Kayfabe, the "fakeness" of wrestling and reactions to it...

Butch Cassidy

I thought I'd start this thread after coming across this post about the somewhat hilarious "Exposed: Secrets of Pro Wrestling" - Youtube link.

If you've seen the "exposé" you know the deal - Salem the Cat narrates while there's some rather silly explanations of the "secrets" of wrestling. As Mr. Mayo mentioned there the show was done as if wrestling was a conspiracy and you were somehow cheated by it being "fake". Coupled with the once unwritten code of kayfabe wrestling promoters and wrestlers have gone to drastic lengths to maintain the "realness" of wrestling and to protect the business.

This is surely pretty odd but it wasn't a new thing in 1999 as there was a 20/20 "exposé" of wrestling done in the 80s which tackled the subject in a similar way - they're making fools out of everyone of us because it's ACTUALLY FAKE!

I always found the reactions growing up very odd - "urgh why are you watching that shite, that's fake, that's for kids" ad nauseum. It seems that kayfabe has made a return in the WWE in recent years and with the shift back towards a product aimed at the families/children rather than the teen-34yr male. It's been a long time since we've seen the WWF/WWE take part in a documentary of the calibre of Beyond the Mat or Wrestling with the Shadows.



Here's some stuff that some might find interesting :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdqrEcUhWNE

http://www.wrestlinggonewrong.com/video/igw_hogan_belzer.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7n_SHrK408

http://www.wrestlingperspective.com/MacArthur.html

Fake This

By Paul MacArthur

This column appeared in Wrestling Perspective, Volume IX, Issue 74. Copyright © 1998 Wrestling Perspective.

Greg Spring's smarmy remark that "Now another American Institution is in danger of crumbling. According to a lawsuit in an Atlanta court last week, professional wrestling is -gasp- all pretend!" in the May 4, 1998 edition of Electronic Media was not only insulting to professional wrestling fans, it was misleading.

So began my letter printed in the May 25, 1998 edition of Electronic Media, a weekly media trade publication with a circulation of over 26,000. There's no need to reprint my letter here. The two key points were simply:

1) Pro wrestling fans know pro wrestling is staged and don't care. Therefore, to suggest that somehow "breaking the news" that pro wrestling is "all pretend" will diminish its popularity is unwarranted based on the facts.

2) The fact that pro wrestling is choreographed is not news, nor has it been news for over 60 years (an understatement as it hasn't been news for over 80 years).

After several paragraphs lambasting Mr. Spring's lack of journalism and giving a long list of references he should have sourced before acting like he broke a story, I closed with the following:

Mr. Spring would never report the same type of lawsuit involving an actor by announcing movies or television shows are, "all pretend." Why did he feel the need to do so with pro wrestling? Either because he failed to do his research or because he decided it was appropriate to denigrate, pro wrestling and its fans. Neither reason is acceptable or professional and Mr. Spring should be admonished for his actions. They do not represent the type of journalism one would expect from a trade magazine.

At least they shouldn't.

Pro wrestling fans know better.

Though I didn't expect anything more of Electronic Media, I felt the need to force the issue with them. Pro wrestling has been a cash cow for television since the vast wasteland's inception. When you take into account pay-per-view, cable network ratings, and syndication, pro wrestling makes the television industry money.

Lots of money.

An obscene amount of money.

Or at least a profane amount.

Yet the media "experts" choose to ignore the monetary impact pro wrestling has on the television industry. You'd think these media mavens would at least express a journalistic interest in how this programming - for which they express only complete disdain - manages to be such a consistent money-maker on the tube. Instead, they take long, rambling drives through irrelevant side issues like "real vs. fake" and never come within hailing distance of comprehending wrestling's new found crossover-demographic appeal........

Degag

My answer when the question of "How can you watch that sh!te? It's fake!" is "Do you watch any soaps?"

The answer to that question is usually yes.

DOC09UNAM

Look up 20/20 back yard wrestling, shows just how stupid some kids are tbh, and it's a good watch, mick foley comes across well in it.

grames_bond

Degag wrote: »

My answer when the question of "How can you watch that sh!te? It's fake!" is "Do you watch any soaps?"

The answer to that question is usually yes.

thats pretty musch what i do too:

someone: "why do you watch that? it's fake"

me: "really?! well you do know that people arent really trapped on an island, or keifer sutherland doesnt really have 24 hours to save the world every f*ckin day"

CMpunked

I've had a very in-depth conversation with a friend of mine who isn't a current wrestling fan, but was as a kid. And because of some unfortunate childhood circumstances, had to grow up pretty fast so it distorted his view on it from what it once was.

We were saying that it seems to be when you have a tv show, for example; kiefer Sutherland, he is an actor, 24 the show is a job he has.
He'll work on that show for 8(?) seasons, might do one or two movies inbetween seasons and when the show is finished he will get another job. Or not. Whatever way it will be.

But with wrestlers although the perception is the same: actors, scripts, entertainment, shows, movies (ppvs).
It's the fact that you have someone like, for example, John cena. Cena has the 'character' of a ass kicking, fight for the little guy, take on all opponents who comes attitude.
When he steps out of the ring and someone sees him in the shops, THATs what they expect (to a certain extent). And I've heard you get that with him.
Now on the flipside is the Miz, or randy orton.
Orton has done things in the past like targeting each one of his boss' family and taken each one of them out regardless of gender or age.

So when you see him out what should you expect?

(I know anyone reading this knows what to expect and it's not cowering in the corner as randy freaks out and starts rko'ing the checkout girl and punting the manager in the head)

But my friend pointed out he wouldn't accept someone saying that the wrestlers are like actors like kiefer.
I'm sure when Kiefer Sutherland goes to the shops he has a few people recognise him but no ones expecting (well maybe a few..) will think it's actually jack Bauer.


My mate pointed out that he doesn't accept te whole wrestlers=actors on telly idea.
I can see where he's coming from and said who's fault is that?

It's a tough discussion that two guys can have with a pizza and COD so maybe the lovely people on the forum can help. :P

Cheers to the OP for putting this up.

Butch Cassidy

Vince McMahon said in the Beyond the Mat that what the WWF was really about was "making movies". The territory days of wrestling was a showpiece that pretended to be a genuine sport in many ways. Vince always tried to move away from that didn't he?


I suppose with the actor/wrestler analogy The Undertaker might be the best example. When you see him at the shops buying jacks roll is he the "Undead/ressurrected/deadman/undertaker/supernatural" guy we see on telly or does he look normal?

Going back a couple of years many wrestlers did keep up kayfabe away from the ring but that was how hardcore they were to the "art" (if you wish to use that word). It reminds me of that scene in The Prestige of the magician who could make a fish bowl appear seemingly out of nowhere but the trick was that he carried it between his thighs and would play out this role his whole life ie. pretending to be disabled to an extent.

To me wrestlers are closer to magicians and that kind of "art" than actors. With actors you clearly know when they're in character and when they're not - unless it's Christian Bale or Gillian Anderson putting on fake American accents for interviews!. With wrestlers they purposefully blur the lines to maintain the kayfabe.

It's the media's response in some of the videos I posted that is the weirdest thing. Everyone feels like it's a screwjob. That a worked match is still somehow a con, you're being tricked and the media don't like being tricked. The thing with magic is though that's the alure - you go to be tricked. With wrestling it's just all shades of grey as Vince once said.

geeky

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

The Undertaker might be the best example. When you see him at the shops buying jacks roll is he the "Undead/ressurrected/deadman/undertaker/supernatural"

That would be the 7th degree of awesome. I wouldn't mind shopping in the dark if it was 'taker who came in and turned off the lights with a dramatic flourish.

On topic, I think most people here are of the view that it's no faker than any non-reality (and some 'reality') TV shows. The thing that critics of pro wrestling will point out is that the storytelling and acting on screen is often a lot better. I wouldn't want to start comparing Smackdown! to Mad Men...

I guess you either see value in a scripted display of athleticism along with the storytelling/acting or you don't. I personally do - it's kind of like butch ballet, in that along with the 'how did he do that?!' experience, there's also a story being told. But I don't think McMahon would be keen to draw that analogy.

Butch Cassidy

The TV of the Attitude era was about 5% wrestling and the rest was skits and what have you. Media critics can feck off with their opinions about taste or whatever cause their taste usually sucks but it's the indignation they have with wrestling. Even though wrestling is massively popular and the WWF turn over bazillions it's still treated as a carny sideshow.

I thought and still think it bizarre that Seamus' title wins and everything aren't mentioned at all here. If he was an actor starring in a big Hollywood movie there'd be shows about him, if he was on Mad Men people would be talking about him and of course if it was a sport it'd be headline news - anything any Irish person wins at sport is big news of course and that sport instantly becomes the nation's sport of the week, cricket for examaple a while back!

sliotor

Yeah I receive a good amount of slaging from my mates regarding wrestling and especially when I went to a show last year. Again it is the same argument as yee are having with your mates about it been fake and that are not really hitting each other and the result is predetermined. I have to explain that I know and accept these aspects to wrestling but that matches have the ability to entertain me and compel me( although not as many as there used to be) An example of this would be the beer money MCMG series. If I was to believe that Vince McMahon died in a car explosion or that Aj styles banged Karen angle I would need to be checked mentally.
Although it is good to see that some wrestlers try to maintain kayfabe like the English wrestler magus in TNA said in a interview on the sun that fans should not come up to him after a show because he is not going to break kayfabe to be nice to them or sign an autograph for them.

Syferus

Well it'd be unnatural to not mention that alot of wrestlers go by their real names or ring names in both real life and in-ring. Added to the fact that at least on a basic kayfabe level this is supposed to be a sport - something which otherwise is fair and unscripted - it creates contradictions in peoples' heads about what they get with more traditional scripted productions.

There's key differences between the tone and manner a wrestler acts out his 'script' and how Kiefer Sutherland does the same - you don't see Kiefer being interviewed and fully aware (in-character) of the camera in front of him.

That doesn't make the 'it's fake' snips any more valid or less inane, but it's certainly not a perfect comparision by any measure.

Butch Cassidy

Syferus wrote: »

Well it'd be unnatural to not mention that alot of wrestlers go by their real names or ring names in both real life and in-ring. Added to the fact that at least on a basic kayfabe level this is supposed to be a sport - something which otherwise is fair and unscripted - it creates contradictions in peoples' heads aobut what they get with more traditional scripted productions.

There's key differences between the tone and manner a wrestler acts out his 'script' and how Kiefer Sutherland does the same - you don't see Kiefer being interviewed and fully aware (in-character) of the camera in front of him.

That doesn't make the 'it's fake' snips any more valid or less inane, but it's certainly not a perfect comparision by any measure.

It's interesting you mention that. In wrestling breaking down the 4th wall is totally different to movies and TV. I think it was ECW that led the way to breaking up kayfabe between mid to late 90s. They basically told the crowd "hey look, we know it's a work, you know it's a work, everybody knows everybody else knows it's a work" but then that raised the bar somewhat. Stuff like Shane Douglas grabbing the halo of Pitbull Gary Wolfe literally blew the roof off of the ECW arena and I'm pretty sure it was a work.

If you compare WWF of 1994 and 1995 with WWF of 1997 and 1998 they're two totally different beasts. One carried on as if it was a genuine federation of wrestling inside its own little bubble while the other started to acknowledge the competitor and openly refered to them - something WCW had been doing since what? 1995?

flahavaj

It's still real to the Flah, Goddamnit.

Reganio 2

flahavaj wrote: »

It's still real to the Flah, Goddamnit.

You tell them Flah, its all an elaborate hoax, it is real but its cheaper insurance this way Vince McMahon is a genius.

CMpunked

At the end of the world I think vince will be revealed to be satan.
How about THAT for breaking kayfabe?! :P

davrho

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

I thought and still think it bizarre that Seamus' title wins and everything aren't mentioned at all here. If he was an actor starring in a big Hollywood movie there'd be shows about him, if he was on Mad Men people would be talking about him and of course if it was a sport it'd be headline news - anything any Irish person wins at sport is big news of course and that sport instantly becomes the nation's sport of the week, cricket for examaple a while back!

Not one for reading newpapers outside the horsey pages but there was a 4 page spread in Sunday's Star magazine about Seamus. He was also on the front cover. Amen I think the mag is called.

Agree with what you say but the wwe has always been very in house with it's media

Ridley

flahavaj wrote: »

It's still real to the Flah, Goddamnit.

CMpunked

Not many people know it, but cantona had the same idea to gain some heat a while back:


Unfortunately the guy he had it planned with had nipped out to the bog.
And the rest, as they say, is history...