 |
| The act of someone worthy of cheering? Fuck and no Photo Credit: WWE.com |
That's the response that the fan who was cheering vociferously for D'arcy Dixon to get her head taken off by Jay Bradley at National Pro Wrestling Day gave in defense of his shameful and borderline misogynist enthusiasm for what was really undeserved violence against someone whose fault it wasn't for the match being lost. The problem is that there are more fans like him than there are like me and people who agree with me that wrestling do better than appealing to the basest emotions in fans.
"It's just wrestling."
That's the main criticism against people continually bringing up the B. A. Star campaign that WWE was involved with (and may still even be involved with) as a zing against them for having their babyfaces act the bully. It doesn't matter that Triple H's wife is a major part of the campaign. Trips can beat up an old man with no training because that's his birthright as the King of Kings, to be able to punch people for the crime of speaking their mind. John fucking Cena can be a major figurehead within the campaign, and no one within the company thinks it might be a tad hypocritical that he equates having a penis to being important, or has a history of slurring people based on their looks.
"It's just wrestling."
That's the clarion call of people who might defend the spate of awful babyfaces that the WWE has had since, well, they were the WWF and expanding nationwide. Hulk Hogan spent lots of time trying to get his hands on Bobby "The Brain" Heenan, and many of us now who are of a similar age to me cheered the shit out of him. I was a young, dumb kid, so I lapped it up. Now, it seems dangerous to set the precedent that "might equals right." That's what the message is, basically. It doesn't matter what you have to say, whether it's vile (and let's face it, Paul Heyman in character has sunk to some pretty slimy depths in verbally attacking Triple H) or it's truthful. Heenan made a career calling out Hogan for his many inadequacies, much to the point that years later in a different company, his vindication at Hogan being the third man in the nWo felt poignant.
What his entire feud with Hogan screams now, years after the fact, is that it doesn't matter what you have to say, if you can't back it up with your actions, you're worthless. Between two able-bodied, somewhat evenly-matched wrestlers, that is a classic trope. It's one that's overused by WWE today, but still, it works when not overdone. However, when you start going to the well of beating up observers, whether they be Heenan, Heyman, or anyone with something to say who isn't a wrestler, then it gets dangerous, and it fosters an idea that is against the very notions this country was founded on to be bluntly honest. Yes, the First Amendment only protects you from being silenced by the government, but at the same time, the spirit of the law means that you should be free from intimidation to tell your story, right?
It was bad when it was Hogan intimidating Heenan. It's worse now when the new crop of WWE babyfaces feel justified knocking someone's block off just for saying things they don't like because of the B. A. Star campaign. No one made WWE participate in that campaign, and yet there they were, pretending to be concerned about bullying. It's all well and good to talk about how kids should be nice to other kids in segments that are set apart from the show and clearly portrayed as out of character (ones that are easily tuned out like the movie trailers and other pap WWE produces between relevant segments). But when the same Cena they had dryly talking about how bullying is awful in that commercial thing they missed while getting a chocolate milk is now dressing down Heath Slater for looking like a girl or more recently, letting Ryback know he had no testicles as if that means anything, which one is the kid watching in the target audience going to think is cool?
Effective wrestling character building and not promoting TV with reprehensible protagonists are not mutually exclusive. I actually have no problem with Triple H beating up Paul Heyman because he keeps saying mean things about his wife and kids. I do have a problem with the narrative surrounding it actively rooting him on. That's an awful act, and no one should pretend that proving your physical superiority over a man you could kill easily is the act of a man worth cheering. But then again, what fun is there having all white hats and all black hats and no shades of gray? Well, yeah, I see that argument, but where in WWE's mythos do the good guys ever have to face consequences? No one is perfect, but the thing is, in WWE, when a good guy does bad, either the consequences are non-existent, or those prices seem unfair by their very existence.
However the infallibility of the good guys might play on the basest desires of some fans who watch wrestling, but it's hard for me to blame them for taking the bait. I mean, they took the bait just as easily when Hogan wore his whitest hat, defending Miss Elizabeth's honor against the overly jealous and heavily-implied-as-abusive Randy Savage, right? People don't just want to go to wrestling shows to be awful people. You can have a hot wrestling show that doesn't have gross violence on it. So why do people keep defending it?
"It's just wrestling."
Sorry, that doesn't hold water for me anymore. Going on something just because of precedent alone with no real solid, logical base, is the laziest, most dishonest modus operandi anyone could go off. If fans don't want to see "Be a star" used as a criticism of WWE, well, then too bad. Maybe WWE shouldn't commit to a public service campaign with empty intentions. Maybe they should try to make their babyfaces to be either decent people at heart or to at least learn that their bad actions have consequences.
Maybe they shouldn't just accept that it's just wrestling anymore and try to change the definition. It's not only possible, but it's also necessary for the artform to evolve.