato's essay, Guerrero describes the fun he had portraying his wrestling alter ego. He relates how much the character reminded him of some of the people he had grown up with in El Paso and how secure he was with his own culture to poke some fun.

I guess it just depends who's watching when. When is it ok to laugh? When should there be a line drawn to discern farce from the excessive? In this age when comedy and entertainment are pushing the limits it becomes difficult to tell when and if these boundaries are to be defined.

While the WWE does play with a lot of risky issues I believe that it does not go beyond that; it really is simply play. Truly there are some social implications, some consequences of their actions that exist outside the ring and the arena. But I don't belive that there is an intent to purposely reinforce racial stereotypes. As far as McMahon may take his program sometimes, he simply feeds off of what's hot at the moment--anything to draw heat from a crowd.

Benoit, Triple H, HBK Triple Threat

2007-05-07T20:39:00.000-04:00

Since I borrowed Sam's Wrestlemania 20 package over the weekend I made sure to watch every piece of material on all three discs, including the Triple Threat main event match - three times (I was dying my hair, a 5 hour + process). This match is a classic example of how to build a rather complicated match, with 3 exceptionally talented veterans putting every ounce of skill and experience into the storyline of the match, taking their time to give the crowd and audience at home their money's worth.

While the King tries to play up that Benoit and Michaels would double-team the champion first and the leave it to themselves, this 'plan' goes out the window from the get go. We eventually get into a pattern of a spot here and there that will knock one wrestler out for a minute so that the other two can trade some blows and moves. There are several attempts by each guy to set up their finishing hold (eg the Crippler Crossface) early on in the match, supposedly to end the bout early, but of course they wouldn't finish up that early. This being Wrestlemania, Michaels bust out a moonsault to the outside, something that I don't ever recall seeing him perform.

later Benoit unleashes several of his classic 'Hat Tricks', three-in-a-row suplexes that probably aren't doing his neck any favors (I still get a big kick out of them), followed soon by a superplex off the turnbuckle by HHH. By this point the crowd is still relatively tame, but still rapt, then suddenly Hunter attempts a pedigree on Benoit which he then reverses into the Crossface, but it is broken. Another hat trick by Benoit to Michaels, who expertly plays them up with his facial experessions. Another common spot in big pay per view matches is the opponent sometimes attempting his opponent's finisher or trademark move on him, such as Michaels attempting a series of suplexes on Benoit, but failing. When successful this move supposedly hurts the moral of his opponent and is part of the taunting 'psychology' of the ring.

Soon we have some Sweet Chin Music, and then soon enough we have Michaels wearing a Crimson Mask very quickly after bouncing off the turnbuckle (now if the pad had been removed from the turnbuckle, i would believe that amount of blood, but it wasn't, so the bleeding seems very unbelieveable). Benoit soon get Michaels in the Crossface, and Michaels is about to tap, but Hunter grabs his hand as it comes down, preventing his title from changing hands (clever!), as under the Triple Threat stipulations the champion doesn't even have to be pinned to lose his title.

Not that long after, Hunter begins prepping the Spanish announce tables for ... something, and soon he and Michaels jointly suplex Benoit through one table, and earn a "Holy Shit" chant from the MSG crowd. This metamorphosizing of heel and face roles throughout the match is classic of Triple Threat or other 3+ member matches, where some characters, who normally are enemies may work together for a little while to eliminate an opponent, and then in the next moment they are battling each other again. In the dynamics of this match, there is no clear heel or face, and an entire autonomous storyline that is rather unrelated to the overarching plot can be contained within this one match.

Now Michaels is covered in his own blood, and Benoit is out of action, so that Michaels and HHH are supposedly left to finish the match, with the audience roaring, but just as a pin is attempted after a Pedigree Benoit breaks it up (duh). Benoit powers back against HHH and locks him in the Sharpshooter, as the crowd goes ballistic - here benoit is clearly the underdog face, who has never won the championship. Michaels breaks it up with some more Sweet Chin Music, but Benoit throws him over the top, turning into HHH, who attempts another Pedigree, which Benoit again reverses into the Crippler Crossface. Hunter fights it, but the Rapid Wolverine is relentless, and the champion taps out, and the Garden erupts, and Benoit tearfully accepts his first WWE HeavyWeight title. Soon after, Eddie Guerrero (the Smackdown Champion) comes to the ring and embraces his longtime (real life) friend in the middle of the ring and raises his hand, a clear moment where plotlines are thrown to the winds for such a personally meaningful moment, and I'm pretty sure the WWE offices didn't mind, as they replayed that moment over and over later on.

This is a classic match which demonstrates the buildup and dynamic of a multi-person match, where there are more variables to deal with, more styles to work with, plot lines to consider and adapt. Here there is always action going on with three athletes, keeping the pace lively while not overwhelming like some other 4 or more person matches. By allowing one wrestler to go out, have the other two go to blows and then change it up over the course of the match, there is enough time to catch one's breath and not get completely worn out, so that the match is longer, consistantly dynamic and high energy, making it a great special departure from the classic one on one matchup, especially when featuring three verterans of this caliber battling for the WWE Championship.

Your Thesis Statement

2007-05-07T18:08:00.000-04:00

Hello from the left coast of Canada!

Here's a few tips on writing a paper that I always give my class. I hope you find it helpful in writing yours

My Master of Arts thesis statement consisted of 4 simple words:
"Professional Wrestling is Theatre".

Remember its a statement and not a question!

Your opening paragraph: 4 step model.

1) Introduce your subject
2) State your thesis (a one sentence statement works best)
3) How you plan on proving your thesis (Methodology)
4) Tie the introduction sentence to your thesis and repeat it at the conclusion of your paper

State your points as clearly and simply as you can.

Don't try and do too much: remember to keep it simple

8 easy steps to a better paper:

1) Outline it 1st

2) Write a very rough draft

3) Re-write that into a1st draft

4) Proof read it for factual errors

5) Re-write your first draft --- yes, it will improve your mark!!!

6) Let it sit for a bit, hopefully more than just overnight

7) Proof read it again

8) Look out for the little stuff: title page, staples, etc

Good luck!

AGAIN:

Do yourself a favor and Keep it simple!

Trust me: essays are easy and they get easier over time!

Point in case:

As an undergrad, you couldn't get 4 written pages out of me, but as a graduate student you couldn't shut me up after 40! *S*

Thanks for listening!

See you at the turnbuckle!

david

Golden Boy vs. Pretty Boy

2007-05-07T04:55:00.000-04:00

De La Hoya...Mayweather...De La Hoya...Mayweather...

It was one of the biggest title fights since Lennox Lewis battled Evander Holyfield; it was hailed to be the dream fight to save boxing; and it fell short of all the hype.

This weekend I had the opportunity to watch the greatly anticipated Oscar De La Hoya vs. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. match. As somewhat of a boxing fan, I had my own expectations for the fight. Like most, I really was hoping that the match would be one for the ages. I can remember watching De La Hoya's earlier career fights against greats like Julio Cesar Chavez and Felix Trinidad. I would sit right in front of the tv and hope the bout would turn into a Rocky-like drama with both fighters struggling to go one more round. I couldn't help but let myself believe I'd actually get to see one last great fight from the champ. But like most, I was disappointed.

As each round went by you could sense the lack of tenacity in each fighter. In fact, in some of those rounds each fighter had thrown only 30 punches. By the sixth round, the mediocrity of the bout had sunk in. There was hardly any struggle until maybe the last the ten seconds of round 12. By the time the final bell rang, both fighters still had the same baby faces they had when they stepped into the ring.

The spectacle, however overhyped and overrated it turned out to be (perhaps for that very reason), reminded me very much of a wrestling match. The show's similarity to wrestling was made especially clear as each fighter approached the ring. Mayweather,the heel of the two, made his way to the center of the arena sporting the colors of the Mexican flag on his trunks and wearing a sparkling sombrero. It was an obvious cheap shot against the self-proclaimed Golden Boy of boxing and the kind of act we see time and time again in the world of wrestling.

De La Hoya walked in to the usual sound of trumpets and traditional Mexican music. Who and what he represents as a well-known Mexican-American fighter has always been clear. Mayweather knew what he was doing when he stepped into the arena. With 90% of the arena chanting "Oscar, Oscar, Oscar" he was not going to deny he was the heel; he simply ran with it.

The fight, like a well-planned wrestling match up, had the makings of a good drama. Each fighter had his own form of pageantry, they were well polarized opponents, Mayweather had even made it "personal" by allegedly insulting De La Hoya's family. The stage was set, perhaps a little too well, for an historic fight. But unlike a successful wrestling main event, the hype does not gurantee a good show. In fact, it is almost always too much to live up to. You simply can't predict exactly how a match will unfold in boxing.

Despite the lackluster performance by De La Hoya and Mayweather, I still couldn't say that I would have rather watched a wrestling PPV event. That's just how big time competitive sports go. You can only cheer for your favorite side and hope you're watching history in the making. Just ask a fan of the Goldenstate Warriors.

Comparing the Documentaries

2007-05-07T04:33:00.000-04:00

The two documentaries we watched in class, Beyond the Mat (BTM) and The Mania of Wrestlemania (TMOW) take you behind the scenes of a wrestling show. The two, however, are very different in content and production quality. This results mostly because TMOW was produced by the WWE and BTM wasn’t. Even though the documentaries differ greatly, they give different perspectives on what goes on when wrestlers aren’t performing.

BTM felt more like a documentary than TMOW. The camera-work, candid interviews with wrestlers, and issues dealt with seem more real than TMOW. TMOW appears to be more like a scripted documentary that aims to promote the Wrestlemania event. Even though Vince appears more in BTM than TMOW, he had no control over BTM’s production. The wrestlers in BTM speak more openly, unlike TMOW where wrestlers have to be more cautious about what they say.

I thought TMOW was surprisingly short. I think this was done intentionally as a way to keep people’s interest. It appeared that the documentary was centered around a few shocking images (injuries from Stone Cold, Brock Lesnar, and Kurt Angle) that drove the stories. I almost forgot that there was a bit on the Undertaker and Shawn Michaels because there was nothing really interesting about the stories. I don’t know if I would’ve been able to stay interested in it if it had lasted another half hour.

Time wasn’t even an issue for BTM. I was able to get involved in every story told and it felt like they weren’t performing for the camera. There was conflict within each story that was sometimes unresolved, unlike TMOW. It shows how stories don’t always have a happy ending in real life. I also felt like I was able to follow the stories more easily in BTM. I never saw Wrestlemania XIX and I felt like could’ve appreciated the documentary if I had watched wrestling during this time period. BTM did not require knowledge of the time periods to understand the effects that wrestling had on the lives of those in the documentary.

The stories in both documentaries have a similar structure, but the content is contrasting. TMOW tells different stories about Wrestlemania XIX from the wrestler’s perspective. It does not really go beyond the mat like the other documentary. It attempts to bring in what the wrestler’s families were feeling about injuries and matches, but it seems very contrived. BTM, on the other hand, gives more than just a story about a wrestling match. It details some of the internal and external conflicts that wrestlers were going through away from the spotlight. It shows how wrestling has affected the wrestlers and their families in ways that have never been seen before. I would have never known about this dark side of wrestling if it wasn’t for this documentary.

Stepping Away From Fantasy

2007-05-04T09:49:00.000-04:00

I distinctly remember the day that I heard Owen Hart had died. At first I wasn’t sure if it was part of the wrestling storyline because someone had told me that the Blue Blazer died. I just thought that they had killed off the blue blazer character. The next night when they showed the RAW tribute, I knew for sure that tragedy had fallen on the WWE. Owen Hart’s death brings up many interesting issues concerning the way in which the situation was handled.

In watching the clips from the PPV that he had the accident, it is interesting how they continued on with the show. It looked like the fans at first thought that it was some kind of wrestling angle and that it was part of the stunt. You can see the crowd was unsure what to think after some time had passed. Being in the crowd and removed from the action, I don’t think that the fans understood the gravity of the situation. The WWE fans had been tricked and thrown with al types of surprises in the past that you can’t really blame them for wanting the show to continue. You can obviously tell that the wrestlers’ and commentators’ heads were not in the event, but with Hart.

The next night on RAW, the WWE made a 2-hr tribute to Owen. The tribute consisted of candid interviews of wrestlers who knew Hart and their memories of him. You get the feeling that he was really loved and respected in the WWE. Although he did not play as big of a role in the storylines, you can tell that he was a big influence behind the scenes. I did feel like they were trying to come away form the fantasy wrestling world and into real life. Several wrestlers are shown crying for the loss of a friend and are able to convey the kind of person Owen was outside the ring.

I think Jeff Jarrett explained his character best in one word: integrity. In Sex, Lies, and Headlocks it’s explained that Owen was forced to make that entrance because he refused to be involved in a storyline that was offensive to him and his family. Vince has proved that he would never make a wrestler do something that he wouldn’t do himself. A similar high flying entrance was also performed by Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania XII. In a clip we watched earlier in the class, Vince was shown to be the first person to test the harness out. I don’t think Vince intentionally put Owen in harms way, but an accident did happen.

The thing that made me feel uneasy was the way in which the fans continued to play the role of a wrestling fan during both nights. It is more understandable that they might’ve been confused at the PPV and just thought it was part of the show. The next night, however, they seemed to be celebratory at times. Even during the ringing of the bell, the fans are still cheering by the time it is half way through. The wrestlers were able to step back from the fantasy world for one night, but the fans were stuck somewhere in the doorway. I guess it is hard to step back form the situation when you’re in the wrestling environment and ultimately the show must go on.

cms 101 question

2007-05-03T06:50:00.000-04:00

I enjoyed David's talk about wrestling in relation to ancient theater and Dell'Arte. The parallels are convincing; the performative structures and melodramatic mode are very similar. I was especially interested to hear about the audience participation in ancient theater, as well as the strategies of actors for comminucating between eachother and the audience. The Bret Hart/ British Bulldog match we saw demonstrated wrestling's versions of these tactics.

I had some lingering question as I left class yesterday, that has now blown up in my head into a more broad inquiry...

What does a really successful comparison of pro wrestling to ancient theater give us? (I don't mean for that to sound as skeptical as it does; it's an earnest question...). Does it prove that there are some universal values or theatrical structure in pro wrestling because it relates to a performance history? Does it validate wrestling/ give it credibility? Or are wrestling and Commedia Dell'Arte being compared in order to describe/ understand the other? If the relational study of wrestling offers us a new lens through which to read it, what is the new vision (besides the lens itself)?

I mentioned to Sam at some point that I thought it was interesting that almost every text we read had an obligatory section validating the study of pro wrestling. In Sam's Foley article, for example: "Pro wrestling shows are then particularly rewarding texts in which to study the ways in which its character and narratives reflect values and conflicts in American culture, as this case study of Foley has demonstrated." I guess for me it boils down to a question about whether we're studying culture through wrestling, wrestling through culture, or some interactive version of the two.

Forgive me, there's a whole lot I don't know about CMS. I took this class as a 'poacher' more than anything, importing inspiration and theoretical grapplings from the material into my art practice and thesis development. I have done some of the 'comparative' part, mostly in relating what we see to what I know in order to make sense of it. But in writing the paper, I suppose I have some confusion about what hat I'm wearing. Am I an artist thinking about wrestling? Or a student of wrestling adding some thooughts from other discourses? Or an MIT grad student with an obligation to try to grasp what this CMS animal is and work within its rules/ discourse?

I'm glad we've been encouraged to bring our own expertise to the class/ to the blog posts. CMS does strike me as a field based on transgressing boundaries of study, which is why I was suprised at the disdain about the non-cms posts at a certain point. This really got me confused: "CMS classes constantly have this problem - a bunch of kids think 'ooh, a class on tv/wrestling/movies! no way!' and move in, so self impressed that they're managing to get college credit for their weekend amusement that they fail to realize that CMS is actually a disciplined study, which here in CMS we take just as seriously as you take CS, or chemistry, or mathematics. And so class discussion goes to pot, we spend classes re-explaining readings, and those of us who are capable of trying to integrate the theory, practical, and intense body of literature relevant to this field are left to walk each other places after class, bemoaning the difficulties of learning at MIT." Does this mean that CMS is about a comparative study practice only from the starting point of CMS itself?

Does it devalue the work and thoughts of the class that, for me, the endpoint is not in fact a scholarly attempt at reading a pop culture phenomenon within a larger cultural framework or historic trajectory, but to take those ideas and chew them around and spit them back out into my own practice, which is not in CMS, but more closely related to the wrestling content itself (in that it's performance-based)?

Sorry about the ramble; I'm just trying to resolve some discomforts with my position in this... and it helps to look at what other people's goals are in studying this topic (like David and his comparison to ancient theater).

Wrestling with Divas

2007-05-02T21:34:00.000-04:00

Another issue that Wrestling with Manhood raised for me (apart from, as we discussed in class, the ethical questionability of the entire film) was how women are treated in wrestling. I'm particularly bothered by the direction that WWE has taken in the past few years around de-emphasizing women as wrestlers and presenting them more as generic Barbie-ish eye candy. Along these lines, I may somewhat be agreeing with Sut Jhally (horrors!) but as Sam mentioned some of his basic points are good even if he doesn't really prove them convincingly or draws conclusions about them that are far too wide ranging based on the available information.

WWE's recent strategy regarding women competitors really puzzles me for two reasons. One is that wrestling audiences have always seemed to respond really well to women who can actually wrestle. I don't get the sense that fans are clamoring to see women in the ring who are incompetent wrestlers but look good in a bikini. In fact, my impression that things like the WWE Diva Search are treated with disinterest at best by wrestling fans, since the purpose is not to find women who are wrestlers but women who are simply there for decoration (if I recall correctly, the open call for the most recent WWE Diva Search specifically stated that wrestling experience was not necessary). The other is that given the, uh, very easily accessible alternatives (e.g. porn on the Internet), I am not sure why WWE thinks that having skimpily clad non-wrestling women on its shows will make those shows more appealing or interesting, or make people more likely to buy or watch them. If a 13-year-old kid with raging hormones has the choice of looking at a partially clad Diva on a WWE show or PPV, or seeing a whole lot more of women on the Internet for free, it seems pretty obvious which will be the choice.

Some of my male wrestling fan friends observe that the "look" of the divas - the quasi-porn-star look, with silicone-enhanced chests and bleached blond hair - is too generic and that the divas would be more interesting to them not only if they could actually wrestle (or if the ones who can wrestle were allowed to do so, rather than having to tone things down to work with the non-wrestlers in matches), but also if there were more "types" and they looked more like real women. Do others agree?

Return to the Royal Rumble

2007-05-02T03:29:00.000-04:00

The Royal Rumble viewing at Sam’s house was the first Royal Rumble I had seen in years. The last time I had seen a full Royal Rumble from beginning to end was in 1996 when Shawn Michaels won it for the second year in a row. It just so happens that the Rumble is my favorite WWE PPV of the year. In just three hours, it is able to demonstrate what makes the WWE successful.

The Royal Rumble, in my opinion, is the most action-packed pay per view of the year. There was little filler space, having three championship matches and a 30-man battle royal. Each brand, ECW, RAW, and Smackdown, is able to showcase their champion defending their title against the number one contender. In the three matches we watched, the champions retained their title and put on a showing for the fans in the process. Even if you’ve never watched a match before, you can still sense the importance of each match.

The actual rumble is excited former beginning to end. There’s a lot of unpredictability to the match since nobody knows who will enter next. New and old faces appeared in the ring every 90 seconds. I particularly enjoyed this because I was able to see some of my favorite wrestlers from when I last watched wrestling a few years ago. I was able to better appreciate the way in which the match was organized and how the wrestlers had to work together in order to put on a good show. Older wrestlers took charge of the match, big wrestlers cleaned out the ring, and the announcers kept the excitement level at a maximum. In the end the Undertaker became the first #30 to win the rumble. You could tell that he was going to win when he single-handedly took out Khali and nearly 10 wrestlers were needed to take out Viscera.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Royal Rumble viewing at Sam’s house. It reminded me of why I enjoy watching wrestling. Even though I haven’t been able to keep up with it recently, I was still able to follow every match and wrestling move. The structure of wrestling allows you to pick up on a storyline after a lapse in watching. Hopefully, this will be the start of future viewings of WWE pay per view events.

Growing Up, Growing More Risque and Growing More Family Friendly Again

2007-05-01T15:26:00.000-04:00

I was psyched to hear that you've just read my article, Growing Up and Growing More Risque, and I was curious what you all thought. Here's an interesting postscript: For the past several weeks I had been involved in an intense recruiting process to work as a writer for the WWE, developing exactly the same kind of trends that I had written about academically six years before almost to the day. After five interviews with the head recruiter and having my writing sample - in which Edge discovers he's the father of a teenage girl - be read roundtable and discussed by Stephenie McMahon-Lavesque and WWE Creative they decided to pass. But they said I had exceptional potential and left the door open for me to get some more experience and to re-apply in a year. But before I got the bad news I had already begun writing a sequel to Growing Up and Growing More Risque which I hope to someday, somehow get written and published chronocling my transition from fan to pro, from outsider to insider. In the meantime, I'm working on getting some experience and I'm really thrilled to have my piece read at MIT. I wish I could come back again to discuss it with you but I was keen to do so on the blog if nothing else.

The backstory. As I said, I wrote the article about six years ago to the day. I remember adding in a bit about the then brand new Hulk Hogan/The Rock match at Wrestlemania X8 in the last set of revisions in order to sound as current as possible. It all started when my Freshman year of college I wrote a final project for UC-Santa Barbara professor Lisa Parks' TV History class on the WWE as soap opera, focusing on the drive-through Vegas wedding ceremony between Stephenie McMahon and HHH in comparison to the weddings that commonly mark major milestones on traditional daytime soaps. That same month I had an opportunity through a class on Writing the TV Script: Buffy the Vampire Slayer to visit the set of Sunnydale in its fourth season (where the Scooby Gang goes to college) and asked Professor Parks to come with us as a chaparone purely on the basis that I had a crush on her. In a complete fluke it turned out she was starting work on a book about Buffy. Fortunately she'd loved my paper on wrestling and had given me an A+ and through our conversations in the van to Culver City I managed to network my way into writing an article for the book. I'd seen it done. I was convinced I could do it, no problem. Somewhat to my chagrin, what started out being an article by me about Buffy ended up being a dialogic piece between my father and I, which we wrote by sending emails back and forth over Thanksgiving break. It was a wonderful father-son time that I really look back on fondly but it proved nothing except that everyone in academia thinks it's adorable that Henry Jenkins has a son who wants to be just like him! How special! So the second time out I was determined to write my own article. Well, as you can see from reading the book it half worked. My dad and I both wrote afterwords, but they were seperate afterwords. I've always been accused of being a journalistic writer, a creative writer, something other than an academic writer, and given a free choice I've always preferred to go with that rather than cover it up. I was lucky that Nicholas Sammond understood what I wanted to do - to use my memories to trace patterns that I could make broader arguments about. I wrote one main draft, which took me about five days, and then went through two or three revisions over the next year, each of which took me about an hour to sort through. They were very nice about letting me print the piece pretty much as was.

It's kind of funny - When I was applying for the job on the real WWE writing staff I recieved the advice over and over again that I should send them a copy of my article, but when I read back through it I realized that I made several references to enjoying Stephenie McMahon-Helmsley in a sexual way, and since McMahon-Lavesque would soon be my boss and would be the one reading it I decided inappropriate sexual conduct wasn't the right foot to start off on. Not to mention that I basically said her father got cow towed by ECW. Yup. That essay's going deep in the vault.

I think the thing I'm proudest of about the article - other than the approach, which is different than I'd read before - is how prophetic the ending was. I said that the WWE was starting to become more melow, more grown up, to push the envelope less, that it was becoming more mature and I believe it did. The current WWE is a lot more clean cut than the WWE of the time I was writing the article. There are a lot fewer cheap heat angles - no necropholia, no gay wedding bashing. The obscenity is for punctuation ("...................................... DAMN!") instead of every other word, which is fine by me. But they haven't taken a step backwards. They've taken a step forwards. This is definately no kids show. Not with Melina's ring entrance or bloody Hell in a Cell matches. This is much more grown up in that they feel the need to act out to get attention less. John Cena is the perfect baby face. He even salutes his enemies when they won't shake his hand. He's patriotic. He's studly. He's Hulk Hogan and Shawn Michaels rolled into one, but he's his own thing too. He sets the tone for the WWE along with classic wrestlers like Michaels and The Undertaker and Chris Benoit and completely uncontroversial, painfully dull heros like Lashley and Batista. Today's wrestling has the elements I liked about old wrestling - some silly gimmicks like a country western Asian guy or greasers with a rollergirl or an Irishman with a leprachaun - and a classier feel - but it also has the things I valued about its adolescent period - breathtaking high spots and some fun play with sexuality. There are things I would badly like to see them work on. I feel like they're still way behind in terms of seeing women as equals rather than play things. They've gone with such uncontroversial characters in some cases that I'm not sure who the heck they are (Batista, Lashley.) But I think the hour long HBK/Cena match last week and the long term angle they're building with Mr. Kennedy are some of the best stuff I've seen the WWE do in a while and I'm really taken with it.

What do you think?

Henry

Picking Apart Sources

2007-05-01T11:26:00.000-04:00

I was excited about showing Wrestling with Manhood for two reasons: first, it raises some good questions about politics and gender roles that we cannot ignore in a class on pro wrestling; and, second, it provided a stark reminder to question academic methodology.

Mick Foley said in the epilogue to his book that we read earlier this semester that he was amazed no journalists questioned the Indiana University study. Does that mean that we shouldn't discuss violence on television? No. But a nuanced discussion is needed. Similarly, I'm amazed by how little academics question videos like Wrestling with Manhood. I wanted to show it here in a setting where a lot of wrestling fans were in the room where, even if you must agree that some of the issues they raise need to be discussed in relation to wrestling, that the way that documentary was put together does not hold water anyone who actually knows the text.

Of course wrestling "fans" are going to be defensive of their show and their choice of watching it, but this was a case where the documentary-making tactics were unfair and untrue. And they rest on a media effects research that our department has problems with, anyway. As a journalist, one of the reasons I enjoy this text so much is that it's a reminder how "truthy" these texts can seem if you don't know the product, yet how ridiculous they are for anyone who knows the product at all. Many of you all have not watched pro wrestling outside this class, and you all were finding all kinds of holes in the argument as it went along.

Still, I know several of you are doing research that deals with race and gender in wrestling, and I think the piece raises some interesting points that we should continue talking about throughout the rest of the semester. Just remember, don't believe everything you hear and see. That's very true of anything that comes from the pro wrestling world, but it's even more true of academia.

By the way, I promised you some links to the story about WWE being associated with date violence. I wrote a blog entry about this, and Henry wrote a followup. Mike Wehrman also wrote about this. Check out these links:

Mike's editorial is here.

My editorial is here.

Henry's editorial is here.

Sewell and Battema: Trading in Masculinity

2007-05-01T11:06:00.000-04:00

As we discussed masculinity and market discourse with Gregory Spicer and Fiona McQuarrie last Thursday, I know we made a couple of references to the essay by Sewell and Battema but didn't get deep into that discussion. I thought it would be good to return to that essay here on the blog.

Fiona's work focuses particularly on pro wrestling in a business sense, while Gregory Spicer focueses on blue-collar masculinity. Sewell and Battema point out that wrestling, in many ways, can "have its cake or eat it, too." It's built on stereotypes, sexism, and a variety of other troubling aspects of our culture, yet it parodies them at the same time. It leaves a big question mark that it never definitively describes. It revels in some of the worst prejudices of our culture, and simultaneously makes them so excessive as to mock them. What does that mean? Is it reactionary or progressive? There's no easy answer to that question. One thing is for sure--the right and the left both have reason to hate the WWE version of pro wrestling, and WWE has rhetorical ways to lash out at both of them, and to embrace both of them at times.

WWE's relationship with the right is particularly interesting. Wrestling, Sut Jhally says, acts like it's cutting-edge but pushes the same old stereotypes in new packaging. Hard to disagree with, to an extent, but wrestling also acts as parody. Kate had the point that, even if women get revenge in the end, their degredation is sometimes the most memorable part of the show. Very true. Then you have Vince challenging God. Some people would defend that from a Christian perspective by pointing out that Vince eventually got his come-uppance. On the other hand, just as Kate is arguing, what people remember is Vince's mocking God. Again, anti-Christian rhetoric or a Christian narrative, where the blasphemer gets his at the end? Can't be be both?

Battema and Sewell write, "Resulting from this convergence was a slippery set of texts with characters and narrative trajectories that resisted definitive articulation and provided a rhetorical shield against critics, while providing viewers a privileged position as idealized consumers from which they could choose either to take the text as is or to unveil its various conceits" (261-262). I think this sums up the point well. WWE has created a situation, much like the carnival did referring back to Bruce Hardy's research, where it is both utilizing stereotypes and parodying them at the same time. Calling the WWE progressive sounds ludicrous, but calling them conservative does, too. We'll get into this more on Thursday, but I wanted to see if you all had further reactions to this.

Do you all have any reactions to Battema and Sewell's essay and partiuclarly their discussions of racial stereotypes, sexism, and masculinity, many of the issues we discussed last night? I'm interested in how they tie what they see as WWE's neoconservatism to market populism, and I think it makes an interesting pull between Gregory and Fiona's presentations last Thursday and Wrestling with Manhood. While I am troubled by calling WWE definitively neoconservative, as they do, I think the nuance they give the issue--pointing out that wrestling gives two types of reading: straight and parodic--at least sets it above Wrestling with Manhood.

'Wrestling with Manhood' == Wrestling with Agendas

2007-05-01T01:26:00.000-04:00

Well if the producers behind 'Wrestling with Manhood' were trying to get a reaction out of its viewers, they did a good job. First, they were able to take all these bits and pieces of the 'worst' televised WWE footage and present it out of context, strung together and packaged to maximize the impact of its extreme sex, or bullying violence, or whathaveyou. That was certainly effective - to a degree, because after I realized that they were throwing footage together to try and make rather unstable arguments of the effects of watching wrestling, I reacted with more frustration and anger that they were interpreting much of the footage wrong, out of context, and playing it up the wrong way to try and support their arguments. It was just very wishy-washy and not well researched in the end.

One part the sticks out the most is the whole 'wrestling promotes bullying behavior in kids' argument. Well, perhaps their is a smidge of merit to it, perhaps not, that has yet to be proven. They continually reference the top wrestling stars exhibiting 'bullying behavior', like picking on announcers or smaller opponents, verbally and mentally bashing them on top of physically beating them down in the ring, etc. In the documentary, they show footage of such behavior and basically tout it as accepted, encouraged behavior by the stars, the top guys that kids look up to and emulate, whom audiences root for. Well, no, not really. This is the sort of behavior the crowds _boo_, picking on the weak, acting like a arrogant punk, etc - this is all heel behavior, not face behavior. They have confused popular == hero, which does not always work. You can be a popular heel or a popular face, and by popular heel we mean the fans love to hate you.

For example, they specifically target Stone Cold Steve Austin, naturally, because he's been one of the biggest names and draws in wrestling history. They cite his bullying of announcer Michael Cole, his domineering behavior, his trash talking and beat downs of weaker opponents, and so forth as classic bullying behavior, which young fans may then emulate because they saw their idol, Stone Cold, a 'real man', do it. Well, not so fast. All of that behavior, and all the footage they showed of it, was when Stone Cold had turned heel! He was not being a heroic (or anti-heroic as the case may be) figure, he was _trying_ to be someone the fans would hate, and so he acted accordingly, as a bully. One of the surefire ways for a wrestler to get major heat for the fans (and encourage his run as a heel) is to beat down another popular wrestler/character, especially a smaller/weaker/younger one, eg Triple H and Austin utterly demolishing the Hardyz and Lita as they lay prone and unconscious in the ring. This worked because Team Extreme were at the pinnacle of their popularity, and by beating them down it earned Austin and HHH virulent hatred from the fans. While this heel turn was not very successful, it did run for a while, and possibly affected what some casual fans saw in Stone Cold as a character. But no. Fans are hardly encouraged to endorse this sort of bullying behavior, they boo it, as any heel will come off as a bully at some point in time. This is one point where 'Wrestling with Manhood' was trying to make a case, and ended up tripping over itself by not having a clear understanding of the story dynamics and context.

One point where they are slightly more accurate is the issue of violence against women and the sexualization of violence in general amongt wrestling storylines. Yes some of the plots that the women are part of are sexist, shallow, and pure t&a entertainment for the guys. Sometimes these ladies are beaten down, sexually harassed, and all manner of other degrading things. Yes this is all very unfortunate and sexist and all that. Let's all get angry about this, etc.

That's pretty much where they leave off. They don't actually get to the resolution of all the degradation that these women endure, and again, they don't review the _context_ of all the footage the show. For all the unfair beatdowns, and strippings, and so forth, there are also quite a few retaliatory low blows, and comebacks and come-uppances. These women fight (on their own some of the time, no less) for their justice, and in the end, the Bad Guy who inflicted all this pain and suffering gets his just desserts. So are all the sexist actions and plot devices just there to titillate? No, they also build characters and advance storylines, by making heels seem even more horrible and morally disgusting (eg Vince making Trish bark like a dog - the crowd was booing most of the time!), as well as providing that eventual turn of the tide for the victim to fight back and earn their pride and for the audience to cheer. Without that context, this sexual violence seems pointless and horrible and put on air just for its own sake (and it is horrible and titillating, but not entirely pointless). By having our victims fight back and our aggressors boo'd and eventually defeated, the idea that this behavior should be discouraged is enforced, rather than promoting sexual violence as these producers try to argue.

Finally, the one overall thing that irritated me about this film was that they never once considered the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of functionality and societal role of wrestling: as a catharsis of caged emotion, rather than a cause of it. They argue in several ways about how watching wrestling can encourage all sorts of deviant and dangerous behavior, but never once looked at other arguments that say that wrestling, along with other structured, violent activities such as hockey, football, and so forth, acts as a release mechanism, a way for the public to express hate and anger and aggression and passion and all these things that are normally societally unacceptable. In the wrestling arena (or the football stadium or hockey rink) all these emotions are expressed in a controlled acceptable environment, providing that catharsis that allows us to function a little better in everyday, emotionally confined society without all of those emotions bottled up inside. But this perception is never addressed in "wrestling with Manhood', they only push their agenda of 'wrestling influences us to do $BADTHING' like fans have no moral agency at all. It basically portrays us as dumb impressionable animals who can't thing or analyze what we see. That's insulting. While some of their arguments may have some merit, the fact that they were so narrow-minded in their presentations and also that they took all their sources and footage out of context to make flimsy arguments put this presentation low in my opinion.

Washington Post article about Austin

2007-04-29T08:58:00.000-04:00

Just read this in the WA Post today about Steve Austin, WWE films, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801058.html?hpid=featuresNaN&hpv=national

What's so bad about Beyond the Mat?

2007-04-25T21:44:00.000-04:00

I remember that Beyond the Mat came out when I was in high school, when I would read the Washington Post's movie section cover to cover. While I never got to go see the movie, I remembered that it stayed in theaters for quite some time, and the Post's review made a sincere case for Mrs. Foley to win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar that year.

I also recall that it was described as "the movie Vince McMahon doesn't want you to see!" After seeing the movie, along with the "Mania of Wrestlemania", I'm a bit confused as to exactly why the WWE was upset with the movie. The hyperreality of wrestling was clearly acknowledged and appreciated by both the fans and the WWE itself at this point in time. As was mentioned in class, "Mania" turned the story into a sacrifice of the body. While Beyond the Mat was much more a story about wrestling sacrificing one's psyche, and may have been WWE's initial revulsion from it, I kept thinking about the number of times that the Wrestling shows have actually embraced the idea of wrestling as a story about emotional sacrifice. Take Kurt Angle. During his feud with John Cena, and when he started to turn on the fans chanting "you suck" during his entrance, Kurt mentioned all that he has sacrificed in his life just so he can perform each week, including how he was currently going through a divorce but was still performing (as he was a heel, a small portion of the crowd actually cheered this). When he eventually moved to TNA, it would often be promoted that TNA "saved Kurt's life". This was in the sense that the WWE travel schedule led him to a painkiller addiction and a ruined personal life, but TNA's program helped him focus back on what he loved, heal his personal crises and kick his drug problem. I kind of see this as the flip side to Beyond the Mat's depiction of the wrestling-psyche: wrestling not as dramatic or physical redemption, but an emotional redemption for the wrestlers.

This says nothing of Mick Foley talking about his family and passions while in the ring, or the open manner in which the WWE talked about Eddie Guerrero's drug addiction that he overcame by (among other things) rediscovering his passion to wrestle. Or how Stone Cold Steve Austin's marital/life problems often bubble up in storylines (his return was hyped with an explanation as to why he left in the latest WWE magazine, and his divorce was even mentioned in Mania). The willingness to explore the issue is certainly there among wrestling promotions. The frequency and depth is not on par with the backstage politics or health issues, certainly, but it in no way is it considered off-limits.

So again, what would be so preturbing about Beyond the Mat? Was the real concern with the documentary that wrestling was viewed almost entirely in emotional terms, a lens that was too much for the current tastes of WWE execs? Or could it be that the emotional story arc just didn't have a satisfying ending, or that corporate didn't have a hand in guiding it?

Wanted: Professional Wrestling Posters

2007-04-25T15:14:00.000-04:00

Hi,

I realize this is off topic, but hey I'm a wrestling fan!

Does anybody in the class have and/or collect posters from local wrestling promotions?

I'd be happy to swap some doubles I have for whatever you may have.

david

Marking out: The willing suspension of disbelief

2007-04-25T13:54:00.000-04:00

"If there's no audience/there just ain't no show"
~ Chilliwack/Raino ~

Professional wrestling, like theatre, relies on an unwritten social contract. Simply stated that contract concerns the obligations of both audience and entertainer: the entertainer is expected to give a satisfactory performance and the audience is expected to respond accordingly.

The ideal effort by a performer involves them keeping the 'ball-in-the-air' throughout the show and not dropping it. The audience rewards the effort by applauding or energizing their response in other ways : smiles, oohhs and ahhs etc.

The difference between theatre/wrestling and sport is simple: you can hold a competitive sporting event without an audience and it will still count in the standings. If there's no audience for a theatrical event or wrestling card it will eventually close. Make no mistake, theatre and wrestling are economically driven entities. They are businesses and therefore need a cash flow to stay afloat.

You don't have to 'buy in' or 'mark-out' at a professional wrestling card, but it makes it a whole more fun if everybody does.

Hopefully we will get a chance to discuss this issue further during the May 2nd lecture!

See you at the turnbuckle,

david

Career Endings

2007-04-25T12:23:00.000-04:00

When I think of the end of a wrestlers career, I always think of someone like Jake the Snake Roberts. Usually the end of a wrestler’s glory days does not end with drug addiction and loneliness but that is usually not the case. There are so many ways that a wrestler can end their career and I think it all revolves around the fact that there is no pension plan for wrestlers. Can you really ask a wrestler who makes their living in the ring what they are going to do afterward? Is there a plan for when they are too old or get a career ending injury?

The really sad end is that of wrestlers like Jake the Snake. He just got sucked into the drugs and the life on the road cost him any possible family life. There have been other stars have been kicked off the stage because of the same kinds of problems. Scott Hall was always one of those guys who perplexed me. He got drunk so much and it cost him his job at the WWE and now he has fallen off the map and wrestles independents. And his problems persist. He is not retired but it is not hard to see where he will end up.

Death could be considered an end but it seems to be a freak occurrence when thinking of it as a career ender. But so far, we have read about many stars that lose their place in the spotlight but then you hear about them later having died. So many wrestlers I saw like Rick Rude, Davey Boy Smith end up dead at a relatively young age. You could say that Eddie Guerrero ended his career this way but it was his prior drug addiction that caught up with him.

But the worst way to end a career would be injury during a wrestler’s prime. Kurt Angle put it best, he would rather have died that be told he could not do what he loved any more. All other endings for a career can really be attributed to choices that one makes but usually, an injury is something that is out of the wrestler’s hands. And it is understandable that it can be heart breaking to have to stop performing. You can see how much these wrestlers love the business when they stick around even though their in ring time has expired. Shawn Michaels was the first person I saw this happen to. I thought his character was great but was disappointed he only made sporadic appearances after losing the title to Austin. He made comments about how he would still want to be in the business even if it were not in the ring when he made his return as commissioner. And the same thing happened to Austin later when he had to retire because of his injuries.

With the way careers end is what I think puts sports entertainment into the same category as traditional sports. So many times you hear about players in the NFL failing drug tests or players in MLB taking steroids and promising players getting injured and never being the same or losing their spot on the team. All these happen in the world of wrestling and continue to happen to this day. And just like football players, those that don’t really make it have to go back to a normal life or try to work somewhere else. I guess you could say there are minor leagues in wrestling and you have the independent circuit and I guess TNA. But this aspect of life is where wrestling is more sport than entertainment. Entertainers get hurt on the set but they can keep making movies and TV shows. Getting hurt in wrestling could mean the end of a career.

So why are there no unions? Why don’t wrestlers try to come up with a plan for being ditched if they get hurt or try to keep from being worked too hard. If there are unions and rules to stick to, a promotion would find it harder to get rid of talent that doesn’t bring in crowds and is just wasting money for the company. Then more money would be lost if wrestlers had to perform less. Also, there are only a few wrestlers who actually make it big out of the large talent pool and only a few can actually retire with the money they made while being on top. So a large part of what happens to a wrestler at the end of their career really has to do with the choices they make and whether or not a crowd embraces them. Can a company really be held liable for what happens to a wrestler if their career does not flourish or they decide to use drugs? Perhaps for the drugs part. Jake the Snake told of how he got into drugs from always having to work so hard and not being able to rest the right way. From what I have seen, it seems like an unglamorous end is usually the outcome of a career and people who manage to stay in the spotlight like Ric Flair and Mick Foley are the lucky ones.

Fixed and real injuries/tragedies

2007-04-24T20:23:00.000-04:00

It's in the nature of pro wrestling to overexaggerate everything. From the moves to the promos to the facial expressions, everything is over the top. But there seems to be a line of sorts that when crossed, is hard to return from. This is particularly true when it comes to injury angles. From Matt Hardy and Edge knocking each other clear off the stage, to Kurt Angle "breaking his leg" and being in a wheelchair for a while, to Shawn Michaels collapsing in the ring, the business thrives on working over the fans emotionally by playing up these injury angles all the time.

But then something like Bret Hart breaking his sternum in a match happens. I still remember in Wrestling With Shadows I think it was, where Bret said that the fans in the front row were yelling at him to get up while he was injured on the floor. Or Mick Foley's story about the guy in ECW who busted his head open on the ground only to be greeted with "You F***ed Up" chants." The fans have been groomed to expect these things to be fixed, to look at a guy writhing in pain and say "hey, he's really good at selling that move/making it look real." So it's only natural then that when Owen died, the jaded fans still thought it was a work.

I will say here that, being caught between a rock and a hard place, I believe the WWE made the right decision to continue with the show. However, as many have already said, the mistake was with not letting the fans in the audience know that Owen had died due to his accident earlier that night. JR's infamous line that "this was as real as real could be," however, made me remember all of the fixed injury angles I've seen, and I've seen quite a few. It's no wonder that there were fans who refused to believe what they had seen. This line between distinguishing when a real injury happens and when it's fixed has become so blurred, that when a legitimate injury does come up in a match, it's hard for WWE to share that with the fans. Not because they can't, but because it's so hard to believe when you know that they like pulling one over you all the time.

In particular, this was sadly more evident in 2005 when Eddie Guerrero died. Believe it or not, there were fans who thought his death was a fix. Yes, there were fans who thought that the emotional tribute show to him a day after he passed (he was found dead in his hotel room the day he was scheduled to win the WWE Championship) was all a work. Now, I know that pro wrestlers are performers and essentially athletic actors, bringing about the overexaggeration that I was talking about earlier. But to say that a man like Chris Benoit breaking down in tears on television in front of millions was an act on his part was and still is an absurd statement to me. Pro wrestlers aren't that good of actors to fake that intense emotion, and I'd like to think they're not that malicious to do it in the first place over someone's death. There was actually a website, and I'm sad that I don't have the link anymore, but there was actually a site that went into details of why Eddie Guerrero was still alive, and how they were going to "bring him back" for a huge return.

As sad and perhaps as malicious as that might sound, the really sad part is that the WWE gave him legitimate reason to think that Eddie Guerrero really hadn't passed. Now, I wasn't watching wrestling when Owen passed, but I was watching in November of 2005 when Eddie died. I was never more sickened to be a wrestling fan than I was in the next few months, when the WWE blatantly exploited a man's death. After a heartfelt tribute along the same vein as Owen's, and some wrestlers sporting "EG" bands on their arms, I thought they'd let his name and memory rest in the minds of the fans who remembered and loved him. Instead, they bring in Eddie's wife to partake in a storyline, they have Rey Misterio dedicating every other match "to Eddie" instead of letting it lie, and then they actually had Randy Orton say that Eddie was in hell. Is it any wonder that there were fans who thought Eddie might've been alive and well and just waiting to exact his revenge on Randy by helping Rey defeat him and Kurt Angle at Wrestlemania 22 in April?

I think in a wrestling business with the landscape of the WWE, the tribute shows are fitting. Yes, it's strange and ironic that they have up their stage names while the men behind the wrestler images are talking about a friend who's tragically passed. But Owen's show was the first, and I do think that Eddie's tribute show might've been a little classier, not because the emotion was anymore real, but after having gone through a show like that before, the WWE knew what to do the second time around. What's not fitting is the aftermath. I don't disagree with including Eddie in the Hall of Fame, but I did stop watching SmackDown when every show seemed to revolve around Eddie. It passed from keeping his memory alive to flat-out exploitation, leading to idiotic sites like the one I read where fans are lead to think that maybe he's still alive.

In the end, I know that they won't ever stop using serious injury storylines. But I would like to see them scale back on using them, just so the next time something "very real" happens to someone in the ring (hopefully a long, long, long time from now), the fans won't be so jaded and can respond accordingly, instead of just thinking some guys are good actors...

Logic, Street Fights, and Metagames

2007-04-24T15:01:00.000-04:00

After spending most of the semester looking at wrestling largely in terms of the "entertainment" half of "sports entertainment," it's a nice change of pace to spend some time with the "sports" aspect. That said, I was particularly interested in de Garis' description of logic, most specifically the Johnny Rodz quote "Would you have done that if you were in a street fight?!" (202)

I am here reminded of Bernard Suits' definition of a game as being an activity with rules added to make it less efficient. "If the goal of a boxing
match is to make the other fighter stay down for a count of 10, the easiest way
to accomplish this goal would be to take a gun and shoot the other boxer in the
head," says Rules of Play.

So, we now have three entities to work with: wrestling, street fighting, and, for lack of a better term, "sports entertainment." Earlier in the semester we read historical backgrounds on wrestling, but nobody seems to have a specific origin point on the activity, or a clear idea of what it was for, if anything. If it is, like fencing, paintball, or future sports that simulate driving in Boston, a bounded recreation of an ancient, historically valuable survival skill, a street fight might not be a bad place to start. (I haven't led a violent life, and find the norms of street fighting to be highly confusing; pankration is easier, since nobody's armed and everyone agrees on the terms.) So wrestling, being a sport, which is generally agreed to be a type of game, could be interpreted as combat made inefficient: you can't shoot the guy in the head, nor can you punch, bite, headbutt, etc. The style of wrestling that became canonized in American pro-wrestling is self-consciously a mixture of styles, including things like street fighting, which ought to take some of the inefficiency out. So, assuming pro-wrestling were "real," in the colloquial sense, we'd have something with a very thin veneer of rules--applicable only when the ref happens to be watching, with no external review--but would still, overall, function as a sport. The object is to pin, disqualify, knock out or kill one's opponent, and there are rules that apply in certain situations. (And, even in WWE, you can't shoot the guy, at least not in the ring.)

It seems to me that pro-wrestling functions as more of a metagame--a game about a game. It is a game about the (thankfully imaginary) sport described above, in which actors must generate drama while not breaking the rules of the "real" game. But the metagame has its own rules, and its own demands for inefficiency: at the PPV, we all discussed the suspension of disbelief involved in all the rope work. Part of the reason for the breakdown in logic is that, at risk of inviting a discussion of Baudrillard, pro wrestling is approaching a fourth-order simulacrum: a simulation that refers to nothing but itself.

In fact, since I believe this is my last required post, I wonder if I could riff a bit...the first order is mimicry, the second conceals a profound reality, and the third conceals its absence. I don't pretend to understand this stuff--William says I need to read it in French, which I doubt will actually make it simpler--but I wonder if wrestling as a whole could be said to have followed that trajectory. From a survival skill to a reenactment of that skill to a sport to a "fake" sport to a simulation of a sport that couldn't be real to nothing but itself...hrm.

One Ring Circus: Lecture outline for May 2nd

2007-04-22T18:39:00.000-04:00

ONE RING CIRCUS

OUTLINE AND TERMINOLOGY FOR THE MAY 2nd LECTURE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENT:

1-WHAT IS THEATRE
2-ORIGINS OF THEATRE
3-THE ANCIENT & MEDIEVAL THEATRE
4-THE COMMEDIA DELL’ARTE TO AMERICAN MELODRAMA
5-A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING
6- BASIC STAGECRAFT
7- SUMMER SLAM 1992
-STRUCTURE OF THE CARD
-THE STORY BEHIND THE MATCH
-THE MATCH
-THE ROLE OF THE REFEREE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TERMINOLOGY:
~ANCIENT THEATRE~
-PROLOGUE; PARADOS; PARABASIS; AGON; STROPHE; EXODOS
-POETICS; CHOREGUS

~COMMEDIA DELL’ARTE~
-LAZZI; VECCHI; ZANNI; PANTALONE; CAPITANO; ARLECCHINO
-SCENARIOS (CANVAS); COREGO
-EXAGGERATED & STRAIGHT CHARACTERS

~PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING~
-HACKENSCHIMDT & GOTCH
-THE GOLD DUST TRIO
-ED LEWIS; BILLY SANDOW & TOOTS MONDT

~BASIC STAGECRAFT~
-VERBS; BEATS; SPINES; FRAMING; BLOCKING
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED READING:

GORDON, MEL. LAZZI: THE COMIC ROUTINES OF THE COMMEDIA DELL’ARTE.
NEW YORK: PERFORMING ARTS JOURNAL, 1983

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*CARD SUBJECT TO CHANGE*

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back on Barthes

2007-04-22T14:35:00.000-04:00

Not to tromp all the way back to the beginning, but I was just re-reading Barthes for my research paper, and a few things struck me...
What I am really interested in is the use of 'spectacle' to describe that which is in the liminal space between real and fake, sport and drama. “What is thus displayed for the public is the great spectacle of Suffering, Defeat, and Justice. Wrestling presents man’s suffering with all the amplifications of tragic masks. The wrestler who suffers in a hold which is reputedly cruel (an arm-lock, a twisted leg) offers an excessive portrayal of Suffering… “ (27). The identification as spectacle connects to the Jenkins' view of melodrama; it implies hyperbole, legibility, action. However, what I find interesting in the concept of spectacle and its application in wrestling is that spectatorship is defined as passive; it is the act of looking and therefore explicitly not the act of acting. But in wrestling the symbiotic performative relationship between performers and fans defies the exclusivity of either role.

I was reading Ranciere's "The Emancipated Spectator" this week (it's in the March ArtForum) where he builds on theories of theater and spectatorship posited by Brecht, Artaud, and Debord among others. At the core of the talk is the impassible gap between performer and spectator, the idea that there is reciprocity in the relationship, but never coincidence. Instead of being a proponent of 'activating' the audience through direct engagement or demanding response from them in designing for specifically for collective engagement, Ranciere suggests that: "Spectatorship is not a passivity that must be turned into activity. It is our normal situation...We don't need to turn spectators into actors. We do need to acknowledge that every spectator is already an actor in his own story and that every actor is in turn the spectator of the same kind of story" (Ranciere in March 2007 ArtForum, p.279). Wrestling, as a medium, seems to be a perfect explanation of this proposition; indeed, the fluidity between spectatorship and performance is always in flux. The fans are often acting in the performance, as much as the performers are often acting in reality.

Foucault opens 'Discipline and Punish' with a description of the public application of torture to the body of a criminal. He then writes : "Among so many changes, I will consider one: the disappearance of torture as a public spectacle. Today we are rather inclined to ignore it; perhaps, in its time, it gave rise to too much inflated rhetoric; perhaps it has been attributed too readily to a process of 'humanization', thus dispensing with the need for further analysis" (Discipline and Punish, p.7).
But wrestling is exactly 'torture as a public spectacle." But without the actual torture, mostly. Watching wrestling takes on all the issues of the public torture session, all its lessons of power, justice, vulnerability, and formalizes them in a way that allows for the safe engagement with Ranciere's more fluid, active ideas of spectatorship.

Mazer and the Real

2007-04-22T01:24:00.000-04:00

Ah, this is the big one, isn't it? The issue that just won't seem to die, no matter how many times we throttle it: how "real" is pro wrestling?

Mazer doesn't really give us an answer, which we should expect. She doesn't even give us much of her answer, because it turns out reality is kind of fungible. The most interesting part, for me, was her claim that the more fans understand the nature of illusion, the more they want to believe: "The more insistent fans become in their exposes of wrestling's fakery, the more they look to experience the real. As they expose the con-artistry of the game, they revel in it and, on some level, seek to be conned, at least momentarily" (82). This behavior is, like most of the fan behaviors we've studied, not limited to wrestling. Skepticism, practiced insistently, has a way of making its absence seem attractive. In my experience, one sees this behavior most often when the paranormal is involved. People know to be suspicious, but being so suspicious whets their appetite for something they can't be suspicious of. It could be argued that the same phenomenon exists among people who actively follow politics: it's perhaps not an accident that some fans play with converging the two (75).

Before I go completely solipsistic on that point, I think Mazer suggests a theory for the thematic meaning of wrestling slightly more plausible than the "two capitalisms" idea we've been kicking around: by being fake and appearing real, wrestling implicitly suggests that anything else might be similarly, for lack of a better term, fake (75). This, I think, might do a better job at explaining the backlash against wrestling better than the sex and violence itself: simulation has a way of making the simulated look like the simulation. It's essentially what the media effects people have been arguing from day one, they just got the causality wrong, and underestimated its scope. Wrestling fans seem to have quite a grasp on vernacular theory, and while we consider those who openly profess the world around them to be fiction to be paranoid, we tend to forget that many religious, scientific and academic worldviews begin with an unstated assumption that reality is fundamentally hidden from us, and must be diligently sought out if it is to be known.

Owen Hart: Funerals and Wakes

2007-04-18T19:15:00.000-04:00

The Wright piece on Owen Hart got me thinking, on a number of levels, and grieving. A lot of people are talking about grieving right now, of course; Dennis Prager wrote an interesting article about appropriate and inappropriate methods. The article is here. I'm not posting it because I agree with it per se--Prager is a fascinating case study for the art of rhetoric, but he's also, in my opinion, consistently wrong about everything--but because it correctly asserts that people express grief in many ways, some of which are mutually exclusive.

Sometimes, seemingly contradictory rituals go together. The funeral and the wake come to mind: the first, a solemn recognition of sadness and loss, the second a celebration of not only the life lost, but often life itself, in all its undignified glory. In everything we've read about Hart's death, the question is raised about what Hart would have wanted. Specifically, would he have wanted the show to go on?

I think it's this tension that causes the semiotic schizophrenia Wright describes. It makes sense, on a general level, to not break completely from character, from business, or from revelry in a tribute to a dead wrestler. It makes sense, that is, if the wrestler identifies himself with the sport, and with the organization: if celebrating the life necessarily entails celebrating wrestling. It seems to me that an "authentic" tribute, in which there was no gratuitous sex or violence, and in which all performers appeared under their real names, would seem out of place for certain wrestlers, in the same way that I think a eulogy for George Carlin would be incomplete without a healthy dose of profanity. If Steve Austin were to have died while working for the WWE, I can't imagine the tribute wouldn't involve beer drinking or middle fingers. The wake model seems most appropriate.

For Owen Hart, though, who was lionized for his integrity and his recognition that his family was more important than his job, it seems out of place to celebrate the job alongside the man. I see no fundamental problem with the "strong hyperreality" described by Wright in a tribute to an archetypal dead wrestler, but it presents a rather difficult problem when applied to Owen Hart.

And So It May Begin...

2007-04-18T19:05:00.000-04:00

Peter said the current events post may have little to do with this class, but he had no idea what he was foreshadowing. The AP story came out this afternoon about Cho Seung-Hui. Adam Geller's article sought to give some description of who Cho was.

Apparently, Cho spent most of his time alone, either on his computer and watching a lot of television. They only mentioned one show he watched in partiuclar in the article, though, which is "Friday night wrestling."

Dave Meltzer says that Hardball has already picked up on that fact in particular, so I wonder if it will take long for someone to turn this into a wrestling violence story. The PTC hasn't been in the press as much lately, but their last round at trying to do this sort of thing didn't go so well...but we might want to watch this unfold amidst our discussions about such things.

Wrestling's Business is Making Money

2007-04-18T03:04:00.000-04:00

There are always those products that seem to evolve and adapt to the changing environment. And I don't think that wrestling has any equal in this department. There are lots of entertainment companies follow the model of using their television program to sell other products. Sports is the best example. DVD collections of championship runs, jerseys, ticket sales, team gear and video games are all points of revenue for the NFL, NBA and MLB. But wrestling was at the forefront of merchandise sales. DVDs come out every month because people will pay for pay-per-view matches. How many other companies can sell a DVD of a show they did a couple months ago and expect to sell many of them? Only TV collections which come out a few seasons after ward can equal this kind of sales potential.
I have been part of this kind of expansion because I have bought into most of what the WWE sells. I bought the T-shirts and the video games. I have bought books and DVDs as well as pay-per-views and magazines. I think the only thing I have not gotten into is online stuff because it just seems excessive at that point to pay for something I probably won't use. As it stands I have just enough time to watch the regular shows so I don't need to have up to the minute updates on the world of wrestling.
One interesting point that the "McMahon Media Empire" brings up is the increasing distribution of products that are not shows, like the special DVDs and merchandise and subscriptions to bring in a new revenue stream that is lost when people lose interest and wrestling is not mainstream anymore. I do remember the appearance by the Rock on SNL and Triple H being on Mad TV. You can see it here. So I do wonder if it is possible that this kind of synergy and massive expansion could alienate those that would like to get in. It might not happen since all one needs is the main show but seeing that books and magazines and online subscriptions are part of what the company displays to be the full experience, it might be a bit overwhelming for an outsider. I know I feel this way about other forms of media that have their own universe such as Harry Potter or video games like Final Fantasy. Both of these products have reached out beyond their original media and it seems like a hassle to try and grasp the entirety of the mythos.
It might also be possible that people will not give the empire a second thought and just watch the shows. But then it could be possible that the expansion will continue to increase because new viewers may be placed into that pool of fans who buy a DVD about a wrestler or that video game. And with more people watching, then the WWE will more product but the thing to watch for is the crash, when all of this merchandise doesn't sell because there are too many products out there and the number of people who were there once watching the show are gone again.

Business matters

2007-04-18T02:24:00.000-04:00

After reading Sam's article on Vince creating a media empire, I started thinking about how much pro wrestling has changed in the last twenty years or so. The most glaring difference between then and now is obviously the downfall of the territories and the emergence of the WWE as the only real game in town. Sam made a point that stuck with me when he said that at this stage in the game, the WWE has enough invested in DVD sales, PPV buyrates, their book endeavors, their "best of" anthology DVD sets, their CD sales, and everything else to stay at the top even without direct competition and even during a pro wrestling "drought" when the product isn't as popular anymore. I never thought of it that way, but avoiding overexposure is something that was mentioned several times and I feel it deserves a second look.

When I think of WWE producing 12 PPVs a year priced at almost $40 each, the first word that comes to mind is overkill. Seeing as how we're a math and science based school, let's crunch some numbers. $39.95 x 16 = $479.4. That number might be a little off since WrestleMania is around $10 more expensive than your regular PPV, so let's say it comes out to around $490. This is how much money an "avid" fan would spend in a given year on wrestling. This is theoretical of course, since I'd say a small fraction of the fans care enough about both shows to cough up so much money. Let's say a fan orders the "big four" (Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series) and for argument's sake, orders another two Joe-Schmoe pay-per-views like Backlash and No Way Out or something like that. That comes out to about $250, give or take. That's still a lot of money...

I know that PPV is the WWE's bread and butter and that a huge part of their revenue is based on how many buys they get, but when is it too much? A pay-per-view each month alternating with Raw and Smackdown will only appeal to the fans that watch that respective brand, and that almost hinders how much money the WWE can actually make. Imagine for a moment that the brand extension was ended and that both rosters were combined. Now all of a sudden, you take the fans that watch Raw and the fans that watch Smackdown, and you have your full audience tuning into both shows and (cha-ching) caring about all of the PPVs that come out each month. It's not as if this formula wouldn't be successful - they were using it before the brand extension when pro wrestling was at its highest popularity, and it worked.

The problem I see in WWE's approach is that it's unrealistic to expect their fans to pay the amount for PPVs each month, especially when Sam's noted that it pays to just wait another month or so to get said PPV on DVD for around $20. Their approach is making them money, yes, but altering that approach might bring them the same amount of success with a little creativity. If the amount of PPVs were cut from 12 down to 6, that alone would make the PPVs worth so much more. They'd be more of a rarity and the anticipation for them would be huge, much more than they are now. It's like Mick Foley said in his book - the only reason WrestleMania is deemed special is because of all the hype, when in all actuality, the following month they have to go out there again and appeal to a PPV-paying audience.

Cutting the PPVs down would in fact knock out several birds with one stone. First of all, it would be a lot more realistic for fans to invest and pay for all the PPVs than it is now. Combining rosters would help because that alone would increase the audience size, which would no doubt result in more buys as well. Also, by NOT overexposing their product so much on PPV, the WWE could relax their pace and build meaningful storylines and characters, instead of rushing one rivalry one month for this PPV, and then rushing into another one for the next PPV while forgetting what just happened last month. And well, theoretically, better storylines + better and more developed characters = better ratings. Better ratings = more fans = more PPV $$$. And everyone knows that more PPV revenue = happy Vince (which is all that matters these days!).

Moving aside from the PPV point, though, I don't get why they don't just combine the rosters. When they did the roster split, they were overloaded with talent, and it made sense. But now with so many "stars" gone, both shows (Smackdown in particular) would benefit from a combined roster. It would make for fresh storylines and renewed interest, and would probably result in more revenue at the actual shows (because now, you can see them ALL). ECW though, well, I don't really know about them. I'd keep them separate, and create "competition" between Raw/Smackdown and ECW. But anyways, these are just some observations I made while reading Sam's piece and while watching the shows in general on how to make more money but avoid the overexposure at the same time. Thoughts?

The Evolution of Women's Wrestling

2007-04-18T01:29:00.000-04:00

As I've began to think about my paper topic, I've managed to pose questions to our guest speakers JR and Mick Foley on what their thoughts were about the direction of the women's division in the WWE. A bit earlier, Peter touched on some questions I was tossing around regarding women's wrestling and how it has been changing as a whole, and not for the better it seems. According to JR and Mick, the WWE seems to have been actively moving away from the athletic, competitive women's wrestling that has been prevalent for the last few years, only to introduce the Diva Search contest, which is basically a glorified beauty pageant rather than a wrestling talent introduction. While this has been the trend lately, there may be evidence of a resurgence of the high-impact intense women's wrestling of the past, with women like Melina, Victoria and Vickie James possibly trying to pick up the slack left by the departure of Lita, Trish Stratus and others.

Now, according to Mick, the WWE has actually chastised some of the female wrestlers at points for wrestling 'too much like the guys', and for them to change their style. Now, I know there are several wrestling styles, including lucha libre, technical, etc, but I have never really distinguished between a 'guys'' style and a 'girls'' style. Frankly, the prospect of being told to wrestle/fight/etc 'like a girl' pisses me off. Especially if, as Mick put it, ' there are actual guys who can't wrestle that well, and you're telling the women to wrestle worse in a way'. It seems that WWE has the notion that sex sells, and women's wrestling doesn't, or at least not in the same way that the men's wrestling does. There also seems to be an antiquated idea of women's matches as 'filler', as a means for the crowd to catch their breath between 'real matches.

I heartily disagree. At the time of the Women's Division's heyday, when the locker room was bursting with talented, athletic women such as Lita, Chyna, Gail Kim, Molly Holly and Jazz, the WWE was at its peak. I know fans, male and female alike, paid money to watch those matches, and didn't just watch them as filler. Why? Because they were good, well structured, intense bouts, built up well with good storylines and pushes. These are not catfights, or bra and panties matches, or costume contests, these were wrestling matches, with lots of strong technical wrestling and some highflying moves to boot. They didn't need to take off their tops to get the crowd to pop.

Now, look at a ladies' match on RAW. Lately, they have barely been matches, and there have been a lot more Playboy celebrations and talent contests and yada yada. This is not women's wrestling, this is t&a, and no, not the tag team. If I wanted to watch this dribble, I could go to MTV or E or whatever other channel. But I want to watch good women's wrestling, and it seems to be in short supply. What happened?

The WWE/Vince has prided itself on knowing what the fans want and giving it to them. But is this watered down, sexed up version of women's wrestling what we want? It's unclear. On the average, wrestling tends to evolve with the times, and changes in tune with societal shifts, such as in world affairs like the Gulf War(s), the Attitude Era, introducing a homosexual tag team, etc. But in this case, the WWE may have slipped backwards. As Peter pointed out, there is no shortage of strong female action heroes in media lately, such as Lara Croft, Buffy, and others, and they seem to be quite popular, given the success of franchises such as Resident Evil, Alias and the forthcoming Sarah Conner Chronicles. These are tough, violent and strong women who are earning money for their creators and distributors. So why does the WWE seem to be moving away from the trend? The female wrestlers are more muscular, perhaps, but not Chyna-level muscular, and they are definitely still very sexy and beautiful. Plenty of people pay good money to see Milla Jovovich kick butt on the movie screen, so why would they all of a sudden decide not to pay to see real live women kick butt in the squared circle?

Perhaps the WWE is indeed learning from their societal-reflection folly, and have slowly pushing the women's division back to that athletic, competitive level it was at before, now that they have a steadily improving group of women to base that growth on. Perhaps they realized that all that t&a wasn't actually giving them the ratings they were looking for.Perhaps all of the above, we shall see, and I shall investigate further through the term. I just hope we get phase out the bunnies and bring back the hardcore women's wrestlers that got me hooked on wrestling in the first place.

Foley: Voice of Honesty, Innocence, and Barbed Wire

2007-04-18T00:42:00.000-04:00

In the scholarly work of that well respected cultural historian Sam Ford, "....Contradictions of a Contemporary American Hero", he examines the many complexities and contradictions in casting Mick Foley, both on-screen character and real-life performer, as a hero, underdog, or male archetype. From just looking at him, only one of those labels seems appropriate, given that our scarred, pear-shaped subject certainly appears to have weathered the sour end of his share of battles, and certainly doesn't look like a masculine hero in the vein of say, a Superman or a Hulk Hogan. But as we well know by now, with Mick Foley, appearances, as well as many other things, can be deceiving.

Mick is far from the image of the traditional American male hero. Instead of being fiercely independent and self-reliant, on screen, Mick has a long history of searching for companionship and connection with others, ranging from the approval of his boss, Mr. McMahon, to the tag-team partnership with the Rock as the Rock n' Sock connection, even to the mother/father role filled by the ambiguous wrestler Goldust. While this longing for connection and companionship make negate any traits of loner intensity, etc, that does not make Mick a pushover. Oh, no no. Mick Foley will take any opponent to hell and back, bringing back souvenirs such as thumbtacks and barbed wire, despite his less than athletic physique and scruffy image. Mick does not need to rely on anyone else to get the job done in the ring, but unfortunately his adherence to truth and honesty can sometimes lead to him being screwed over by his wily opponent or The Man, Vince McMahon.

This adherence to justice, honesty and steadfastness in the ring do indeed lend themselves to the characteristic masculine American hero, one who does the right thing, stands up for truth, and will work their ass off for it. These characteristics in Foley's on-screen persona no doubt stem from his real-life work ethic as a sports-entertainer, having busted his butt all over the world in death matches, ECW, WCW and then finally in WWE, putting his life on the line and wrestling through injuries like broken jaws and severed ears, to entertain the fans and just to keep working, to keep wrestling, even as he barely got any support from the office in WWE and when his biggest supporters were the fans rather than his employers. Those traits of the hardworking underdog reflect the other side of the classic lower-class American hero, while not exactly the overall masculine archetype. Mick as the wrestler on TV and the real-life person becomes a hero to every person who has ever worked themselves to the brink and beyond for a purpose, or even just to survive, against unfair odds, a hero to those who try to do the right thing (or want to) even if it's not in their best interests. Mick becomes a hero even to your average overworked student, who even when they are exhausted and sleep-deprived and think they might crack, you can look to Mick Foley, consider everything he put himself through for his dream, his goal, snap yourself out of it, and get back to work.

This tough-as-nails masculine underdog hero, while seeming to portray a 'man's man' in this way, has also been shown to be an expressive, emotional and intellectual specimen, traits that are not often associated with the classic male hero. Certainly we have seen Mankind show his frustration, anger, sadness and humiliation in several 'candid' on screen interviews with JR, and we know of Mick's means of expression and intellectual pursuit through his various memoirs and novels. In a society where men are expected never to show weakness, never to show emotion or to cry, or even to thoroughly analyze something as that is what the 'eggheads' do, not real men, Mick Foley thwarts those conventions while still retaining his hardcore status among wrestling fans and the greater community. He even manages to remain the underdog in several on-screen storylines via these intellectual, emotional traits and his adherence to honesty and innocence, despite the fact that he is a 3 time world champion and arguable the most violent man to set foot in the ring. Mick Foley, in ring and out, is a hero to guys, girls, geeks and jocks, wrestling fans and literary fans, because of all these qualities. He embodies and thwarts the classic traits of the masculine American hero in both real life and in WWE programming, by both expanding on his own personality and drawing from his imagination. It is a sincere reflection on the evolution of our societal values that we accept this form of hero as possibly the new aesthetic for the masculine heroic archetype.

In which I break the first rule of classblogging...

2007-04-17T19:26:00.000-04:00

...that being, current events are not automatically fair game.

Among my favorite parts of Foley is Good was the epilogue in which he took apart the methodology of the UI study. I enjoyed it, and appreciated the work involved, but didn't have a whole lot to say about it.

But then, I came across the following in response to the recent VT shooting:

"As with every American tragedy, we are about to learn all sorts of “lessons” in the aftermath of the VT shootings. And true to form, most of these lessons will be hastily implemented versions of pre-existing agendas, shoddily conceived, and in the long run, more painful than the tragedy itself. It is a uniquely American form of grieving, completely predictable, and equally difficult to stop."
- John Cole, described by left-leaning cartoonist/blogger August J. Pollack as a "conservative blogger who isn't insane." The post in question can be read here.

Jack Thompson has already managed to appear on Fox News as a "school shootings expert," and and Dr. Phil has weighed in on the dangers of a ubiquitously violent media environment. I'm going to try to avoid the usual knee-jerk defensive wankery--I've read far too many of those in videogame magazines--and look into something that's always confused me about the PTC in general, and their treatment of wrestling in particular.

Foley goes out of his way to connect the PTC with McCarthyism, a claim that would seem gratuitous were it not both well-researched and historically accurate. But wrestling is not Doom, and it's not rap music. Wrestling, to my knowledge, doesn't play into existing agendas about gun control or voting demographics. Put simply, it's hard to define exactly what agenda is served by attacking pro wrestling.

Foley suggests that it's just about money, that attacking wrestling consistently puts money in the PTC coffers. And that's plausible enough on its face, since the great thing about money is that it serves no purpose except to turn into stuff. So attacking wrestling could fit into any existing agenda the PTC leadership has; accusing the WWE of killing children could be part of a long-term plan to reestablish teacher-led prayer in school for all we know. It's a non-profit, theoretically, but the American political system has been very good at producing explicitly political non-profit groups with a loose definition of non-profit.

So, here's where I (as usual) appeal to the knowledge of the fans here--assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's about wrestling and not a smokescreen for something else, why do you find, in your experiences as a fan, that people might find wrestling distasteful or dangerous? What preexisting agendas might it fit to get Vince off the air?

The importance of the promo

2007-04-17T17:13:00.000-04:00

Last night, I took advantage of the fact that we had no viewing lab to go to and tuned in to watch a full episode of Raw. I was excited to do so, because I (surprisingly) missed my Monday night wrestling viewing habit, and so I just wanted to make some observations on the show.

I was buying the show, and I got a kick out of the "fan" that won the Intercontinental title. I thought it had a good build to the Bobby Lashley interference, and the fans seemed to be buying it as well. But then, Lashley was passed the microphone, and he gave the most underwhelming promo I've heard about all year long. It killed the intensity of the match, of the segment, of just about everything. It was so lackluster in its delivery that it made me laugh instead of making me believe in his character.

This made me remember an argument I once had with a fellow fan, and so I decided to bring the topic here. I know that in this day and age, promo skills are almost a necessity... or are they? Let's take Umaga for example. All this guy does is growl and pant and destroy people in the ring. Between Vince and Armando Alejandro Estrada (I love how he says his name), they pretty much do all of the talking for him. He hasn't said a word and everyone buys his character, at least, most people do. Between them helping him by showcasing his voice through him and his in-ring intensity, Umaga doesn't need much else.

Enter Bobby Lashley. This guy has the look of a champion and he has the moves of a champion, but I would rather Moolah and Mae Young try to wrestle now than hear this man on the microphone. And yet, if promo skills are so important, why is this guy the focus of the show apart from the champion himself, John Cena? Granted, not everyone can be a Ric Flair or a Rock on the microphone, but guys like Chris Benoit and Rob Van Dam were often criticized for their rather underwhelming promos (they got better). Shelton Benjamin in particular is a phenominal athlete, but he never got off the ground for a singles push because he couldn't "connect" with the fans. But I'm supposed to believe in Lashley and want him to win... right. It's the same problem on the blue show with Batista, although he's gotten better, he still sometimes leaves something to be desired on the microphone.

But does it matter? In my opinion, it doesn't, because to me, it's what goes on in the ring that's the most important thing. You can say what you have to say in the ring, Chris Benoit being the premiere example. But nowadays, it seems like more and more emphasis is placed on the dramatic storylines instead of the actual in-ring content, and if that's the way it's going to be, then they should put some effort into guys like Lashley and his microphone skills. After all, he's a big name now, and he's involved in a high-level feud with the McMahons. It reminded me of what JR said when he came to visit - some guys are shot to the top and they're just not ready for it. If Bobby Lashley doesn't fit that criteria right now, then I don't know who does...

Joshua Shea says goodbye

2007-04-17T16:51:00.000-04:00

I was supposed to visit your class this week, but as I explained to Sam in greater personal detail than I will here, that simply is not an option for me. I've happened upon a bit of bad luck and can't spend the time or money it would cost coming from Central Maine. Of course, you're all welcome up here provided you give me a few hours to clean up.

In the first weeks of this blog, I played it straight, but realized that it could use a bit of life, wrestling-style, so I asked Sam if he wouldn't mind me, in essence, playing a heel on the board. Like the best heels, I think I just put on an extreme version of myself. I'm far more entertaining when I'm manic vs. composed and tried to capture that mania here on the board. I came up with the formula of telling the truth half the time, lieing 40 percent of the time and trying to appear completely irrational 10 percent of the time. Of course I'm sure everyone asked themselves if I was serious at one time or another, but a big piece of me was shocked no one insisted I was full of it.

So what was I trying to get out of this? First, entertainment for myself. Second, I was curious how you'd react to different attacks. How would you defend your school? How would you defend analysis of wrestling? How would you react to someone acting these things that you hold important. I think that there were three groups of people: those who ignored the posts, those who read but didn't often respond and those that responded every time. While I think the second group genuinely didn't like me, I started sensing a bit of amusement or even enjoyment with my posts with the last group toward the end. Otherwise (and yes, this is old guy advice) just ignore people who don't like you and you don't like. The population is growing so fast that there will be plenty of people you get enjoyment front. I liked each and every one of your posts, even those that called me names because they all showed passion.

That passion is what kept me going on this board. You could say I was just baiting people, but I think that it was more of a challenge to give me your opinion. And usually, I was impressed and surprised with what you had to say. For a bunch of CMS students at a math school (heh heh) you did very well.

For the record, I don't watch much wrestling anymore. I booked and owned an indy group, but I also was ill equipped to handle either role since I was in my early 20s and wasn't capable of handling either the creative or business end. I also have no college degree, having started working at newspapers when I was in high school and just sort of stumbled my way to place 99% of people need one. Don't be a fool, stay in school. One of my largest clients is a college preparatory magazine, so I don't hate college life. If I did, I'd want to kill myself with the amount of time I have to be on campuses overseeing photo shoots. I congratulate all of you for going to MIT and hope you can make school as synonymous with media studies as math.

I will step away from the blog at this point and let you finish up without me tossing grenades.

Thank you all for the opportunity to reprise a "heel" character. I enjoyed my time here very much.

Sincerely,
Joshua Shea

Chyna v. writer's block

2007-04-17T15:50:00.000-04:00

In the course of sifting through sources for my project, I came across an article entitled "No Cage Can Hold Her Rage? Gender, Transgression, and the World Wrestling Federation's Chyna," by Dawn Heinecken, and thought I'd try to work with it a bit. The author divides Chyna's career into three stages:

"When she first emerged, she was a reviled, contested figure because of her muscular body and the way she transgressed gender norms. She was described as a monster and not a "real" woman. Her marginalization continued when she was demonized as a feminist who challenged male dominace. Her latest, and most popular incarnation, was that of a sex symbol, a role that required substantial body modification. The different framing of of her various incarnations is telling. While Chyna ostensibly projects an image of rebellion, a figure that threatens to melt down the male-dominated world of professional wrestling, her popularity, may, in fact, be due more to a process of normalization than to her transgressive qualities. Thus, her case is useful for what it has to tell us about the ways in which female unruliness is framed by popular media." (183)

I can make no claims as to the factual or thematic accuracy of these claims, not having been watching at the time, and I've read enough pop theory to know that some people don't let the actual text get in the way of a good reading. But there seems to be a pretty well-defined split among female wrestlers, in terms of fan perception, between "real" wrestlers and models affecting catfights. By her third incarnation, Chyna is noticeably less muscular than before, more obviously identifiable as "feminine" (as opposed to merely "female"). I'm not sure if this made her less effective as a wrestler or not.

In fact, my ignorance of the actual mechanics of wrestling makes this difficult to read. You need to be in good shape to put on a good show, obviously, and you need a certain amount of raw muscle to throw your opponent around, since (as noted before) you can't fake gravity. But I remember the clips we watched from the 50s, how slow the action generally was, and how flabby some of the performers looked. (Granted, flabby by modern wrestler standards is still light years ahead of the average American, but I digress.) The Mick Foleys of the world aside, WWE seems to work with a pretty specific body type that's both lean and ridiculously muscular. How much of that muscle is necessary for categorical criteria (stamina, endurance, speed), and how much of it is mostly for hypothetical criteria (i.e. lifting one's opponent's weight)? Does a woman need significantly more muscle to wrestle men than to wrestle other women? Do women need to be particularly muscular to wrestle in the style currently popular in the WWE?

These aren't rhetorical questions, I actually don't know. I wonder, though, about something a fellow student whose name I've forgotten asked after a colloquium: what is Buffy vs. Faith if not a women's wrestling match? (The answer, of course, is a rigged MMA.) Videogames and movies are filled with women warriors, of course, and I wonder if that plays into the issue. Sarah Michelle Gellar is not much of an athlete. I could probably take her in a fight, although I cannot at the moment imagine a plausible scenario in which it would be ethically appropriate to do so. She doesn't have to be: she has a plot device that explicitly divorces her physical mass from her fighting prowess, and all the tricks in Hollywood to fake it for her. Videogame women also have no necessary relation between how their bodies look and what they can do. I wonder if part of the reason for a downturn in the popularity of women's wrestling that isn't sexualized to a ridiculous degree is that other media have given a subset of fans the ability to have their cake and eat it too: women who engage in a form of violence coded as explicitly masculine, while maintaining bodies coded as explicitly feminine, to a degree that would not be physically possible in a live event.

E is for Extreme

2007-04-17T15:11:00.000-04:00

The documentary we watched the other night titled The Rise and Fall of the ECW, was one of the more interesting documentaries we have watched this semester. Since the events of the documentary took place relatively recently, it is easier to see the impact that the organization had on all of wrestling. The ECW wrestlers’ commentary provides first-hands accounts on the events and we are able to hear their perspective on some of the behind-the-scene issues.

The Extreme in ECW was the single most important motivation for the wrestlers. They wanted to set themselves apart from the more widespread WCW and WWE. Paul Heyman openly admits that they couldn’t compete with the two superpowers’ production capabilities so they focused on being better at their strengths. Consequently, lucha libre and hardcore styles became characteristic of ECW. The wrestlers pushed the limits in both cases and the fans loved every minute of it.

ECW wrestlers and their wrestling style had a very big impact on the rest of wrestling. Up to that point wrestling was very formulaic and somewhat predictable. ECW wanted to break this mold and really put on a show for the fans. I remember I thought that the show was unscripted and as close to real as possible the first time I watched an ECW show. Bloody wrestlers and high-risk maneuvers made the show very extreme and realistic. I thought that the way the show incorporated the fans was a good idea. It made the most important part of the show actually part of the show. Their participation was a key part of an ECW show and it greatly contributed to the cult following that ECW possessed.

One of the things that caught my attention was how those from ECW viewed WCW. Even during the documentary it seems like Paul Heyman still had some hard feelings towards Eric Bischoff and his underhandedness. It seems like the recurring theme in these documentaries is the bigger guy is always trying to “steal” from the smaller guy. The organizations with more bargaining power drew the wrestlers from the smaller companies. First the WWE stole all the talent from the territories. Then WCW stole wrestlers from the WWE and, inversely, the WWE stole wrestlers from WCW. Now, the new story is that WCW was stealing from ECW. I thought it was funny how those wrestlers from the WCW were later stolen by the WWE (but then again most wrestlers would end up in the WWE).

The documentary was able to shed some light on the events that I had only heard of and the organization that almost made it. The current style of wrestling that we have become accustomed to is definitely a product of the ECW’s extreme style of wrestling. Although I wasn’t able to see how the ECW fell, it seems unlikely that they would’ve been able to compete with the WWE. Even though the WWE eventually bought out ECW, ECW was able to make a lasting impression on wrestling.

Mick Foley Stole my Pen

2007-04-17T13:18:00.000-04:00

[[[After posting the following, it was discovered that Mick Foley did not, in fact, steal my pen. He returned it to Sam, who forgot he had it. I apologize for my slanderous pen-stealing remarks, and any damage they might have caused. Aside from this note my post is unchanged, and will remain so unless offended parties request differently.]]]

***

[ First I have to note that I write really small, and there's this one type of pen I use that is perfect: really thin line, doesn't skip. I just can't find them, and have to bribe a friend into bringing me back some from PA whenever she goes. I really did love that pen.]

The other day I was really excited about extending the somewhat irritating story that is my title into a heartwrenching metaphor for my (and a couple of yours as well) academic voice being stolen by the stolidity of the class. I was a little too drunk to type at the time, and now I don't care enough to craft it well, so I'll just let you appreciate the potential brilliance. But let's look back on our illustrious guest speakers. All they really did was tell us stories. Not even very useful stories of the kind Joshua promotes. JR was reminiscing about his entrance into the real adult world, Foley, so far as I can tell, wasn't even that secure and was just trying to get some smiles. Don't get me wrong, I was thoroughly amused, because they both spoke well.

Like the class itself, irregardless of Sam's intent the results have the potential to be useful, we just didn't use them well. In fact: Mick Foley is a brilliant story teller. If I were actually taking a writing course this term I would have lobbied to have him visit our class. There we could have asked him all these interesting questions about stories that I think he would have loved because a) we would have labeled and engaged him as someone more substantive than and apart from a wrestler, and b) it would extend his bragging rights about speaking at MIT. It would also have been a friendlier discourse for him. I flubbed it a bit, because after his initial response to 'academics studying wrestling, ay or nay?' was an uniformed (but enthusiastic, thanks!) sound bite of support, I would have felt bad if the poor guy's experience at MIT ended up intimidating him into incoherency.

Take the colloquium. I know not everyone came but they did this skit about the musical entrance at the beginning. It was meant to work the crowd, and it did. It would have been interesting to poll some of the audience members afterwars about their perceptions of it. I thought it was cheap. What did other non-fans think? Did they notice it was scripted? Did wrestling fans immediately know and appreciate it? Did they chose to pretend it was real to increase their parcipatory excitment? From an academic standpoint, was it cheap because none of the post-hoc analysis was done?

I'm only picking on that moment because it was the only one of interest. Sure Foley talked a little about his own foray into academic research, but the point is if you really care, just read his book. In each colloquia it's a room full of wrestling fans, and a few grad students who apparently have to be there. The grad students get credit and the fans had fun seeing Mankind with all his hair. As noted in one of Joshua's post, fans out there thought JR's talk was pointless. They blamed it on us academics, but once again, no academic types were really asking questions. Fans were asking questions, and for the most part they prove an interesting point: if we go back to Sam's classification of fans, there's a divide between mindless strategies of enjoyment, and analytic tendencies. And we see it! Despite the hopeful fact that many of those people were intelligent, and all ought to have enough specialized knowledge about wrestling to justify our interest in them, there was a derth of good questions in what in theory is an academic setting. I feel like I was tricked out of an education and into a glorified story time.

In my life, academia is sacred. As such, I've been operating under the assumption that this class itself is *meant* to be a serious forum for scholarly analysis of a pop culture phenomenum. I had briefly considered the idea that in fact, it wasn't, back when I was trying to figure out why we're failing at the blog-based critical portion of the class, while spending 6 hours a week watching highlight reels. Now post Foley and JR visitations, I have to applaud Sam for his brilliance. As a second year MASTERS student, he's making himself look really good by 'teaching' his very own course at MIT, wherein he gets to spend all his non-thesis hours playing with his other fanboy obsession, AND his token nod to serious work (the blog) is the perfect place in which to cull the periodic nugget of insight for use in his own scholarly work down the line. Oh, and he's building this really awesome name for himself in the pro-wrestling fan community. Behind the kayfabe it makes a lot of sense.

I guess, looking at it that way, Foley didn't really 'steal' my pen. After all, people lose pens all the time. Instead, my pen is somewhere doing something interesting. It just isn't doing it in my hand, which on the whole is my real objection.

Our Class and Mick in the Cambridge Chronicle

2007-04-17T10:42:00.000-04:00

The students who were in the class Thursday, when I had lost Mick somewhere in the student center and people were getting concerned about our whereabouts, probably met or at least noticed that a photographer and journalist were present for the Cambridge Chronicle. They have their story up about the class and Mick's visit, and I wanted to share it with everyone else here on the blog. You can find it here.

Foley's Multiple Masculinities (not to be read 'big grapefruits')

2007-04-16T00:48:00.000-04:00

In reading Sam Ford's text,'Mick Foley: Pro Wrestling and the Contradictions of a Contemporary American Hero , I got to thinking about Foley as the 'mythic' and the 'everyman'. If the wrestling character is an extension of the wrestler themselves, and then this character is expanded into the realm of myth/ living legend, the original persona is being so multiplied and twisted around, it's no wonder it's impossible to tell what is real or not. What amazes me most about Foley is exactly the multiplicity of personas that he draws upon. Rather than building one character image to perform to the fans, he gives a pile of identifiers: three wrestling characters, plus his 'real' persona: the intellectual side, plus the warm cuddly father, etc. The culmination of which is an extremely successful and likeable character, 'both as a myth created for wrestling fans and as an everyday hero created by wrestling fans' (22). The co-production of Foley's character is very interesting- he is in many ways a palette available for negotiation about issues of masculinity, physicality, individualism vs. collectivism, justice.
Because of the multiple characters, Foley can adopt and cycle through different ideas and represent different versions of masculinity for the fans. He is at once the most violent and the most innocent, most loved and most tossed-aside, most charismatic and most mangled/ deformed by circumstance. He is especially interesting to me because he doesn't move through complicated shifts and reversals between oversimplified/ one-note characters, as many wrestlers do, but he moves through complicated shifts between characters that are each complex and multi-layered themselves.
A last note- reading Foley, watching his matches, and meeting him all made me feel like I was in a Murakami novel or something-- there's definitely a strong sense of alternate realities and multiple faces to this man. In that sense, I thought the entrance music bit at the lecture was more meaningful than just to get the crowd awake.

Mick Foley and Atticus Finch

2007-04-14T13:44:00.000-04:00

One thing that stood out in Sam's article was the mention of Atticus Finch, and the conflicted relationship with violence associated with masculine ideas of justice: "Foley was positioned much as Atticus Finch was in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. Foley, like Finch, was a man with a great reputation who only agreed to use his abilities again when there was no other choice, as Finch uses his marksman abilities only when there is no alternative left" (26).

I haven't read To Kill a Mockingbird in ages, so I won't dwell on the comparison so much as the idea to which it refers: the reluctant warrior falling back on his skills as a last resort. This is a pretty common trope in American culture: off the top of my head, I could list a litany of action movies that use some variant of it, at least a couple of which star pro wrestlers. I've always felt there was something of a contradiction in the appeal of this idea: we want to watch/read about/play violence, but we want it to be moral violence, a complicated idea we've been kicking around for the last six thousand years or so. We want to see the good guy kill people, but we don't want the good guy to want to kill people.

The simplest theory of moral violence would probably be that violence is moral when it's used to stop other violence, the good ol' lex talionis, and this is the one that seems to pervade our action movies. So all we need, as voyeurs, is someone to initiate the need for that violence--a heel, so to speak. However, an issue I've always had with the retaliation theory is that it defines intentional violence against humans as something that is good only when used to annihilate itself, and that seems philosophically strange to me. But this objection only applies to real-world, lethal violence. The violence in a wrestling match (let's think earlier, "real" wrestling for a moment) has an obvious function in and of itself. In a sport, you don't play offense because the other team has previously done the same to you, you do it because it's part of the game, and the game rules compel you to do so. So the idea that returning to the ring and wrestling would be something inherently sad and shameful--comparable to Atticus falling back on his skills/reputation as a marksman--seems out of place with the actual act of wrestling. It only makes sense in the narrative context that these are real fights, with real moral consequences.

Of course, the issue might not be Foley's return to wrestling so much as his breaking of his promise not to do so, and not being a viewer, I'm not privy to the context on that decision. But in the promos we've seen, Foley always seems to depict wrestling as a brutal, difficult game from which a nobler man might abstain. The reluctant warrior is out of place in a sport, but fits nicely enough in sports entertainment.

The Woman Behind the McMahon

2007-04-13T16:39:00.000-04:00

Recently we have been reading, watching, and discussing Vince McMahon's dominance in professional wrestling. For the most part it appears that every aspect of the WWE is run by Vince and he is the mastermind behind all of the WWE's success. Although the last statement may have some truth to it, I think that the role of his wife, Linda McMahon, has taken a back seat to Vince.

From what we have read in Sex, Lies, and Headlocks it is evident that Linda played an important role in Vince's rise to the top. She was at Vince's side through all of his initial gambles and failures. Most women probably would think their husbands were crazy if their long-term goals involved the word wrestling. Linda, however, involved herself with all of Vince's business ventures and supported his every move.

As the WWE rose to the top, Linda played an important role in business matters. Linda was influential in involving the WWE in the community and in charitable programs. She has supported organizations such as the Make-A-Wish Foundation, USO, and the Starlight Foundation. Linda also contributed to the creation of WWE’s educational and literary program, Get R.E.A.L.. Additionally, she is involved in WWE’s Smackdown Your Vote!, which encourages younger voters to participate in the electoral process. Linda is able to use the WWE’s popularity to bring more important social issues into focus. This shows that the WWE is trying to be more than just a source of entertainment. When the company turned public, the WWE felt a greater sense of responsibility so Linda was able to use the programs to benefit both the WWE and the community.

Linda McMahon brings a strong female personality to the WWE. While Vince plays a role that could never be replaced, the influence that Linda has had on the WWE is almost as irreplaceable. Since fans perceive her on the show as a figure who sticks to her values and acts as the impartial mediator, it seems easier for her business decisions to be supported off-screen. Her womanly touch helps to ground a business that has been predominantly male-oriented. Most importantly, the clear separation between her on- and off-screen personalities helps to balance out the mass confusion that Vince brings with his characters.

Muslim College Professor Joins Wrestling Blog!

2007-04-12T08:00:00.000-04:00

Hey all!

I'd like to introduce myself. I am a professor of Religion at Skidmore College in upstate NY. Professor Ford kindly invited me to hang out here and talk with you all about wrestling. I am teaching a section on wrestling in my Theory and Method course right now. Some of my students may pop in to talk to you all.

I am a huge fan of professional wrestling. I just got into it a couple of years ago and now I am hooked. Since I am a historian by trade I do a lot of reading and research on old-school wrestling. I am currently reading Wrestling at the Chase on the old St. Louis scene and promoter Sam Muchnik. But I love all the recent stuff too in the indy promotions and WWE. I am no wrestling snob (did you know you could be a wrestling snob? Funny how there is a snob for nearly everything, eh?).

I am also a Muslim feminist activist. I do a lot of work on women's issues in the Muslim community. I run the website ProgressiveIslam.Org with my friends Sohail and Omar. Every so often, I write about wrestling and religion for the site. I was recently at Wrestlemania and wrote a piece on Muslim gimmicks and finding my place in the wrestling and Muslim communities.

You all be good to Mick Foley today! If I hear otherwise, I'll have to come out there teach y'all a little lesson! (^:

Laury Silvers

Hello Bloggers

2007-04-12T03:44:00.000-04:00

Hello all - this is a brief post to introduce myself to the class (and the other blog members) and to say how much I'm looking forward to visiting later this month.
Sam Ford was kind enough to invite me to be part of the course, and I've very much enjoyed reading the blog posts so far and following the discussion from afar that way. The other media coverage of the course has also been very interesting (and quite exciting).
I look forward to meeting all of you in person! If there's anything you'd like to find out about me or my work prior to my visit, feel free to ask.
Cheers, Fiona McQuarrie

pain in repetition

2007-04-11T23:50:00.000-04:00

Hope Sam doesn't mind, he posed this question to me via email, and I thought it wanted a post:

What did you think of Foley's responses about the reliving of pain and the memory of pain? I think looking at it from a wrestler's perspective is even more fascinating because they can see that event happen again and again...of course, they are also choosing it for themselves in a way that the traumatic events you are looking at were not self-inflicted, but it is an interesting parallel...
Sam

It was really interesting that Foley first associated the idea of body memory and trauma with an early experience playing baseball. It was a great anecdote about an associative physical reaction to an inscribed experience. But this was what popped into the conversation about body memory, after all the tremendous impacts and injuries he endured in wrestling?! Pretty amazing. This speaks to his point that it is fundamentally different to perform violence and pain than to actually experience it authentically (forgive my overtired paraphrasing). The way Foley spoke about the trauma of pain in his wrestling career made me think that this was injury with some agency. The wrestlers acknowledge it as part of the job to endure traumatic impacts and beatings over and over again. It's fairly clear that the physical performance of wrestling is anything but fake, the impacts and injury are as real as it gets. But the serialized (scripted/ choreographed) repetition of this pain seems to strip to trauma from it. Foley spoke of bloodlettings and busted knees without any apparent emotional attachments to those traumas.

The idea of the 'self-inflicted' trauma is at the heart of this (back to the 'injury with some agency' idea). And Foley did indeed sign up for the beatings he took. This begs the consideration of psychosomatic (here meaning in terms of body-mind interrelation rather than the context of disorder) implications... what does the same blow to the head mean when one is inviting it, expecting it, performing it, vs. when one is not in that position of agency, and is victim to an act of violence. I would posit that the physical harm to the body can be compartmentalized, removed from the realm of trauma, when it is consciously performed within some parameters/ rules/ script.

The fact that wrestlers can view these acts after they happen just adds to their ownership of these body traumas. I can't imagine that Foley has to watch his stunning fall from the cell over and over in the intro of RAW each week. But I think this only demarcates the act again as spectacle rather than trauma. I get the impression that on some level, when Foley sees the fall repeated, he's watching his character take the hit. Of course, it's his body, and he speaks with clarity about the actual first-hand experience. He just addressed it with more objectivity than I thought would be possible when it comes to such a huge physical impact. But he said that if you're going to do something so completely outrageous to your body, it should be well documented. It should serve some purpose- in the case of wrestling, entertainment, to validate that pain.

I'm reading two texts for my research topic, 'Blood, Guts, & Violence in Sports' and 'From Ritual to Record: the Nature of Modern Sports', in which there is useful context. In the 'Ritual to Record' text, Guttman defines play as 'autotelic. Pleasure is in the doing and not in what has been done' (3). Sport is defined as "'playful' physical contests, that is, as non-utilitarian contests which include an important measure of physical as well as mental skill" (7). But wrestling, for the wrestlers, is work, it is utilitarian. It doesn't involve the indeterminacy of play and contest. The action is, to an extent, determinate, and therefore so are the injuries. I think this determinacy is exactly what allows the body to tolerate such actions, and to not be traumatized by them after the fact.

In 'Blood, Guts & Violence,' Atyeo says 'Just how much of the 'game' remains in professional wrestling is a question as indeterminable as it is irritating for the wrestlers to whom it is monotonously directed. For their part, wrestlers are unanimous in their claim that, alothough the action may fall short of the grimaces an groans which resound from the ring, the sport is still a hard, painful and serious contest.. in their defense they cite long lists of injuries" (163). This defensiveness may be a little outdated, since there seems to be a consensus about the real physical dangers of wrestling these days. (Foley didn't seem to have any need for proving to us that he endured 'real' physical experiences- this is a given.) But the ambiguity between contest, play, and performance is still obviously prevalent in wrestling, and I think the puts the repetition and reception of pain on equally ambiguous footing.

I wonder about this in terms of how the body impact feels different, or is remembered differently, in a tightly choreographed match vs. a less scripted one. Foley talked about how the level of scripting can vary greatly depending on the wrestlers- that the luche libre matches have extremely careful choreography that is well-rehearsed, while a wrestler lke Steve Austin likes to know as little as possible before the match and let action play out more improvisationally. Is there some higher level of authentic pain when things get looser in the script? Or does the engagement with character allow this pain to be serialized, and therefore objectified on some level, regardless of the level of improvisation of violence?

One last bit, since I don't think it came across very clearly and it's so related to my interest in this class: the project i'm doing in my studio involves serializing and instrumentalizing (through re-envisioning the gym equipment and space) physical traumas embedded in body memory as a method of transcending those traumas and their physical impact. The 'psychosomatic' gym allows repetition of body impacts or experiences, giving the opportunity to gain agency over those physical acts through repetition and relational strength buidling. (In efffect, buiilding the physical and mental fibers of self simultaneously in reaction to specific individual physical memory.) But that's still getting worked out. I really appreciate Foley's comments about it though, he was really insightful and has gotten my head going in a million directions with this studio work and my final project for the class.

Foley is Good: Books and Dreams

2007-04-11T12:44:00.002-04:00

When I started watching wrestling, I was amazed by the high production values. Fireworks, a big screen at the top and each wrestler had his own “music video” to enter to. It was great. And then the merchandizing hit me and I was just one of those guys who needed to get a shirt of DX and get the books that were coming out. I didn’t get Have a Nice Day because I wasn’t a big fan of Mankind. I never got to see what was so great about him outside the Rock N Sock Connection. While his matches were great, especially the two PPV matches he had with Triple H, he just didn’t click with me. The Rock was a different story and it was his mic skills that impressed me the most. So naturally when he came out with a book I had to pick it up. If I loved hearing what he had to say, then reading what he wrote could only be as good right? Well sort of. I read his book and it was pretty much an autobiography. Most of it focused on his rise through the WWF and also had some memories of his growing up in a wrestling family. When reading it I had newfound respect for the man name Dwayne Johnson and what all wrestlers go through to make it in the business. While I was hoping for more detail on the in ring action when I picked up the book, I had a new interest in what happens behind the scenes and what really goes on in the locker rooms and how egos can clash with story lines. The Rock’s book didn’t have so much detail but this made me appreciate Mick Foley’s book all the more.

Foley is Good details the end of his career but it also brings up issues that he faced throughout his whole career and what most other wrestlers go through. The point in the book when he is talking about medication and how people can view taking certain medication as weakness really makes me sympathetic towards wrestlers that put there bodies on the line. I have had pain only once in my life when I could not go to sleep but to have most of your day consumed by it seems to be something that I might never go through. I think that we can look down on those who took steroids because there was no reason for it. Maybe to get a career push but they have no one to blame but themselves for the ill effects it gives them. But painkillers are a different story it seems. What can one say about a person who needs this medication so they can literally get through day without screaming or collapsing from the pain?

Mick Foley details lots of his dreams and aspirations and even though one knows the outcomes are fixed, it seems that being the champ is something that means a lot to a wrestler. It says something about the way they perform, the way they get a reaction from the crowd and the amount of respect a wrestler gets from a company. I am sure having to drop the title to other people just to be pushed out of the spotlight must have been hard on Mick. He got taken out of Wrestlemania and then had his title taken from him after Summerslam. It speaks volumes for Mick’s character and loyalty to the business and company. If only other superstars were like him and willing to make someone else look good or have the spotlight, then I am sure bad storylines and bad endings would not occur as often.

The Aftermath Era

2007-04-11T12:44:00.001-04:00

The video clips that we saw last week on Thursday were all part of the era in which I become enamored with wrestling. I think that this has led me to try and classify eras in wrestling by the way I have seen them or heard them. This however can only apply to what I have been exposed to so it is not very accurate and not very inclusive of what has been going on in wrestling. The first era I really like to classify as the era of Hulk Hogan. From the moment he won the WWF title till the day that the Undertaker killed Hulkamania. I suppose you could say it was the steroid era, when big guys ruled the WWF. Macho Man, Hulk Hogan, Warrior, just big guys that were also larger than life. So then it came to the era of the smaller wrestler, Shawn Michaels, Razor Ramon, Bret Hart: These guys took wrestling in a different direction. While I think that this produced some of the best matches ever seen, (Razor vs Michaels at Wrestlemania X or Bret vs Michaels at Wrestlemania XII) some people look back and think that this kid friendly wrestling is what led to the WWE’s slump. The Monday Night Wars are of course next and this in turn led into the Attitude era of the WWF. I suppose this is the point in history where I wish I had been a part of it because of Stone Cold Steve Austin and D-Generation X. Then what we saw in class on Thursday was the time when I had become a fan of wrestling. It can only be classified as the time after the Monday Night Wars. The time of the McMahon Helmsley Faction and the Invasion. So I suppose that I am trying to find a way to point out what made this era of wrestling unique. I am sure that every era had a running theme through it and I can’t pinpoint the themes of other era’s but I can try to do it for this one.

Most people I have talked to and what I have read in chat rooms and forums tend to remember the 1999-2001 time of wrestling in the WWE as that time when Triple H ruled the show. I can’t argue with that. Triple H was the first champion that I had seen during a full broadcast of RAW. And when he took out Vince McMahon at Armageddon, it just seemed to permeate through the storylines as well as backstage. He was the champ for most of this time. It seemed really unfair in the story where he would beat down Mick Foley and would have his partners in DX to help out. Or how they would just put the Rock through so much as he was trying to get a shot at the title. He lost the title at Backlash 2000 but got it back a month later and finally lost it at King of the Ring. Maybe he didn’t have so much creative control but it was clear that he was the top heel. And this staying on top led to many memorable matches and drew the ire of some fans who thought he was at the top too long and got too many chances.

The second feature of this era was the immense popularity of the Rock. In 1998, the Rock was big but after having just won over the fans, he turned heel and joined Mr. Mcmahon’s Corporation stable. So it amazes me how well received he was after Wrestlemania XV. The number one heel became the number one face in a matter of months after Stone Cold was out of the picture.

But I think the biggest feature of this time was a missing Steve Austin. He was out for much of 2000 and when he came back he didn’t get back to the top until Wrestlemania XVII, where he turned heel and it all just seemed like a downward spiral for him from then on. Steve Austin would not recover his popularity and would soon find himself fighting bad storylines and chronic injuries. So this is the unique feeling this period of time has. No Steve Austin at the top, no more real competition for the WWE. It seemed to be a period of transition and for me was the best period of wrestling I have experienced.

Thoughts on WWF "RAW" Study

2007-04-11T11:44:00.000-04:00

My first impression of Dr. Gantz's WWF Raw Study was that it was a little out of place within the context of the wrestling. It seemed way too objective of an approach to understanding wrestling as a form of entertainment (indeed, almost like a bad science fair project). Nevertheless, it helped me understand the point of view of an outsider looking into the world of wrestling.

As someone who didn't really follow wrestling very much, I would have probably adopted Gantz's study as the reason why I didn't watch wrestling. Wrestling was a poor attempt at sport with overdramatic performers who championed stupid sayings, lewd behavior, and really bad acting. It simply didn't seem worth watching.

Taking this class has undoubtedly affected how I feel about wrestling now. I haven't become a full-fledged fan of the performance, but I have changed my way of approaching it. Wrestling, probably more than your average social phenomenon, deserves a good second look. You really can't take it at face value. The gestures, the garb, the overhyped fans are only part of the performance. It is these things--the heart of Gantz's study--that we notice when we're flipping through the channels on our tv sets. For some, it is what makes them keep flipping; for others, it may be what piques their interest. It is not, however, all that wrestling has to offer.

Gantz's work is certainly fuel for those who find wrestling to be an abominable practice. His focus is on elements of the story that the WWF program tells, but not the whole story itself. It takes much more than tabulation to fully appreciate and understand the dynamic that is wrestling. Emphasis should be placed on the social impact that wrestling has on the sports and enterainment businesses and not on a few artifacts of its presentation.

Heyman the Good Guy

2007-04-11T10:48:00.000-04:00

One of the things that surprised me the most about the The Rise and Fall of ECW was the apparent level of respect that Paul Heyman was able to command among the various wrestlers of ECW.

Throughout the documentary, many of the ECW wrestlers, like Tommy Dreamer and Tazz, would speak highly of Heyman and his behavior inside and outside the ring. Tazz related a story about one of the times he had to stay out due to injury during which he was still paid by Heyman. At once a nice gesture and an act of surprisingly good faith, it was the kind of thing that seemed to define Heyman's relationship with the wrestlers he managed and generally the way he went about running ECW.

A testament to the loyalty that the wrestlers had to ECW and Heyman was the fact that most of their "contracts" were simply word-of-mouth agreements. When the ECW ran into hard times--during the raids of Bischoff and McMahon as well as their days under TNN--a large part of Heyman's crew felt morally obligated to stick to the the ECW product. This kind of allegiance to a wrestling organization was truly unique. Neither Vince McMahon nor Eric Bischoff, or even their giant organizations could claim to be so esteemed by their crew. While the heads of WCW and WWE were portrayed as high profile execs of their respective wrestling programs, Heyman came off as just one of the guys. Sure, McMahon and Bischoff made their stints in the ring from time to time. However, they were always portrayed as the figureheads of their wrestling establishments, or pretty much as corporate bad asses. Heyman never claimed to be a heel or a face. It seemed like he really was just himself. He was there to openly vent his anger over TNN's censorship just like he was there to bid farewell to Tazz after his final ECW match.

Ultimately, Heyman's attempt to assume the very many responsibilities of managing the ECW would lead to its downfall. Nevertheless, it is apparent that he had a one-of-a-kind establishment and enjoyed a more personal relationship with the wrestlers of ECW.

ecw fan performance

2007-04-11T09:50:00.000-04:00

The question came up while viewing 'The Rise and Fall of The ECW' of whether we would be afraid to attend an ECW match. I would say yes to this question, for two reasons.
First, the energy of the crowd and the dynamic between the wrestlers and the fans seemed really chaotic and borderline(...or not) dangerous. The fans were amazing to watch, being so completely behind the product and involved in its production. What surprised me most was the complete removal of distance between fans and performers. While we see grandiose, wide aisles and expansive stages in the WWE matches from that time that keep a certain available distance for the performers to use in creating dramatic effect. In the ECW matches, we saw Sandman standing practically on top of his screaming fans. yelling and spitting beer on them. The whole concept of the fans bringing their own weapons to offer for the matches is supremely irreverent in these days of metal detectors and bag checks at any major event. The fans were so engaged with the playing of violence, and so close to it, that I would be terrified to have gone to and ECW match, for fear of getting my ass kicked by a fervent fan as much as by the wrestlers.
The second reason why I would be scared to attend an ECW match is that the cohesiveness of the fan base, their seemingly incredible standards for involvement and consistent passion-- I doubt there can be a casual ECW fan. It does have a certain cult quality to it. There is a definite feeling of exclusivity/ fan pride and doubt of outsiders in wrestling in general. This seems like it would be amped up in the ECW.
The wrestlers all seemed to really appreciate this level of engagement with the fans. I wonder how different it felt to perform in matches with the fans so closely knit into the action. I also wonder if fans ever got really hurt. Has anyone been to a match who could reflect on their experience there? (Sam and Josh, I'm sure, have been to many...) Is the performance of the fan we've discussed before more or less conscious in this supercharged audience atmosphere?

Article in The Boston Globe

2007-04-11T07:02:00.000-04:00

The class made today's Boston Globe. Be sure to take a look at the article here, featuring comments from our very own Rob Stott.

Foley is Grand

2007-04-11T04:23:00.000-04:00

When I read the syllabus for this class all those many weeks ago, I squealed with delight at the prospect of reading Foley is Good. Finally! I had been meaning to curl up with that book for ages, but never got around to it. So when I got my books on Reg Day, I dove right in, and finished it within a week or so. But, ah, that was weeks ago. So, I'm trying to pick at my memory for some particulars about what made it such an enjoyable read, and what about Mick Foley makes him so lovable while he recalls the tooth sticking out of his nostril and the thumbtack holes dotting his arm.

One thing about Mick's writing style is how conversational it is. He has a general train of thought, from his overall height in WWE to his in-ring retirement and all those circumstances, but he goes off on all other sorts of trains on the way there, just as one might do when sitting around with friends telling a long story. His sidetracks stretch back to important history like his tenure in ECW where he made a name for himself as Cactus Jack, as well as shedding light on inside jokes from the locker room, traditions and possibly most importantly, the dynamics of building and promoting a good storyline. I learned more from this book about the 'right way' to build a storyline in wrestling than anywhere else, as no one else was ever very clear about what that meant. For example, when Steve Austin bailed in WWE after Wrestlemania one year, he later wrote that he was unhappy with the creative decisions and writing direction of the product, such as when they decided to book him vs. Brock Lesnar as the main event on Raw, out of the blue. He said that was a bad decision and such a match would be PPV caliber and should be promoted correctly, but not exactly _how_. Mick had detailed plans of how several of his devised storylines would go, and when they followed those paths and were promoted accordingly, they were smashes, earning money and publicity for the company while boosting Mick/Mankind and whoever he was working with at the time. Mick's writing style was also very conductive to this type of informational exposition, as the conversational tone allowed him to educate his reader about the in's and out's of the business, without sounding like an old school wrestling elitist who was revealing secret information and that we should be grateful for it, instead of lecturing (like he pretty much did in the epilogue at the end, which was more of a research paper) he told a great story. Which is pretty much the point of wrestling in the end.

The blood guts and toil of all those hardcore matches was not so detailed here, as those explicit descriptions were pretty much covered in 'Blood and Sweatsocks'. But here, Mick reveals the internal toils all those years have punishment have dealt, with destroyed knees, poor health and not one too many severe concussions affecting his brain. He also reveals the toll his career has taken on his family, mainly his kids, such as when that trip to Disney is delayed yet again. Also, it's wonderfully refreshing to see young kids who (amazing!) understand that wrestling is not real, that people (Daddy mainly) get hurt, but still enjoy it, they still enjoy the show. Kids are far smarter than we often give them credit for, and seeing that with respect to wrestling gives a nice contrast to, say, all those pre-teen kids jumping through tables in their back yards, or the stories of brothers accidentally killing their siblings when pulling wrestling moves on them. The love that Mick has for his wife and kids is an amazing counter to the pain and punishment we see in his matches, and we get to see a bit of that tenderness shine through later on during the
'kind and cuddly Mankind' years.

But above all, Foley is Good provided us fans with a guided backstage tour of the WWE while Mick was still wrestling, like being brought into the Cool Kids' Club by the ultimate cool kid. The stories are wonderful, and the revelations about how the business works are even more valuable. now I have to read the rest of his books. Because indeed, Foley is good.

ECW: Revealing Look

2007-04-11T00:46:00.000-04:00

Again, I have been a wrestling fan for a while but was never exposed to ECW just as I was never exposed to WCW. And it was for the same reason. When I started watching WWF programming, that was when the Dudley Boyz came in, that is when Chris Jericho made his debut. A low card wrestler name Raven came onto the show some time after. Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit, then came in around the same time as well. Watching the Rise and Fall of ECW really opened up my eyes to what ECW was and how it worked, the kind of feeling it had to it and how much the wrestlers were involved in other aspects of the company. And i was pleasantly surprised to hear that most people agreed this documentary was fairly accurate.
I had read about the ECW before taking this class and to me it seemed that it was reminicent of the territories that we read about in class. And it should be. It used to be called Eastern Championship Wrestling. The production values were lower than that of the Big Two and it had it's own homegrown talent. And yet it survived. I suppose the reason it thrived, in addition to being in Philly, was that the Big Two did not see ECW as potential competition. It reminds of me other types of products where people put out something that is in the same category but appeal to different demographics. Video Games is the newest example I can think of. The Wii is obviously not aimed at those hardcore gamers who want the latest technology and most bells and whistles. And that is what ECW seemed to be like. LIke the Wii it seems to try to appeal to a different market that the other companies have not tapped into. But of course, the product is discovered by people of the more mainstream market and it becomes bigger than people could have envisioned. Of course this is happening with the Wii and it sort of happened with ECW. While the ECW did not explode into mainstream wrestling popularity, it did have its spirit incorporated into the WWE. Would there have been a Hell in a Cell match between the Undertaker and Mankind had it not been for ECW? Or the TLC match? So much is owed to the ECW for pushing the bar of entertainment and thrills.
It was amazing to see that the wrestlers that used to work for Paul Heyman were always speaking about him as if he was their big brother who looked out for them. I had read lots of negative stories, about people who were owed money and still had not been payed. I think one of those people is Mick Foley. The demise of ECW is just like the demise of the other territories. But this was different. It wasn't that Paul Heyman didn't know how to compete. It wasn't that he did not nurture talent and use them to their fullest, it was just that ECW didn't have as much money as the WWE. He had always known that to succeed, Pay-Per-View was the next step and getting on cable was also important, but when he did get there, he didn't have the money to stay there and keep the ECW from being pushed aside. I really think that ECW could have possibly taken the place of WCW as #2 had it just had more money, or simply the WWE not pushing it out of TNN. Of course, having more money meant it would already be #2.
One surprising thing I found was the way the wrestlers in ECW were beloved by the fans and the reaction and stories they were put into. Raven in particular. When I saw him the WWE, he never seemed like anything special. But the documentary showed otherwise. The whole rivalry with Tommy Dreamer and the story involving the Sandman's son, just seemed brilliantly done. But when he was in the WWE, there was hardly a story, a rivalry. He was Hardcore Champion on and off but thats it. And I think this kind of mismanagement of talent is happening in the ECW brand of the WWE. Bobby Lashley is champ but do you see the talent that they have there that could be contenders for the championship? Most of the guys that were in ECW before are there and having someone like Sandman or Tommy Dreamer as champ would make a much more interesting story than having Bobby Lashley at the top. It really is unfortunate that this happens. Why keep talent if you are not going to use it properly? I really think it is a shame the way the ECW brand is used in the WWE. Aren't the matches supposed to be extreme rules? I would like to know how fans of the ECW feel about the "new" ECW. ECW had so much potential and this brand seems to have that same potential, it just seems to only live on what people remember and not what it is or will be.
One last thought, why was there no mention of the Barb Wire Match? That I think would be very important to discuss as part of the history of ECW.

Pro wrestling is why society's falling apart

2007-04-10T23:56:00.000-04:00

Mick Foley's book, "Foley is Good," may have been the best book I've read since "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown. In fact, it was so good I went and bought his third and newest, "The Hardcore Diaries." I wanted to get his first, since that seemed to make the most sense, but Borders and I didn't seem to be on the same page that day and they only had the third on sale for me to buy.

I don't know why I never bothered to pick up this book before. It's not as if I shunned pro wrestling autobiographies - I've read Rock's book, Shawn Michaels's book, and half of Eddie Guerrero's (a feat in itself, since I always shied away from it since his tragic death in 2005). Kudos to Sam though for making it required reading because it's a fascinating book that made me laugh so many times I lost track. It was warm and heartfelt, and so very genuine, and well worth the money.

However, I didn't plan on having this post praise Mick's book, even though it wouldn't be that hard to do with how impressed I am with the book's quality. Instead, I'd rather focus on the last chapter or so in his book where he addressed some of the many criticisms that pro wrestling still faces today.

Does professional wrestling on television cause violence, or do violent people tend to watch professional wrestling? This is a question that just goes back and forth, a strange "did the chicken or did the egg come first?" kind of thing that you hear a lot of when you study psychology. The truth of the matter is that the Monday Night War, while providing terrific viewing and innovative storylines and characters, further enhanced wrestling's status as trash by the media. It's a popular notion that pro wrestling, specifically the WWE, is riddled with sex and violence. And in some cases, it's true... okay, in most cases, it's true.

The real truth is that the media needs a scapegoat. I was surprised to see Mick state in his book that the PTA actually linked the Columbine attacks to the WWE. They must've grown tired of blaming rock music or twisted video games, and must've needed something new to blame instead of putting the blame on the shoulders of the parents. I always wonder where the parents are when these situations occur. They're usually nowhere to be found until after the fact, and that's sad. Nowadays, the focus has shifted back to video games like Grand Theft Auto, who brainwash teenagers who can't differentiate reality from a video game. Those teenagers, suffice to say, must be more lacking in brain cells than Al Snow. :)

In all seriousness though, when will the media figure it out? Pro wrestling is entertainment. It's meant to draw fans who'll pay their hard earned cash to see John Cena take it to Triple H or Edge or whoever the heel du jour is (unless they're like me, in which case, they're paying to watch him lose. The green is still green!). It's in much the same way that I shelled out around 20 bucks (rip off galore!) to go watch Rocky Balboa in the movies when it came out late in 2006. Why would I do such a thing to watch violent depictions of an older man almost getting his head knocked clean off his shoulders when it's not even real?! Because I, along with millions of other people, enjoy the story. The violence is supposed to enhance a story. I'm sure Sylvester Stallone must've taken a legitimate shot here and there in his quest of six Rocky movies, but even the man himself acknowledged in some interview on wwe.com that what wrestlers do is no joke and takes a lot of athletic skill to do, day in and day out. And if pro wrestling isn't violence enhancing a story, I don't know what it is.

But are Rocky (movie, not wrestler) fanatics being touted as more violent in nature than people who enjoy, say, Happy Feet? Doubt it. What exactly distinguishes a movie that airs this kind of violence, like the Rocky series, from professional wrestling except for in one you're staring at a screen and in the other you're actually watching them perform? Is there a difference? Does watching either make you more of a violent person? The notion is assinine, at best. If you're not old enough to appreciate the story of Rocky Balboa as an underdog and you want to go out and try to knock someone out because of that movie, you might be too young to watch it in the first place. Same thing goes for wrestling, and violent (rated M for mature) video games, and HBO shows like The Sopranos (best show ever, by the way).

Before the school year started, I remember reading about a 19 year old boy who killed a homeless person because he was "imitating wrestlers." I'm 19 years old as I type this, and from one 19 year old to another, I hope they locked that lunatic up and never let him see the light of day again. Besides enhancing the "teenagers are stupid" stereotype, he also beat an old horse to death by shining the WWE in a negative light. No, the WWE isn't to blame for violence in society. Just like McDonald's isn't to blame for someone eating there every day and weighing over 400 pounds. Just like beer companies aren't to blame for an alcoholic who gets raging drunk and beats on his family. People make their decisions, and when they decide to use pro wrestling as an excuse for criminal behavior, it'd be nice if the media could look through that and see it for what it really is - nothing but a desperate blame game played by people with everything to lose.

Past the broadcast era

2007-04-10T21:34:00.000-04:00

Academic aspirations aside, Sam's noted from the beginning that part of the interest of the class is in seeing what recommendations might develop for a stronger and even more lucrative wrestling monopoly. (Ok, monopoly wasn't used in this context, but it would appear that is what we have, and that is what we shall have.) It was a fun exercise: I didn't really come up with anything new, but connects history and fan pandering in ways I hadn't thought of. These are just some random thoughts, comments from those who can better contextualize them given what the WWE is currently doing, and what has happened previously, is appreciated.

Minor Leagues
Someone on the ECW documentary made specific mention of it as a 'minor league' for the WWE. Granted, this wasn't there intention, nor was it the WCW's, irregardless of the outcome. But what would a developed 'minor league' for the WWE give us?
- A place to ripen and then pluck talent. WWE already has a place for talent to 'ripen,' but J.R. notes that some are getting picked too soon. With the territorial system defunct there is no place for wrestlers to go and get the years necessary to make them solid workers. Both the WCW and ECW served this role in the past, and a robust minor league would fulfill this for the future.
- Regionality. As implied above, this would bring back a taste of the territorial system, within the context of the WWE. A minor league would by nature rely more on live performances than televised, promoting feelings of ownership by the fans. What we saw most clearly with the ECW was the potential for a group of individuals, within a specific time and place, to dialog with a fan base in an explosive way. This is impossible when trying to reach a national audience. Incidentally, this also makes them lower budget.
- Vince said the ECW were working with a small portion of the potential fans, and would need to broaden out to go national. But why dilute the original product? ECW didn't, and failed, but they were trying to compete. If Vince fostered these sorts of smaller clubs, it not only better serves the whole fan base, by giving a range of tailor-made options, but also strengthens the product by letting these different voices (literally) compete. It's Monday Night Wars without the financial scare.
- Delocalization also pulls part of wrestling away from Vince. This alone allows for greater experimentalization that firstly, Vince does ultimately have input in but secondly, opens a space for other creative directions. Imagine a league run by the fans! Or, Steve Austin or something.

The power of youtube
- Wrestling has been piggy backing on technological developments in television since the beginning of television. The next logical step is to jump into the power of the internet. It goes against the totalitarian atmosphere that dictates 'the word shall come from the official website,' but more subtle distribution methods better play to the notions of reality that wrestling struggles with. Ie, stick some of these promos on youtube, and see what happens.
- There's a huge difference in doing this for established stars, and for the 'undiscovered.' In conjunction with 'minor leagues' this could be powerful. Of course nothing is certain about online popularity, but the worst case is no one notices, or you end up calling it a leak. Best case and there's a breakout phenomenum which, conveniently, is on the roster for the next event. In this way multiple streams can be utilized to build stars, which can then be plucked for WWE's 'main events.'

So what I really like is the notion of dividing up the WWE. Right now, they are basically the equivalent of the early broadcast era. A couple channels, a few shows meant to appeal to everyone, and that's what you got. With the expansion of the airwaves, and eventually cable, we saw a fracturing of the audience that allowed greater creative freedom relying on more specific demographics. The question is whether the wrestling fan base can support an expansion, but it seems that it can - if anything, as we've seen before, these challenges help expand the viewership. As well, given that there is ultimately no competition, and small scale leagues may actually benefit from nickel and diming it, the financial risks should not be great. Even if they were - Vince is known for throwing the dice, eh?

WWE Meets The ECW

2007-04-10T21:33:00.000-04:00

From what we've seen of the ECW so far, I found the dynamic between the WWE and the ECW to be one of the most interesting bits we've seen. I'm not entirely sure how to read the whole thing yet, but there seems to be a bunch of interesting angles here.

On the simplest level, you basically just have the ECW and the WWE pooling their mutual resources to cooperate in battling the WCW. Simple enough. From this angle, you have basic cooperation.

Then you also have this sort of animosity between the two. Lawler rather actively insults the ECW wrestlers. Heyman constantly uses "McMahon" in what seems to be a genuinely derogatory way. The WWE is underhandedly stealing wrestlers from the ECW. From this angle, you have basic antagonism.

However, somehow these two things seem to coexist in a sort of an uncomfortable way. If the ECW hates the WWE so much, then how come they keep bringing folks like Lawler back on the show? Is it just to get better ratings? The ECW seemed to pack its stadiums pretty consistently, and was less television-oriented, so wouldn't the WWE clearly stand to gain more? Even if the ECW gains something from bringing on the WWE, is it really worth it to help out your biggest competitor? Why allow Lalwer to come on and trivially beat the living crap out of your new champions? That makes the ECW wrestlers look awful! Whatever you stand to gain from the competition, surely that doesn't make any sense.

I'm just not sure I understand what the ECW was doing here.

I suppose, the one way I can make sense of this, is that Haymen who knew a damn good wrestling story, but without a great deal of business sense. Perhaps he saw that what he was doing with the WWE made for a better story, and that was what he focused on, without taking into consideration the larger impact it might have on the business?

I'm not sure.

Another interesting angle, somewhat tangential to this, is getting back to the whole reality versus fiction dichotomy.

One thing that struck me about the ECW wrestlers was how real everything seemed to them. When they talk about Lawler showing up in their ring, they seem genuinely upset and surprised about the whole thing. Surely they were told about the story in advance, right?

On the WWE side of things, I got the more familiar sense (from what we've been seeing throughout the class) that they acknowledged the fiction and the reality together, whereas the ECW felt more lost in the unreality of the whole thing. It was a bit strange. It felt almost anarchonistic in the context of class.

A part of me wants to draw some kind of connection here between the more story-obsessed and less-business-oriented attributes of the ECW and the more blurred line between reality and fiction in the ECW... though I'm not quite sure yet.

Just starting to get the old gears turning with regards to the ECW. I might revisit this topic later if we talk more about them.

Tess, you are my hero

2007-04-10T17:32:00.000-04:00

This is in response to the "For God's Sake..." post that Tess made and a lot of the responses that come after it.

If I didn't know better, I would have said that post was one of the 2 a.m. drunken rants you made reference to. Either way, it was poetry.

So about 2-3 weeks ago, I figured I'd stop with my diatribes since it was clear that you weren't getting it. Now that you've read what I've been saying for months written by one of your classmates, do you get it?

If you can stop breathing the MIT nitrous for a minute, here are the points I've been trying to get across:

You cannot overly analyze wrestling with any actual accuracy until you understand wrestling, and it's clear most of you don't. I can't sit down and take The History of Nascar and provide any worthwhile analysis, even after a couple of months, because I don't know a thing about it and know that whatever small nuggets of information I pick up, they are just pebbles in the vast quarry that is Nascar. If I were to start spouting off, sharing my pebbles, the people who have mined the quarry for years will laugh at me, the way that I've been laughing at you.

I get the fact you're at MIT, congratulations. But you're media studies students at MIT, which is not exactly the Newhouse School at Syracuse or Tisch at NYU....both places I was admitted by the way. I would be embarrased to be an MIT media studies student and walk around with an MIT T-shirt or backpack on. Unless you're at MIT study astrophysics or string theory or the time-space continuum as a math or science student, you really shouldn't be bragging about going to MIT. Pack up your stuff and go to Emerson if you want a school for media studies. I wouldn't want to wear a jacket from Bob Jones University if I was majoring in Jewish Studies. I wouldn't want to wear a jacket from the Rhode Island School of Design if I was majoring in poetry.

Do you think that the WWE would be sending Ross and Foley to you if it wasn't MIT? It could be the same course at any community college and it would be laughed at. Since it's MIT, it's something special, and that is the kind of elitism that is wrong, especially since the community college kids likely have a much better grasp on the concepts and constructs of wrestling than most of you will ever hope to.

As for this blog, it sounds like a bunch of kids trying to one-up each other and be the most impressive on the playground. I have arrived to tell you that the only people who care about your little circle are you, and if you'd take the sticks out of your asses, you might actually enjoy wrestling for what it is, not what you use big words trying to pretend it is. You really can't grasp that there is a lot of ground between saying "John Cena sucks" and "John Cena's tragic underdog character may never be embraced by an audience, and society, that prefers deception" If you're not writing a thought like the second, everything to you is the first.

And finally, and I guess this just comes from probably being older than 95% of you. You know when someone older gives you a piece of advice like "if you huff too much rubber cement tonight, you'll wake up in the morning vomit"? You don't listen to them, so you huff and in the morning you puke and you realize the guy with one nostril was right. And then you have enough of these incidents where people tell you something, you ignore them, you get burned and decide you'll actually start listening to people. Then, as I have realized, you start to impart your experiences on others, hoping they'll have an easier, or better time than you. You need to belong to AAA, you should put tequila instead of vodka into your Red Bull and there are far more people not on FaceBook or MySpace, and those that aren't, are laughing at the ones who are. Anyway, I've tried to impart the idea that sometimes life is not all that complicated and you're clearly making it out to be. When you leave MIT with your (heh heh) media studies degree, you're going to face a world that will wish you had some actual media training, not just ideas how the media can better run. You'll turn into people who say all jobs suck and understand the medicinal, not just recreational, uses for alcohol. You'll stop asking for examples of why somebody says they feel or think a certain way and you'll just accept. Tess was pissed off in that post, she was eloquently venting, and there are comments about narrow thinking and debate about what she was thinking. Let it go. How fucking bored are you? You're now over analyzing your classmates the way you over analyze the course. That's just pathetic. I don't know what Tess is thinking, and it doesn't really matter to me what's going on under the surface. She expressed completely honest, on the level feelings. Stop wasting your time trying to read into them. Someday you'll recognize to just take things.....LIKE MOTHERFUCKING PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING....at face value.

You people give me a headache the way that PR and marketing people give me headaches. You're both completely full of shit, yet I can't tell if it's intentional and you realize it, or if it's just something you're born with and there's nothing that can be done.

A bit about my project.

2007-04-10T17:24:00.000-04:00

Or, I Wander Off-Topic Again. In my first post to this blog, I talked about what drew me to this class, and what seemed to be some interesting parallels in narrative-building between pro wrestling and a certain videogame genre. Representations of women in videogames has always been a thorny topic, and most of the writing on the subject (as popular and scholarly levels) is, in my opinion, weak to embarrassing, but fighting games have their own history with women that seems to have some relevance to wrestling.

Fighting games--for a refresher, games in which a small number of characters (usually two) attempt to beat up or kill each other using complex controls--have very few passive characters, and generally have fairly large casts. The game responsible for the popularizarion of the genre, Street Fighter II, has twelve active characters, eight of them playable, one of them female. The inclusion of a woman was not a major play element, and the gameplay was biased toward the two male protagonists anyway: the other six playable characters were all more or less gimmick characters. The female character, Chun-Li, was not overly sexualized, beyond fighting in a traditional Chinese dress and using an acrobatic fighting style, but nonetheless, she was something of a novelty at the time. She quickly became a fan favorite (for reasons that are, of course, impossible to determine completely), and more female characters followed in other games. The issues involving mixed-gender contact sports are nonexistent in the virtual realm, of course, so women in fighting games quickly shifted from novelties to standard characters whose absence would have been very noticeable.

Time passed, graphics improved, controversies roiled, and mainstream games became more sexual. Merchandise allowed for greater character development and greater fan attachment, both of which contributed to more openly sexualized female characters. Fatal Fury Special introduced a modern staple of the videogame woman, the breast bounce. Dead Or Alive continued the trend, with a higher-than-usual proportion of female characters, all sexualized to a fairly ridiculous level. Dead Or Alive helped carve out the beginning of videogames' answer to the "lad mag," games that were marketed to teenage males largely on the basis of over-the-top female sexuality. (At least that seems to be the idea; the marketing seems to work better for women on some titles.) Dead Or Alive is perceived by many gamers as not being a "real" fighting game, due to the ubiquity and sexualization of its female characters.

So, female characters began as a novelty, grew to become an expected part of the game, and ultimately created a segregated subgenre in which women are the primary or only important characters--a subgenre that is not respected by "real" fans. It seems to me that this parallels, to some degree, women's wrestling: beginning as a novelty act alongside midgets, growing to some degree of legitimacy, and then collapsing back into a separate novelty act sold on the basis of sexuality. The arc seems to be different (the growth of the modern women wrestlers derided by most of our readings seems to have come from failures of popularity, not successes), but I'm curious to see how the two might work differently, at to what extent the differences can be attributed to differences in medium.

E-C-F'n-W!

2007-04-10T16:47:00.000-04:00

First off, I'm psyched about Mick Foley coming in to talk to us tomorrow, and if it's okay with Sam, I'm definitely getting an autograph. But before I get into his book, I wanted to make a post on my take of ECW with the DVD we just saw fresh on my mind.

I never saw ECW during its heyday, I'll say it right off the bat. The only wrestling we ever saw was WWE wrestling, and my knowledge of ECW stems from watching the (WWE produced) Rise and Fall of ECW DVD, catching the first One Night Stand (a PPV that WWE produced, "bringing ECW back" for just one night - very clever name for such a PPV), seeing the failed ECW "invasion" in 2001 and now catching the new version that comes on Tuesday nights. That might sound like I know a thing or two about ECW, but I'm sure any ECW loyalist will tell me to shove it and that I know nothing about ECW and what it meant to its fans at its prime. And you know what? They may be right.

What I do know is that ECW fans are incredibly loyal fans who truly loved their small-time company that hit it big. I do know that ECW was more than just broken tables and tables lit on fire. There was a spirit in the company and in its presentation that made it so contagious to be a fan, and that effect is still there. When ECW was being "brought back" by WWE, there were so many fans that were all supposedly hardcore ECW fans, but I'm willing to bet that a good portion of them never saw guys like Dreamer, Sandman, and Taz in action in ECW. I'll go a step further and say that a lot of modern-day ECW fans probably never even saw the company in the 90s, and only got onboard their popularity train when it was brought to WWE. There was this allure to ECW, a legendary pull -- when ECW said extreme, they meant EXTREME (cue shots of Cactus Jack here). The fans were so rabid and adamant and so in love with their small company that Vince decided to cash in and bring it back. He reinstated ECW, got it its own night of television each week, sent in his own WWE guys to make for some kind of invasion storyline, and he even had John Cena lose his championship to Rob Van Dam at One Night Stand in the Philadelphia hall, where some fans carried a banner that said "IF CENA WINS, WE RIOT." That might've been laughable in a WWE arena, but it's a good thing John lost the match because, well, you just never know with an ECW crowd.

I made a post not too long ago saying that I think, nay, believe, that Vince is a smart man who knows what he's doing... most of the time. As much as people want to slam him, I don't think many would be so eager to fulfill his role in the company, and even less would succeed, if any at all. With that said, I think Vince dropped the ball with ECW (I shouldn't say "I think," but well, this is my opinion and with who knows who reading, I feel this is appropriate wording). This didn't even happen once - it happened twice. The first time was with the WCW/ECW invasion storyline, which some point to and say, "this is where wrestling lost it." What should've been the hottest angle he had ever done, and with so much talent and history right in his hands, Vince just... let it die.

But the fans wouldn't let ECW die. I found it interesting how down on ECW Eric Bischoff was, saying that they were never close to being #2 out of "the big 3." And yet, WCW went under and I've never heard a crowd chant for that company to make a comeback. Not the way ECW chants would randomly start up here and there. Not bad for being #3!

Enter mistake #2. Vince reinstates ECW and once again, word is out and it seems as though, to steal JR's line, business was about to pick up! He seemed to legitimately want the company to succeed, and RVD was going to be the face of the new brand. Joey Styles delivered a killer promo on Raw when JR returned, a promo that was so good it stills gives me chills to remember it - and off he went to ECW, with a full head of steam. Paul Heyman, mastermind of the original ECW, was back, and there was a buzz about this company. The fans hadn't let the spirit die, and now they were being rewarded.

At first it did well. But slowly, it started getting out of Paul Heyman's hands, and going to the hands of the guy who controls everyone's wallets, Vinnie Mac. And this is a mistake I think ECW is still struggling to recover from, the second mistake that Vince did. If he truly wanted the brand to work, he should've left it at the hands of Heyman. Heyman had a vision and was the man who originally gave ECW life, and he should've been the one to bring the new version life too. Instead, we got a bastardized version of Smackdown, with more WWE guys main-eventing ECW shows at first than ECW guys! Now the show is staying afloat, but unless Vince shakes it up, it probably won't last another year. Was his pride too much to swallow, to finance the brand but allow Paul Heyman to work his creative magic and keep his own nose out of it? Or was he justified in taking an active role in overseeing and adding the WWE touch on a show, that was, well, a WWE show? Personally, I'd say he's more than justified since he's footing the bill and it is his show, but if he wanted to appeal to that special spirit of ECW in the fans, he should've stepped back and let the man who created that spirit do what he does best - fire up those fans and keep that spirit alive.

The Rise and (Almost) Fall of ECW

2007-04-10T16:32:00.000-04:00

Ok, we didn't quite finish it, but some thoughts on the ECW doc. I was rather surprised to hear that this one is considered to be the most "authentic" of the WWE-produced docs we've watched; I thought it seemed more didactic than the others, which made me suspect a greater-than-usual bias.

To start with, the WWE, WCW and ECW are all represented rather iconically, with McMahon, Bischoff and Heyman serving as metonyms for their respective operations. McMahon is depicted as being cool, rational, and businesslike. Bischoff is depicted as being arrogant and incompetent, as well as having questionable business ethics. (We noted in class that this last one is odd, since he arguably behaved no worse than McMahon--the difference seems to be that McMahon isn't shown to be defensive about his behavior in this particular documentary. As for "arrogant" and "incompetent," all of our readings seem to back that one up.) And Heyman...

Heyman is depicted as a larger-than-life figure, an idealist, and a magnetic personality that inspires cultish devotion in his employees. He is presented as such a dramatic figure that I was taken aback by the class' assurances that this documentary depicts his world accurately. His business skills are, at first, canny and practical: he attacks where the competition is weak, revelling in the "dark side" of wrestling that McMahon and Bischoff had to manage very carefully. The blood, the sex, the sense of plausible (as opposed to superheroic) danger, all liabilities for the other promotions, were the strengths of the ECW. While nobody in the documentary said as much, I'm not sure ECW's comparatively low production values were a weakness to be minimized, but rather part of the appeal, helping to convince the audience that they weren't really dealing with a professional operation, and that anything really could happen. As Mick Foley pointed out (with what seemed like a degree of disdain), the fans loved the wrestling, but they also loved seeing people get hurt. It's easy to see where Foley's obsession with injury, safety and reality, labored so heavily in Foley is Good, comes from.

As the film goes on, it's suggested that Heyman (representing the ECW) eventually fails because he never moves past the mom-and-pop style that put him on the map. He performed multiple jobs, as did most of his wrestlers. The film (and a few of the wrestlers in it) suggest that ECW might have survived longer had he been willing to delegate, and move to a more "professional" model. I found this a little odd, given that Vince's reputation as a control freak doesn't seem to have yet doomed the WWE. But this claim, that Heyman resisted the transition to a big-league business model, sets up the WWE as the rightful inheritor of the ECW's talent, and the rightful ruler of the pro wrestling juggernaut--in stark contrast to that prick Bischoff.

At least, that's what it looks like from what we saw: it's possible there's a twist ending I haven't seen coming, in which Sabu is actually a disguised Magneto, or Heyman has been dead the whole time. (In my world, I like to imagine that documentaries offer the same story potentialities as fiction.) But it seems to be that there's a fundamental contradiction in the idea of a large-scale, highly successful ECW competing on the same scale as WWE and WCW, because the appeal of the ECW even today seems to be its stripped-down, alternative quality--Nirvana to the WWE's Poison, to borrow Heyman's analogy. Nirvana burned out quite famously, and while the fates of contemporary early 90s alternative messiah-bands vary, none of them ever actually replaced the pop music against which they were defined as alternative. Wrestling has grown to the point that it's straddling the line between subculture and culture, and ECW seems firmly planted in subculture.

Oh for God's Sake...

2007-04-10T11:48:00.000-04:00

Given that so far this term 6 hours a week of class time has been primarily devoted to viewings, and thus discussion has been relegated to this blog, the question must arise: what is a blog? I'm not in the mood today to be cutely rigorous, so I'll jump to the conclusion that a blog is by nature an informal medium, and so yes, it is appropriate to be completing my blogging for the week while sick, cranky, and impatient with bullshit.

The OCW (open courseware) once disregarded my lack of consent, resulting in the world having access to my drunk, 2am responses. Since the context framed me and my classmates as knowing what we were doing, I found this embarrassing. Similarly, this blog is embarrassing.

Partly, our standards aren't high enough. I fall victim too, so whatever, it's everyone's fault. On top of classtime and readings, keeping up with the blog is time consuming and mentally challenging, if you want to write some really good entries and responses each week. And so we all, some more than others, cheat. A rambling notation of something of interest, without contextual analysis, and a few 'hey yea' responses, and done for the week. Once we start to go downhill, there is little motivation to turn it around. Except that we lose all hope of discussion, which can really only exist in very good, argumentatively rigorous and informed posts, or continued back and forth through respones and entries that respond to one another. Mostly, we see neither, making this entire experience useless for someone like me, who originally was excited to take the course based on the notion that I would be learning something.

The other problem is more worrisome, and it comes down to whether people in the class are even capable of good analysis. Blah blah blah, everyone's worthwhile, everyone's brilliant, no child left behind and mixing retarded kids in the AP classes makes everyone do better! Bullshit. CMS classes constantly have this problem - a bunch of kids think 'ooh, a class on tv/wrestling/movies! no way!' and move in, so self impressed that they're managing to get college credit for their weekend amusement that they fail to realize that CMS is actually a disciplined study, which here in CMS we take just as seriously as you take CS, or chemistry, or mathematics. And so class discussion goes to pot, we spend classes re-explaining readings, and those of us who are capable of trying to integrate the theory, practical, and intense body of literature relevant to this field are left to walk each other places after class, bemoaning the difficulties of learning at MIT.

Example? Look at all the times you guys are saying 'I think.' I think, I think, I think. Those words are always either a weak way of disowning your own ideas, or of skirting the need to have an actual basis for your claims. I don't care what you think, because I don't believe you know what you're talking about. How about 'I remember?' Dead useful, actually, since this comprises data, and data is what we need in order to apply theory and draw conclusions. But a bunch of random data is useless. Worse than useless, because this gives individuals the false impression that they are 1. contributing, 2. important and 3. know what they're doing. Congratulations for watching a certain broadcast five or ten years ago. Really, good job. Top notch work there.

I gave up hope of an intensely useful class weeks ago. At the moment I kind of hope we get to read each other's final projects. Sometimes people have this weird ability to glom on to something real for final essays, and who knows? I might actually learn something. Otherwise, it's always dead amusing to read poorly written treatments of poorly understood concepts.

ECW and its Cultmaster

2007-04-09T19:41:00.000-04:00

I'm amused Paul Heyman basically equivocates ECW and its impact on wrestling to that of Nirvana to the music business at the turn of the 90's. It was something down, dirty and honest, in contrast to the WWE and WCW products at the time, which had polished production and inflated, unreal personalities. ECW guys spilled blood like it was water, they beat the living crap out of each other without a single pulled shot. They jumped into the crowd and worked with the fans, they even encouraged fans to _bring weapons_ to the shows for the wrestlers to use. This was grungy, dirty, 'hardcore' if you will, and because it _wasn't_ mainstream it made it even cooler to be a part of.

We can definitely see the effects of ECW popularity in the WWE product, as they moved through the Attitude era and pushed boundaries with the Hardcore Division and eventually by bringing in ECW's top guys, like Mick Foley, Tommy Dreamer, Raven, etc (Dreamer basically drove the Hardcore division during his time on air, drove it with a Singapore cane, no less). These matches didn't help the WWE's reputation with morality groups or parents' councils, but the fans ate it up. And that was only a taste of the real ECW, that could barely get on the air because it was so violent, so disturbing, but overall, uncompromising.

Well, Paul Heyman aka Paul E. Dangerously was uncompromising in many ways. While he gave his talent a wide berth in terms of creative freedom in the ring, he was in charge of the plot direction. He was head writer, producer, director, he wore so many hats while running ECW no wonder he lost his hair, from all the switching from one to another. That unrelenting drive and control helped push ECW out of armories and onto the air, but even then, he was his own master, no matter what the Network (TNN I think?) told him. They kept the low budget, 'intimate' production values mostly because their budget was tiny, but also because that's the feel Heyman wanted.

While he was the ringmaster, he did not treat his acts poorly. In fact, he gave them more freedom and more control over their fate and hand in the company than I've seen in any other wrestling organization so far. This probably had a hand in the cult-like devotion exhibited by ECW'ers to Paul Heyman over the years, as he always took care of them and treated them well, even as he was running everything personally and things began to unravel. The bluster and crazed self-assuredness we see of Heyman on screen has the allure of a demagogue, and orator with such intensity that you can't help be sucked into his words. If ECW was a cult, the wrestlers and hardcore fans were the followers of Paul Heyman, the cultmaster, and their message of violence and gritty realism gradually sucked the wrestling world in, including eventually the WWE. 'Just like Nirvana.'

Mick Foley and Our Class on WWE.com

2007-04-09T16:45:00.001-04:00

Mick Foley's visit this week is currently displayed prominently on the WWE main site. The story is available here.

late S, L, & H post

2007-04-08T23:55:00.000-04:00

I missed doing a post about Sex, Lies, & Headlocks, and wanted to get down a few thoughts before moving on to the Foley material, which is equally hard to put down...

What I noticed most was the framing of Vince as the tragic hero. At the beginning of the book, we are given the image of Vince being downtrodden, having odds to overcome: 'While the families of military officers were allowed to use facilities on the base, such as the pool and the athletic courts, locals like the Luptons had to watch with their noses pressed against the fence" (22). The theme of Vince lusting after something unreachable comes up throughout the book-- his father's company, the success of Ted Turner, the extension of his empire into other industries (XFL, competitive bodybuilding).

While Vince as a kid looking through the fence at the military base and the descriptions of his volatile home situation paint a picture of an innocent child being dealt some unfair injustices, as the book goes on, we see Vince more and more serving as his own insurmountable hurdle. While we still feel sympathy for his extreme task of handling all the crises, scandals, and tragedies, he is increasingly detestable because of his role in their creation. He starts to come off to me as a sort of Willy Loman character, being integrally linked to his own perpetual demise.

But of course, S, L, &H also paints Vince as a man with a certain amount of magic tricks to be pulled out at the exact moment when necessary. I guess Vince, like the wrestling industry in general, is a pile of self-contradictions, and this will translate into any memoir detailing his life. In the end, I don't quite know how to feel about him, but I suppose it's totally appropriate to love and hate him with equal and simultaneous passion, so I'm going to go with that for now.

Blog Popping Up Elsewhere

2007-04-08T18:11:00.000-04:00

-Our class was mentioned on Pat McNeill's podcast, Real Deal with Pat McNeill, at The Pro Wrestling Torch's premium site. He mentioned Peter's recent post about Brian Pillman and Carolina's about Vince McMahon in particular. The podcast is only available to Torch subscribers as exclusive content, but he mentioned the URL of the blog specifically.

-Meanwhile, Web site KLQ linked to Ismael's post about Wrestling with Shadows a little while back.

Foley: The "I Quit" match

2007-04-07T21:00:00.000-04:00

This'll probably be the first of several posts on Foley is Good, so I'll start with the inevitable: I'm having a blast with this book, and after all the time we've spent with the character/performer binary, it's refreshing to read a performer who treats it as, well, a performance.

Granted, he's still a wrestler, and there's certainly some hyperbole at work. I suspect that Foley's suggestion for a rematch in which Foley breaks into a house full of mentally ill people and uses them to force The Rock off a cliff was probably a joke. But overall, he's pretty down-to-earth, someone who works in an unusual business but is apparently not insane.

Foley's description of "I Quit" match against The Rock, detailed in chapter 3, gives a perspective I haven't seen before in this class, one that deals explicitly with the tension between wrestling and the "real" world. It's important to Foley that his kids understand that The Rock is a friend of his, and he's not really getting hurt--although he is, but only enough to make it look real. As the details of the match are worked out, it's hard not to admire the craftsmanship involved (managing the delays between chair shots, etc.)

But then, as so often happens with live performance, things go awry. The chair shots come faster than they'd planned, and more frequently. Foley is understandably in pain, but mostly writes about his wife and kids in the audience, and being worried about their reactions. And when it's all over, and Foley's recuperating in the dressing room, he doesn't seem to be joking when he writes about being offended that The Rock doesn't show up.

I read this and I think, with all the PR problems the WWE is constantly having--PR problems that essentially function as advertising for the product, of course, but problems nonetheless--I can't help but wonder why the WWE doesn't try to produce more stuff like this. More openness, more common sense, more concern for the safety of the fans. Hell, can't Vince break character just once in a while and be, well, nice?

And if he's not in character, if Mr. McMahon really is the real Vince, couldn't he just take Foley's advice for most problems and just fake it?

core [values] ?

2007-04-05T09:13:00.000-04:00

I was thinking more about the discussion we had last night about the possible reading of any consistent system of core values throughout the history of professional wrestling, given the ever-shifting representatation of religion, politics, ethics, gender roles, etc. While it makes perfect sense that takes on these issues and their representation to the public would shift over time with the correlary shifts of cultural norms, several things make the historical value system of wrestling a little more strange--
-the incredible saturation of these profound issues in the entertainment medium,
-the extremity of the viewpoints expressed,
-the extreme mutability of these viewpoints,
-the seeming lack of concern for the appropriateness of their political, religious, and ethnic representations to the demographic of their audience. (Vince vs. God still completely confuses me, but I guess by now I should understand that wrestling fans do like to be outraged),
-the intertwining of the corporation and the entertainment product (as we discussed yesterday with Bryce in reference to the Apologia thesis)
-the contemporary presence of one man, Vince, as the point of origin and blame for all of these complicated, dynamic positions.

As I was trying to nail down what I see as wrestling's core values in this really complicated scene, I kept coming back to the idea of stance/ adament positioning as the consistent value. It is a well-constructed theater of 'crying wolf' in a way; because there is such constant outrage, and because of all the blurring between entertainment and reality and sport, nothing is taken as more than performatively offensive. There is outrage and offense, but it is somehow buffered by an inability to read that offensive act, portrayal, or statement as a really important, overarching value of wrestling, because it's likely to be reversed next week.

So, I would say that the exact core values of wrestling are it's lack thereof; or rather, its presentation of a rhizomatic map of extreme values, the response to which makes up a significant part of the drama in the wrestling industry.

Brian Pillman: WTF?

2007-04-04T16:36:00.000-04:00

One surprise for me, reading SL&H, was Brian Pillman. When the authors began fleshing out his story in chapter 12, I kept waiting for a name I recognized to be attached to him; the authors tend to introduce wrestlers by their given names and progress through their progressively more famous stage names. But no, this was just Brian Pillman, nobody I recognized; if we've read about him earlier this semester, I must not have retained it.

Which would be surprising, because this guy is scary. An origin story worthy of a superhero--in and out of hospitals as a child, seemingly supernatural ability to withstand pain--someone with a less-than-ideal body who was nonetheless driven to athletic achievement (and an amusing story about a woman, a chin-up bar and gravity boots). I read eagerly, wondering, who is this guy? When will he "become" someone I've heard of?

But it just got stranger. The cocaine, the "weakness" for single moms, his ex's suicide, the car accident of undefined cause...the authors describe this last as "the ultimate con. The man who's fooled his fans and friends into believing he had a death wish had nearly gone ahead and done it" (167). But it was the story of the Pillman-Austin angle that really stuck out for me.

First, it seemed to have nothing to do with wrestling, having moved almost entirely off-text into the expanded universe of WWE lore. That said, it sounded, well, scary. I don't assume I would have thought it was very plausible, had I been watching, but this guy was reputed to be crazy, right? And, to hear it described in prose, Stone Cold was playing up his own craziness very well. That Vince actually seemed to break character ("a publicity stunt has gone too far and our hope is that nobody has been hurt") just seems to lend authenticity (169).

Does anyone remember actually watching this? It's one of the more surreal things I've read about this since we started the course. Even this far after the fact, I found it a little hard to swallow.

Camera, what camera?

2007-04-04T11:49:00.000-04:00

Like everyone else, I find Vince McMahon on my mind. What I find most intriguing is a point Sam made - that the McMahon's were very early, and very cutting edge, reality TV. The extension to "The Osbournes," is easy to make, and I hear the Hulk is doing similar. The results are somewhat similar as well, though I've heard of the Osbourne girl in the tabloids and trash TV much more often than the younger McMahons. Who really, I'd never heard of at all, implying that the WWE is, to large extent, a world unto itself, helping to explain the continued success. Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are two other names to spring to mind, and sparked Ritchie's rise to fame much like the Hulk's.

The results of these shows have been ever expanding personalities for people who were already familiar with the spotlight, but it's the same any time you begin with the formula of a group of people, cameras, and add tension. This, in fact, is the result of format television - an outlined concept that can be sold into many markets for local production. Reality TV is a recent, and successful format, firstly because it is generally fairly cheap to produce, but mainly because as it depends on individual personalities, it is remarkably easy to tailor to various audiences and cultures. Just look at Trading Spaces versus the original British one, or FOX reality shows versus those on Bravo.

In each reality show that has a consistent cast of equals (I'm not talking about hosts, here, specifically) stars emerge. Some do go on to acting careers, and more and more, some are NOT merely our next door neighbors. (Recent dialogues surrounding American Idol are concerned with the prior musical achievements of some of the competitors, and the availability of this material online.) And yet, having no special training, some of them become celebrities, the camera loves them, the public loves them - or hates them - but at any rate the public is paying attention.

Are these people playacting? They did, after all, come in to compete. But some of the most engaging personalities come out of the early days, (Jay and Austin from Season 1, PR anyone?) before the assumption was neccessarily that a good strategy is to foster a popular character. And most of them had little experience in front of a camera, no experience in front of the world. I was watching that wife swapping show the other day, and while the two families were obviously chosen for being strong willed and very different (one ate everything raw - even meat, the other was happily urban) there were signs that each were reacting to the heightened circumstances in ways that seem over the top for the disinterested viewer.

Why? Because it is real. It's always real - when you're doing it. The set of "Friends" was real - it's just what they were really doing was much more self contained and scripted than what people are doing on reality TV. Which brings us back to the McMahons. The character/real person binary distinctions are ok for theoretical constructions, but the presumption that there is a line anywhere, or that there needs to be a line, is ludicrous. Why does anyone care? Will you like them more if you know they step into the ring and put on a mask with a set of defined rules? Do you lose respect for Vince if you see the 'businessman' step farther away from good taste than we presume cultured high class individuals to appreciate? Or it is just a puzzle to solve? Because at least you'll have amusement for years.

A look at competition in wrestling

2007-04-04T06:40:00.000-04:00

I enjoyed the point made in McMahon about how the lack of competition in wrestling has hurt the business in general, so I just wanted to expand on that a little further.

The WWE was red-hot from 1998-2000, right around the time it took the lead from WCW in the Monday Night War and never looked back. Most older teenagers will say that this is the era that got them hooked into wrestling, if they're still hooked today. This era was the Hogan era of the new generation of wrestling fans and is the one most younger people fall back on. I believe Vince was at his personal best around this time period, where practically every storyline was hot and every championship had a meaningful feud behind it. And he couldn't afford to be anything less than his best since his company was on the line.

But soon after the buyout of WCW, the effects of not having any real competition started to show. Vince said once he didn't want to insult the intelligence of his fans, but I could recall too many a time when he did insult my intelligence and that of my fellow fans as well. But post-WCW, it seemed as though he got into this comfort zone mentality that since he was the only game in town, people would have to watch his crap and be forced to like it since there was no other alternative. With the influx of WCW and then ECW guys that joined, I have to say that the roster Vince had around 2001-2003ish was amazing. In fact, he had so many guys that he didn't know what to do with, he opted to split the brands to give more guys a chance to get showcased (more bang for his buck) - and also perhaps to create his own competition.

I say perhaps because although the idea was definitely interesting and got the fans drawn in at first, there never really seemed to develop this competition between the brands. Yes, around Survivor Series something would come up where they'd start feuding, but I can't think of another time where they went that way. The exception of course was the renewal of the ECW brand, which sometimes doesn't seem to quite be the success Vince probably would've hoped for it to be. But with vampires trotting out in storylines, you were once again reminded that Vince was the only show in town - if you didn't like it, you didn't get wrestling at all unless you turned to the indy scene.

But then there was TNA.

When I first saw them, they were only on PPV and hadn't hit a TV deal yet. My first thought was that Vince could squash these guys like a bug, but it never happened. Now they're on Spike, they've moved up the chains a bit and are featuring two hot ex-WWE guys in Christian Cage, the Dudleyz and Kurt Angle, while housing Jeff Hardy for a while as well. Besides attacking them with lawsuits over trademarks and the like, it doesn't seem as though Vince is paying TNA much attention.

Is this a mistake? For anyone who's watched TNA, you know that they're not quite ready to compete with the giant WWE, who's still the #1 game in town. But their situation almost reminds me of pre-Bischoff WCW. They're there, they've got the talent, but they're just missing that special something. That something could be the in the form of someone like Bischoff stepping up and injecting new life into it, giving it enough to push it over the edge - or it could just take one more big defection (what would happen if a disgruntled Rob Van Dam said screw it and joined the competition, kicking off a feud with AJ Styles?). It seems as though the company is chugging along and is one push away from giving Vince a run for his money once again, and Vince is more or less ignoring it until it does get to that point.

Or maybe, he sees what every fan sees and wants TNA to get bigger in name and in value. That way he could have legitimate competition, and being the driven egomaniac that he is, he could then attempt to destroy them and beat them out as well. Wrestling in general seems back on the upswing after dropping off with the buyout of WCW, and maybe he sees that.

Maybe he sees that TNA succeeding is just what the business needs.

Pulling Back the Curtain

2007-04-04T00:57:00.000-04:00

There are lots of instances in which the kayfabe curtain is pulled back in the wrestling world and the real going ons backstage and at the homes of wrestlers comes into play in the ring and the audience is exposed to it. I do believe that Vince McMahon did something revolutionary by admitting that the business was entertainment. Basically he let the people who don't understand wrestling in, but the fans had always been in. So I think it made them feel like they were finally let in instead of having to know about it and read about it but not be acknowledged. We read about how angry the promoters were that McMahon did that and it is so funny how he would respond to later instances of breaking character and how dedicated he has been to staying in his Mr McMahon character.
I do wonder how the different instances where the illusion had to be broken or was broken unnecessarily would be like had McMahon not done this. The deaths of wrestlers like Owen Hart, Brian Pillman and Eddie Guerrero where always difficult situations and those were times when the public was let into the real lives of wrestlers. Wrestlers were allowed to were Guerrero shirts and say great things about Owen Hart even though they might have had a recent feud with them or they were opposites; Eddie a face, the person saying great things a heel, it is a different situation. There is no more suspension of disbelief, now it is real. But I wonder, what if there had been a promoter that did not treat this as entertainment but instead tried to keep the curtain down and would not acknowledge a death. I don't think that would be the case however, with the internet and all, but the way it is acknowledged would be different. Perhaps only faces would be able to say something nice at the time. I think that situations like deaths are something that the WWE has handled well.
But there are other times when backstage life has spilled over to the ring or vice versa. One of the moments that I have read much into has been the Madison Square Garden incident where Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall broke character. It was not even on TV but McMahon was angry and busted down Triple H to jobber. He did not want to recognize that this would be an emotional moment for the wrestlers and the fans who had cheered for them for years. I can understand that it might look bad but fans knew what was going on. They cheered when it happened! So why punish the wrestlers? It was not bad for business was it? I suppose it might be that the rules were not to break character and it was more about going against Vince than what it would do to the business.
I do believe that with finally admitting that it is entertainment, Vince McMahon allowed the people to become even more involved in the world of wrestling because they could cheer for their wrestler but also cheer, or boo, for the person. Does anyone remember X-pac? Case and point. In the end it ended up making superstars akin to movie stars and sports stars so it was a great business decision in the end.

McMahon

2007-04-03T23:08:00.000-04:00

By the end of watching the 'McMahon' documentary, I was more enlightened and at the same time more confused than before about who exactly Vincent Kennedy McMahon is. Some said he's nothing like his 'on screen' character, Mr.McMahon. Some said the TV Vince is all the stuff Vince wish he could do in real life. Then some others said the real Vince is far more ruthless than his on-screen persona. Well, both of them are ruthless alright.

For a documentary produced in-house about the Boss, probably with his hands-on input, it didn't portray him they way one would think. It was not 'Vince is great, Vince is perfect, yada yada' as you might expect. It wasn't even gushing about him like Verne Gagne's portrayal seemed to be. It basically rounded Vince out to be a brilliant and crazy promoter, a workaholic family man, and a ballsy and sometimes retarded businessman (the bodybuilding league? not mentioned. the XFL? a poorly-timed good idea, etc). They seemed to throw in enough good with enough bad that it seemed orchestrated instead of realistic, as if they were deliberately trying to throw in enough negative material so that the audience would believe they were trying to make an accurate, honest documentary of his life. They may well have, but it felt very forced.

While the WWE crew may have been trying to paint a 'realistic' picture of Vince, we could see that they were conveniently leaving out key points that we had read about elsewhere, such as the fact that Vince Jr. didn't even know his real father until he was a teenager, that he grew up in a trailer, and that little multi-million dollar bungle that was the Bodybuilding League (of Steroids). They basically picked up from when Vince Sr. kicked his son out in front of the camera as an announcer and ran from there. Yes, they went into detail about the XFL, but I suspect they included that because it was such a high profile failure that the entire piece would have lost the rest of its credibility if it wasn't included. Even so, they painted the whole thing as bad timing, or someone else's fault, since it was so obviously a good idea in premise.

Then, there was the whole coverage of the McMahon family and their involvement in TV storylines and the business itself. Now, I've been watching for a good while, and I know some of the crazy stuff that Shane, Stephanie and Linda have gotten into on WWE programming, but seeing it all cut together so quick and close, it dawned on me that this family (or more likely Vince) will do anything for the business, for the product - where anything is that next big idea that Vince has at the time. Thank goodness some of them have more sense than Vince at times, such as when he wanted to be the father of Stephanie's baby on TV while she was pregnant. EW EW EW. Luckily she refused. It seems that sometimes Vince confuses 'shock' and 'entertainment', such as the Katie Vick necrophilia angle. Was that entertaining? No, not really. Was it shocking? Yeah! Did it get WWE press? Hell yeah. Didn't matter to Vince that it was bad press.

Indeed Vince is a brilliant businessman for taking advantage of the Pay Per View revolution, bringing us Wrestlemania and so much more, but those 'balls the size of grapefruits' have also gotten him into trouble from time to time, both with his fans and the general media. The fine line between crazed TV personality and real live Chairman has become even more blurred as the years go by, and this documentary has done nothing more than make that distinction ever more difficult to make.

Sex, Lies, Headlocks, Steroids, more Sex......

2007-04-03T22:19:00.000-04:00

Reading through 'Sex Lies and Headlocks' over break basically clarified all the scandals that I had heard about in passing about the WWE. I had a general idea about what happened regarding the steroid trail, but that was about it. Overall I thought Vince McMahon had built the WWE up over the years with relatively little 'badness', I guess their family-oriented marketing at the time had worked well on me.

I had no idea it was so bad. The sex scandals. The drugs. The rampant steroid abuse, including Vinnie himself. It was the Eighties, and I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was. The fact that nearly everybody was doing coke, and Vince was quoted as saying approximately "I can snort more of this stuff than anybody and never get hooked" pretty much shocked me. I knew the boys liked to party, but man. The WWE in that era basically was a coked up sex den, rolling in money. It makes you wonder how these wrestlers functioned in the ring, if so many of them were actually doing that much coke and pills, I mean they were still athletes.

Now, I knew Vince's reputation as a womanizer, but I don't think I really paid it any heed. Then there are the accusations of rape. Rape?! I dont' really know what to make of that. For that matter, I don't really know what to make of Linda, between this stuff and from what we saw in the 'McMahon' video. I wish someone would do a 'Linda' video. She is CEO afterall.

Then there are the steroids. I knew about the steroids, but I didn't know Vince really was on them too. The bit about Hogan's butt being too scarred to inject anymore really drove home the point of how rampant and destructive it had become, as well as the stories of 'roid rage and the toll they had on several wrestlers' health. Sometimes I wonder if some of the guys today are on steroids, because they look so unbelieveably pumped. I'm afraid of becoming even more disillusioned.

At least the Monday Night Wars were detailed in a mostly unbiased perspective, allowing us to have a very fleshed-out overall picture, one side from Vince/WWE, one side from Bischoff, and one side from the Observer. It was refreshing indeed. But man, I really won't ever look at the WWE the same again.

I believe in McMahonism

2007-04-03T14:55:00.000-04:00

I thoroughly enjoyed the McMahon video that we watched last night, even though parts of it were vague and confusing. If the purpose of watching this video is to learn to differentiate between Vince and his onscreen character, I wouldn't recommend watching it. The distinction is never really made, and all you get are different opinions on what his family and employees think. And even they can't agree at times, so who's to say? We've heard that the most successful characters are those who are just themselves with the "volume turned up," and that seems to define Vince perfectly.

Most old-timers slam on him a lot for changing the name of the game that is wrestling, but my own opinion is that he does what he has to do to protect his business. He innovated and fought it out with WCW to remain standing in the end. Isn't that the American way? Isn't ruthless competition something you have to have if you want to be successful in a ruthless and cutthroat business world? Vince has an ego, sure, but who doesn't? One need look no further to Donald Trump to see that having an ego comes with the package. Vince had it, and he had ambition and a vision that no one else in his time had. Yes, at times he strays from what he should and he has quirky, if not creepy storyline ideas.

But the thing with Vince is that he'll do anything to have his company succeed. If you need proof, that sick landing on the table in the cage match with Austin should suffice. I agree with Austin - there was zero need for Vince to do that, and I think it makes it so much easier to work for him and take those kinds of risks for him because you know he'd do it too. There aren't many sixty-year-old guys who will take a ladder in the face by Shawn Michaels and get put through a table, except for maybe Ric Flair when he gets there. Vince did what he had to do, and if no one else was ready to compete with him, that doesn't come back to him. He did what any successful businessman would do these days - he competed, and he won. Yes, he pissed a lot of people off, but at the end of the day, he definitely got the last laugh.

Specs

2007-04-03T12:44:00.000-04:00

Henry Jenkins III's article, "Never Trust a Snake," well supports an approach to wrestling that considers it to be a form of melodrama. What it also does, though less explicitly, is to establish a continuum of entertainment forms, and to locate wrestling within this using a 'melodramatic' lens.

On one side are sports. Jenkins notes that it is within the framework of sporting contests that wrestling resides, though it does two things more: intentionally creating narratives using the 'genre' of sports and then maximizing these to greatest effect, and wrestling highlights the personal narrative, foregrounding individual conflicts and emotions. Essentially then, pro wrestling can be seen as sports turned inside out and amplified. We have great, real time documentarians following the volatile athletes, whose contests are more often than not of mythic proportions. You can wait a lifetime for the moment the Red Socks break the Curse of the Bambino (and short of apocalypse, they had to, eventually), but within the quickened pace of pro wrestling a resolution is never so far off.

The other side is harder to quantify, which is why Jenkins didn't bother to try, but include the aspects of drama that rely explicitly on non-melodramatic portrayals. We could say this means naturalistic, though this still runs into trouble since even reality has adopted aspects of the melodramatic: take, for instance, rolling the eyes to indicate exasperation. Mainly, they are highly scripted, might be simply text, and do not rely on melodrama. Beyond that, all I want to point out is that wrestling can also be seen to be built off a loose narrative, with an ad-lib of melodramatic performance taking the place of a smooth narrative flow, and reducing it to a series of high points and low points.

The notion of the "spectacle" comes into play here, since a spectacle is by nature intentional. It's purpose is to awe and overwhelm, to instill feeling and emotion into the spectator by its very presence and without the need for translation or interpretation. The experience of a fan following the narrative is the interface, and the amplification is the spectacle. The other purpose of a spectacle is to inspire curiousity about the specific ways in which the spectacle achieves its effect. Often this is a technological gap, such as the wizard Tesla, and electricity, or the contemporarily cutting edge CGI in Jurassic Park. While there are some technological aspects to pro wrestling, exemplified by the production standards, the real power comes from the melodrama- the way the narratives develop and the tensions between reality and fiction. These are not quantifiable, but only open to comparative and interpretive literature studies, meaning that the power of wrestling should not diminish, as have CGI effects. It must be noted that this does not mean for an individual the power will never diminish: familiarity engenders different appreciation. We see this with all other media forms: Jurassic Park's dinosaurs are always cool, but not now novel, and the first reading of a book is never the same experience as later revisitation. (As a slight divergence, C.S. Lewis, Sherry Turkle, and others have noted that the behaviour of returning to a story/experience indicates a deep relationship about the quality of the media. The first go round one can enjoy the fact of - that is, be surprised, but subsequently one cannot be surprised that Alice was dreaming, and only enjoy the journey. This bond, between individual and journey, has implications for wrestling fans that for now, I'll leave the reader to ponder.)

What this distinction gives us is another way to look at pro wrestling fans. We keep seeing what is essentially a binary split: you can immerse yourself, following along and perhaps participating yourself, or you can step back and theorize about the show. If we consider wrestling as spectacle this is no longer surprising, as these are the two behaviors implied in any spectacle. [Granted, it is possible for an individual to interact with a spectacle in only one, or neither of these ways, a spectacle merely implies that it is crafted for a majority in a certain context.]

The XFL

2007-04-03T12:32:00.000-04:00

(This post refers to American football. For the purists out there, please replace all references to "football" with "bananas.")

I was in undergrad, doing my best to avoid sports fans in general, when the XFL began, and while my memories are not as detailed as those in McMahon and Sex, Lies and Headlocks, they're informed by opinions about football and wrestling, sports and sports entertainment, that haven't changed much after these recent readings. I didn't know or care much about wrestling at the time, but had a sufficient grasp of the essentials, i.e. it was scripted, the fans knew it was scripted, and it walked an odd sort of narrative/sport line that seemed to work for pro wrestling, but seemed highly inapplicable anywhere else. (Years later I'd realize videogames had been riffing off this tension in their own way, but that was later.)

I grew up among football fans, and what I knew about that culture seemed entirely incompatible with wrestling culture. Authenticity is something to be played with in wrestling, one element working in conjunction with many others to create a spectacle, but it's invisible in football, because, well, it's a sport, and everyone treats it as such. The refs are utilized in such a way as to let them actually do their stated job of enforcing rules, and the fans treat the game itself as the center of the experience. Sure, there are rivalries, and flamboyant personalities, but mostly it's the game. And since that game is firmly within the tradition of agon, in which rules attempt to reduce all advantages that aren't based on skill, anybody who can win does, and they'd goddamned better be trying to do so. There are injuries, but few fans I knew seemed to think the game would be better with more of them; few even seemed to consider "danger" to be an appealing element of the action. If anything, injuries just screwed up the season.

So, hearing all the buzz about this new "smash-mouth football," a term I never did quite understand, I began to wonder just what the hell the XFL backers were thinking, attempting to create a new football league that seemed to be identifying itself in terms of sexier cheerleaders, a few obscure rule changes (which were always implied, if not accurately, to make the game more violent and dangerous), ridiculous "edgy" team names, and...what? Who in their right mind would want to PLAY for a league that combined the respectability of pro-wrestling with the injury rates and comparative anonymity of football? We've seen attempts at futuristic, "no holds barred" neo-football games in fiction, for the very good reason that it would be insane to attempt to do so in real life.

And, it collapsed. McMahon offers a convincing double-explanation that a) it was a calculated risk, they lost, but who can complain? and b) the media was out to get them and conspired to destroy the XFL. Fine, whatever. Sex Lies & Headlocks suggests that even Vince wasn't willing to sacrifice a half hour of Smackdown to keep it afloat, which suggests that he at least knew when to quit.

But, really, what the hell were they thinking? Are there any fans here who could explain it to me?

McMahon and kayfabe.

2007-04-03T11:27:00.000-04:00

I believe you guys watched the McMahon documentary last night, and since I'd opted not to talk much about it before it was officially part of class discussion, another belated post...

I began watching McMahon expecting something primarily historical in nature, likely heavy-handed in tone and generally uncritical of all things WWE (like the AWA doc we watched earlier). What I was really hoping for, though, was something in which the speakers would avoid the tendency to fall back into character at inappropriate times. I was hoping the McMahon doc would kind of lay things out to give a better look at how the business and the performance work, both separately and together.

It certainly starts strong. Several commentators give their own opinions as to when "Mr. McMahon," as opposed to Vince, is born. They vary, but they're all centered around the rise of Steve Austin, as we've discussed in class, and damn if they didn't sell Austin v. McMahon. It was great fun to watch, especially with some understanding of the context--it made me wonder once again how cool it would have been if, midway through Iron Chef, Chairman Kaga had gone nuts and conspiring to ruin contestants' lives. (He may have, in fact, done this; I didn't pay a lot of attention, beyond the architecture's creepy allusions to Enter the Dragon.) At any rate, the beginning of McMahon suggested to me that this was going to be one of the most direct and forthright depictions of the business we'd seen. Sure, severely biased, but at least everyone involved seemed to be treating it like a show.

But as it went on, the distinction went murky again. The introduction of Stephanie into the storylines was a complicating factor, as archival footage and interviews described at least two, possibly three relationships between Stephanie and Triple H, as characters and as people, and the ever-shifting feelings of both McMahons about these relationships. This did not get any simpler as the film rapidly descended into creepy Oedipal nightmare, though Linda, Stephanie and Shane did still manage to talk coherently about their real lives and their roles.

J.R., unsurprisingly, sets the tone for the conclusion, which brings us back where we started: it's not always easy to tell which McMahon is in charge on a given day. Which is likely why the film begins in such an approachable, easy-to-distinguish manner, to set up the audience for having that certainty taken away again. So, entertaining, if not particularly as insightful as I'd hoped...but then, Sex, Lies & Headlocks manages a pretty good job with all of it, and there are some pretty clear reasons why McMahon would want a different approach for his own company's "historical" productions.

SLH: Juice and Business

2007-04-02T01:19:00.000-04:00

I had never had a harder time putting down a book than this instance and also wishing I wasn't reading it.
Assael's book really got me because of the way he just hitting me with different problems and scandals that Vince McMahon went through and how he would just tell me straight up that a decision someone made would come back to haunt them. Assael seems to like to do this a bit in the book.
For me, the hardest part to read about was the sex and steroids scandals that the WWF faced in the late 80's and early 90's. It first started going downhill for me when I was reading about the sexual happenings within the company which included Vince's romps and the alleged sexual abuse of ring boys. The accusations and behavior of wrestlers just seemed to make sense but at the same time it just seemed to be one of those things that you wish had not happened. I wonder why Assael did not address Linda's reaction to this situation.
The description of the steroid abuse was also an eye opener. I think we have all read about this before but the first hand accounts given in this book made me cringe sometimes and I would have to read some parts over again, like the description of Hogan's scar tissue from injecting steroids or the comparison that was made of his biceps to a roll of paper. The way Vince was building up his body was disturbing to me simply because he was the promoter. He didn't have to build himself up and it seemed like the height of egotism. Reading this, I started to think that the Mr McMahon character was really Vince McMahon of the 80's.
The book did pick up as the story moved on from the scandals and focused more on the business aspect of the WWF as it entered the Monday Night War. The way Vince ran his business was different from the way Bischoff ran WCW. In the WWF Vince had the power and did not let wrestlers gain much power in the way matches were set and who would be champion. This was most evident when he took the belt from Bret Hart at Survivor Series. This was something Bischoff was not following, partly because creative authority was something he used to entice wrestlers like Nash and Hogan to work for him. It seems to me that this was akin to the downfall of the old territories during the 80's and reflects what JR told our class. Wrestlers do not know how to be in charge of a wrestling company and that seemed to be the case in WCW. Like in the 80's where a wrestler would refuse to lose the belt to another wrestler and even though Hogan and Nash did not own WCW, you could mistake them for people like Verne Gagne or Dusty Rhodes. People who refused to lose or refused to give others a chance. Perhaps Hogan's experience with Gagne led to his power moves in WCW but this kind of internal power struggle, coupled with a reversal of fortunes in the morality department between the WWF and WCW, led to storylines growing stale and being rehashes. Again the lesson had to be learned. Wrestlers should stay in the ring and leave the story and promotion to the promoters.

Wrestlemania Revue thread!

2007-04-01T23:04:00.000-04:00

What would a wrestling class be without analysis of the biggest wrestling event out there?

What did it do well? What didn't it do well? Why did things work and not work? Be a fan! Be a smart mark! Be a critic! Be the shirtless guy who ran in during the Cena-Michaels match (which is a textbook example of fan as participant/fan as exhibitionist)! Post!

Good Vs. Evil Revisited

2007-04-01T13:53:00.000-04:00

In Cambell's "Professional Wrestling: Why the Bad Guy Wins" we revisit an important theme in professional wrestling: the ongoing battle of good versus evil.

Unlike real life, wrestling can easily divide its players into two groups: heroes and villains. Though each may borrow qualities from one another during combat, the ideologies of good and evil are preserved by each character.

For those die-hard fans of more traditional sports, wrestling is an abasement of the time-honored values of fair play and hard work. Wrestling, however, is not part of the same arena. It exists just outside reality where excess is the name of the game. The good guys are often overly patriotic and conservative, villains are often "larger than life" and grotesque. This gross dramatization of character personalities allows for a clearer distinction between good and evil. Wrestling fans, then, know exactly where their sentiments lie.

As such, the wrestling arena becomes a stage on which viewers can exhibit their frustrations, whether they be personal (lying outisde the wrestling world) or participatory (lying the drama of wrestling). Venting of personal frustrations is allowed through the portrayal of real life hardships or distress by wrestling personalities. These wrestlers may champion the kind of villainy viewers experience on a day-to-day basis, like cheating and foul play. Fans are invited to publicly display their disdain for underhanded tactics and deceptive players. At the same time, heroes of the ring are lauded as are their attempts to foil bad guys' plans.

While existing outside the norm of professional sports, wrestling still provides an important setting where real world personal sentiments find an outlet. The ability of professional wrestling to adapt and react to these emotions secures it a permanent place in the entertainment business.

Reflections on Bischoff's Prime Time

2007-04-01T13:36:00.000-04:00

The element of suprise--today it seems like a staple of professional wrestling. The success of this entertainment business just doesn't seem to be able to live without it. But after reading Bischoff's take on the rise of WCW Monday Nitro, it appears that this was not always the case.

With the WWE established well as a veritable institution of professional wrestling, the up and coming WCW could not exactly go head-to-head with McMahon's wrestling giant. What it could do--what it in fact did--was come in at an angle...a rather unexpected, even extreme, angle.

The success of the WCW hinged on Bischoff's ability to comman professional wrestling as a businessman in the entertainment business. Although run under Turner sports, Bischoff knew his product would fair better if managed as a form of entertainment. As the head of the WCW, Bischoff knew his limits and the limits of his program. When prompted to compete against the WWE, Bischoff suggested a prime time slot. Much to his own surprise, Turner granted him the time, but this merely put them on the same playing field as their competition.

The war Bischoff waged against the WWE was based on his ability to differentiate his product to give his audience spectacles the likes of which had never been seen before. The mainstay of his program was the live broadcasting of every Nitro show. What better way to deliver the element of surprise than to let unravel before a live stage?

Today it seems wrestling could never have survived without the unpredictability of its characters and the spontaneity of its matches. Its truly something we have taken for granted. With the heavy promoting that wrestling was used to, however, and the vestiges of the formulaic travelling show, we can understand and appreciate the novelty of Bischoff's vision of the WCW.

Vince and his apologia

2007-03-30T23:25:00.000-04:00

The McNeil reading, "Foot on the Rope: Corporate Apologia and The Discourse of Vince McMahon" is really interesting, mostly because it so rigorously applies the discourse of apologia and restoration to McMahon's actions. This discourse felt a little bit forced to me, maybe too strictly interpreted. (Maybe it's just an unfamiliar framework for me.) What I do think is fascinating is the development of the clear image of Vince really using this rhetorical device of creating or exaggerating situations where apology and redemption are necessary, and then exploiting the drama of the redemptive act itself.

I realize that the steroids, sexual harassment, etc., were not circumstances explicitly created by Vince, but he seems to have an incredible knack for riding the ups and downs of these outrages and others (the Screwjob, for example), and making those exact ups and downs a drama that viewers can't look away from. It's like the fans are trapped in a misogynist relationship with Vince in his role as head of the corporation, one that stays intriguing and passionate because of the apology, explication, or shift of blame that always follows the outrageous behavior. And because the corporate dealings are so bizarrely intertwined with the entertainment format, the whole playing out of the ups and downs is exactly what earns ratings.

SL&H: First Thoughts

2007-03-30T19:30:00.000-04:00

Most of the readings we've had for this class have presented modern pro-wrestling in a weird kind of balance, as a business that succeeds admirably according to modern norms of how businesses should work, but also a business that has its shady side. Egos tend to run amok and screw things up, but egos run amok also help put asses in seats (debatable, but hell, I've got posts to do). The line is drawn very neatly between spectacle and con game, but even when it's depicted in an unflattering light, there's usually been a sense of humor about it.

Sex, Lies & Headlocks seems to break from that trend. The introduction, relatively free of the hand-holding explanation of conventions that accompanies the chapters, retells the death of Owen Hart in a tone bordering on the apocalyptic: "How had the business come to this?" (6) As a dramatic device, it's tried and true--despite all the "once upon a time"s we hear as children, the better stories tend to start somewhere in the middle--and it casts a shadow over the rest of the text. I wonder how differently it might read had I started with chapter 1.

So, a couple things from chapter 1. A number of us, and a number of the authors and performers on whom we've been riffing, have mentioned the mafia-like (mafioso? mafiaesque?) nature of the business during various eras, and Vince McMahon has never been shy about calling the association to mind (one of the book's epigraphs refers to the business/personal binary famously discussed in The Godfather). Scorched-earth capitalism is scorched-earth capitalism, after all. But it's usually employed as something of a metaphor, which is why it caught my eye when Assael (and/or Mooneyham) writes the organization that would become the NWA "sounded an awful lot like a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, but [the promoters] all had friends in high places and wouldn't be afraid to use them if the need arose" (8).

While many of the deals we've read about have seemed at least a little shady, seeing it spelled out in such explicit terms took me aback. It also added a new spin to the WWE-financed documentary on the AWA: these details seem to fall by the wayside, even for the ex-competition. It amuses me to think that the reason the territories fell to McMahon's expansion so easily might not just been complacency from lack of competition, but that this lack of competition only existed because the NWA had been founded with the practical intent of subverting the law: in short, they became vulnerable to competition because they had taken intentional steps to allow this vulnerability.