I just recently managed to codify my theory about how pro wrestling is unique as an art form – not just Max Landis’ thingy about why pro wrestling is special, which is notable largely because it is one of the few times where Max Landis is not entirely insufferable, and because it (correctly) connects pro wrestling to performance art. But performance art still exists; pro wrestling is just a commercially successful version of it, and that is not unique.
What is unique about pro wrestling is this: it is the only creative endeavor where the audience affects the work in real time. A long time ago some smart aleck described pro wrestling as “a LARP where the wrestlers are playing athletes and the audience is playing the audience, and everybody’s in on it.” And that’s exactly true. Now, of course, pro wrestling is still a scripted affair and on a case-by-case basis the audience doesn’t usually change the outcome of a story as it happens – although this is something that can happen in retrospect, with the most obvious example being Batista being obviously scripted to be a triumphant returning hero at this year’s Royal Rumble and the crowd instantly turning on him because they had believed they were finally getting the Daniel Bryan push they had demanded – which eventually led to the “Boo-tista” movement, Batista turning into an arrogant heel (because it was the only way to get a crowd reaction they could use) and WWE eventually writing Bryan into the World title match as the fans demanded. But it’s more than just simply cheering for the guys you like and booing the guys you hate; the crowd is an integral part of wrestling now.
Consider, if you will, the Bray Wyatt entrance.
Bray Wyatt is a great character with a great hook, but booing him as a baddy doesn’t exactly work because he’s supposed to be creepy and scary; booing him would, in a way, reduce him, make him something less than the figure of awe he was supposed to be. This tied into his entrance: a slow, creepy walk in darkness, lit by his lantern, with Mark Crozer and the Rels playing in the background. The crowds at first tried to figure out how to properly express their appreciation for this character, because you couldn’t just boo him. An early attempt was slow, measured claps in time with the music, which worked reasonably well but still somehow lacked gravitas. At WrestleMania the company tried to amp up that atmosphere by having Crozer and the Rels perform live, which was certainly a glorious one-off but obviously not replicable on a regular basis.
At some point, though, fans gradually figured out that when their cellphones were on in the darkness during Bray Wyatt’s entrance, they kind of looked like fireflies, and fireflies are nothing if not thematically appropriate for a southern cult leader’s entrance, so they ran with it. And it worked absolutely perfectly – and WWE responded very smartly by rapidly moving to sell very cheap little Bray Wyatt lanterns at their events, so fans would have something to sway with, and so WWE could make a little side money off this phenomenon, and perhaps have light sources which might look a tad more ghostly and spooky on television.
Which led to what we now have every time Bray Wyatt comes out:
This is the thing: no other art form does this. None of them come even close. This is not to say that, say, makers of movies and television and books and comics and every other art form with a narrative bent do not interact with fans, or consider their desires, or even change course if they think they have made a mistake due to fan response. But no other art form engages with its audience at this rate or changes their story and presentation based on fan input in mid-course – not even most other forms of performance art, frankly (a field that can be shockingly static in its presentation and conservative in its refusal to deviate from original intent).
That’s why wrestling is unique, and only one of the reasons it is great.
Related Articles
33 users responded in this post
A number of writers I like [yourself, Chris Sims, etc.] are all about pro-wrestling, and whenever one of you puts together something like this I have to admit to myself that I, too, like pro-wrestling, or at least the idea of it, having never watched it myself.
Has it ever happened that the performers themselves have changed the script live to reflect obvious crowd response? I imagine that’s frowned upon but I can’t imagine it’s never happened.
Has anyone else floated the theory that Bray Wyatt is one of the masks of Nyarlathotep yet?
@Tim O’Neil
It happened at the wrestling equivalent of the Super Bowl, no less. The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania X-8 is probably the best and most well known example of a match being re-cast on the fly to fit the crowd reaction. The Rock was booked as a face, and Hogan was in the midst of an ill-fated heel run with the WWE version of the NWO, but the crowd was CRAZY behind Hogan. According to interviews, at least, the two of them basically changed the match on the fly to reflect this: Hogan worked all his face moves, Hulked up, etc, and Rock played up his cocky heel mannerisms.
It’s an incredible match for pure spectacle, and the crowd is HOT; one of those once in a lifetime moments.
I love the fact that pro wrestling is finally being appreciated for what it is: performance art, as you say.
I’ve always seen it as a living comic book, or on a more “highbrow” level as narrative fiction. You just have to be willing to engage the narrative as it is presented.
Here’s a question: what matches do you show “outsiders” to illustrate the effectiveness of in-ring storytelling?
My short list:
-Rock vs. Stone Cold Steve Austin from WM17
-Triple H/HBK/Chris Benoit from WM20
-Mankind/Taker HIAC
-Mankind/Rock from Rock Bottom (though this one almost requires me to show the Beyond the Mat companion scene)
-Stone Cold vs. Bret Hart Submission match
I think about improvisation as a performance art where the same thing applies.
But then I remember two important points:
1. Keith Johnstone’s Impro books essentially credit professional wrestling as the ur-form of impro theatre, whence sprang Theatre Sports’ traditions etc., and
2. In most improvisational theatre, particularly comedy, the audience is urged to shut up once the show begins.
Now, I think that number 2 doesn’t apply in Wrestling because there is so much more going on than “performance” ie. acting — it’s much more physical and kinetic; that there is no fourth wall; that it’s not a “directional” art form; and that, not insignificantly, the performers could reasonably kick the ass of any potential heckler.
“Now, I think that number 2 doesn’t apply in Wrestling because there is so much more going on than “performance” ie. acting”
That and encouraging active engagement is a way to keep people perpetually interested in what amounts to a decades-long, continuous narrative.
Mike Quackenbush’s interview on Colt Cabana’s Art of Wrestling from a few months back is a really interesting example of discusson on wrestling as performance art. That said, Chikara’s a slightly weird example, given that (at least over the past year) it’s been a promotion where the audience has been completely integral to the operation of the story, but (as far as I can see) completely unable to change what that story actually is.
“But no other art form engages with its audience at this rate…”
“Engages”? Lol, well if holding up cell phones or cheap lanterns counts as contributing to the ART form, I guess wrestling is super artsy. Wrestling is face-crushing the other art offerings in terms of “rate.” Wrestling has managed to skim off all kinds of people who lack the imagination or ability to participate in something more… complex. Suck it, Maya Angelou.
Is that really the metric?
You must love Sarah Palin!
“Lol, well if holding up cell phones or cheap lanterns counts as contributing to the ART form, I guess wrestling is super artsy. Wrestling is face-crushing the other art offerings in terms of “rate.” Wrestling has managed to skim off all kinds of people who lack the imagination or ability to participate in something more… complex. Suck it, Maya Angelou.”
Bad troll is bad? Or am I missing something?
“Wrestling has managed to skim off all kinds of people who lack the imagination or ability to participate in something more… complex.”
Also, I just completed my M.A. with a lengthy thesis on John Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” and I’ve been a pro wrestling fan since I was 5.
Stupid generalizations are stupid. Of course, we could always discuss PL if you’d like. I’d imagine a cultured sort like you has it committed to memory, alongside the works of Deepak Chopra and David Sedaris amirite?
These examples are fascinating to me, but unfortunately I have to nitpick your thesis. If I understand correctly, it is unusual for the wrestling audience to directly change a storyline, but it’s possible, and it does happen occasionally. It is unusual in other kinds of theater, too… but it is possible, and it does happen. That doesn’t make wrestling unique among the arts; it makes it part of the theatrical tradition.
I’d agree that there are elements of improv and performance art in there, but to me it seems more closely related to participatory theater in that the audience’s active response is actually required for the story to make sense. I’m not saying there aren’t innovations in there; I suspect that the sports framework solves many of the problems with other kinds of participatory theater… which is probably why wrestling is so successful, and why it’s not generally recognized as theater. But, yeah, that’s what it is.
“That doesn’t make wrestling unique among the arts; it makes it part of the theatrical tradition.”
I think the distinction is that you’re never going to see Hamlet changed into a violent usurper based on audience reaction. You DO see the rise and alignment change of stars based on the reaction that they get.
“I’d agree that there are elements of improv and performance art in there, but to me it seems more closely related to participatory theater in that the audience’s active response is actually required for the story to make sense.”
I don’t see how this is true, particularly since the stories have the same basic structure at heart: two guys don’t like each other, we tune in to see them resolve it through spectacle. I don’t think you could look at any major angle in the last twenty years that only made sense because the audience was there to cheer or boo.
The response (good or bad) is the “reward” for telling an engaging story.
If you want wrestling perfection, watch HBK vs Flair at WM 26? It is the best storytelling wrestling can do.
I would suggest that games that are maintained over the long term also do this. MMOs mainly, but also MOBAs and competitive shooters like Team Fortress 2. While ultimately the developers make a game and the community plays it, the developers over time adapt to the community and change the game accordingly. For good or for ill, online games like this are constantly in flux and the driving force behind it is the fan community.
@Tim O’Neil –
Back in the 80s, Ric Flair once changed a finish, laying down for a popular local wrestler (I think it was Carlos Colon, but that may not be accurate) because he was convinced he would not survive the exit if he won that match as planned. I suspect this sort of thing was more common in the 80s and earlier, when fans were… well, frankly, some of them were downright dangerous.
@Tim O’Neil –
To jump off of Lee’s comment, when pro wrestling was structured by territory, it was largely booked rather than written – that is to say, a booker would set up the matches, decide the finishes, and create the layout of the show, but leave the details up to the wrestlers. This would sometimes lead to booking decisions being changed on the fly based on crowd response or even performance quality or lack thereof. Bill Watts tells a story in a shoot interview about winning his first title on a midmatch decision because Sailor Art Thomas couldn’t keep up with him in the ring.
By and large, early wrestling champions were chosen for their ability to protect the title against wrestlers who might go into business for themselves. You needed a guy who could adapt if someone tried to shoot (ie, make the match real) and prevent that from happening. It’s one of the reasons most older title matches were 2/3 falls.
@highverbal “You must love Sarah Palin! ”
Yeah,because MGK is a notorious Tea Party activist.
The dig at Max Landis made me laugh pretty hard, because in the early 00s, when he was just a punk teenager, he and I used to hang out on the same internet forum (PWOT, the much better ancestor of the Cracked forums). He was an annoying little shit, and that was not a community known for its gentle tolerance of annoying little shits. Things got pretty ugly when his identity came out. Not “real life harassment” ugly, but more like “helicopter jokes” ugly.
Funkula – it’s really weird that Landis is a thing given Chronicle works in SPITE of the script. It’s a generic superhero film [sorry Max, it IS a superhero film] that steals from Heroes, X-Men, Spider-Man liberally. Just has great acting, directing and lighting to disguise how bad ‘I’m evil now because no sex and abuse makes me a dull boy’ is.
@Matt: so you DO agree that audience “engagement” is a metric for art? That holding up cell phones is PART of the art?
I feel like it is more of a metric for entertainment — and MGK is choosing fancy words like “engages” to dress up a weak metric that isn’t much more than popularity, and certainly doesn’t capture anything useful in an artistic sense.
Is the ten thousandth person holding up a cheap lantern really making the art “better”?
Don’t worry, I love lowbrow art as a guilty pleasure but trying to claim “engagement” figures into the equation is an obvious error. It’s about this specific metric.
@mystman: “Yeah,because MGK is a notorious Tea Party activist.”
No, because Ms. Palin is a performance artist who inspires great engagement from her audience. Duh.
If you love “lowbrow” art as a “guilty pleasure,” you probably don’t really love it, but are instead halfheartedly claiming a bit of populist cred to avoid looking condescending.
And it seemed to me MGK was arguing that the metric wasn’t just engagement, but the activity of the audience having an immediate effect on the goals and motivations of the performance (while most audience interaction in other mediums tends to solely affect the execution of the performance). And that the story and characters ask the fans to engage in ways that convey their interpretation of it, rather than just their level of entertainment.
The example MGK gave wasn’t just the equivalent of holding up a lighter during a hair metal ballad. The difficulty with the Wyatts was figuring out HOW the audience should react to them. They operate according to different, let’s say, narrative rules than other villains in the WWE. The cell phone solution is how audience members communicated that they felt awe and fascination towards Bray, rather than the hatred other villains receive. They actually responded, basically, that they were in his sway, which is exactly the kind of response a cult leader character should have. At this point they sing along to He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands with him, which makes his matches a perverse sort of revival meeting. MGK’s metric isn’t just a thumbs-up/thumbs-down response. In this case the fans were actively looking for a way to engage with the wrestler that was appropriate for what his character was conveying. It even became a plot point in his feud with John Cena. It’s a much more complicated interaction than we’ve seen with most wrestlers, and it might be something that could only happen in a post-kayfabe environment.
I suppose all the stand-up comics are too busy doing shows, interacting with audiences night after night, and reworking their material and technique to be able to participate in the discussion here…
Professional wrestling is a million times better at hyperbole than any other art form, that’s for sure. Also, Ric Flair could kick any theater person’s ass.
Vance – I’m curious to see MGK’s argument on that, considering that he’s done a bit of standup himself. Maybe he left it out of the argument because there’s no narrative involved? Or because it’s more about audience enjoyment rather than participation? I mean, heckling in pro wrestling is encouraged, and the show evolves in response to it. Heckling in a comedy club will get you thrown out.
I adore “Paradise Lost;” I can’t get into pro wrestling. But I’m glad it’s out there, and I’m glad folks can intellectualize it as well as enjoy it at face value (I’ve rambled at length about the wit behind Shakespeare’s allusions to folks who just enjoy the big dramatic twists and the well-known monologues, and you know what, their love of it is as valid as my own).
It’s okay for people to comment disagreeing with MGK, even with a level of snark that he himself heaps on those who disagree with him. He doesn’t need sycophants; he rarely engages “trolls.”
It’s interesting, though, with shows like Hannibal and Sherlock, seeing how TV series are becoming increasingly fan-focused and fan-responsive. I could easily see a day within the next ten years when popular series might be just as responsive as pro wrestling – with the added advantage that the format can appeal to audiences who, like myself, have absolutely zero interest in seeing men even pretend to fight over personal drama.
Yes, because the Hannibal and Sherlock fanbases are motivated by something grander than homoerotic fan fiction. That’s gonna make for some interesting changes in those shows’ dynamics. At least we wrestling fans get our gayness along with the product and don’t have to invent our own.
You do know that on a show like Sherlock, Benedict Cumberbatch isn’t really punching or shooting anyone in the fight scenes, right? You’re still watching a man pretend to fight.
@KenB3 – what does that have to do with anything in the world? I don’t care if the fighting is real or not.* I, as a matter of personal taste, find the central conceit kind of repellant, the same way I find Hannibal’s horror and Dexter’s bloodshed and GoT’s body count way too far outside my interests, despite having a very high secondhand opinion of all those shows. I was commenting on how I look forward to the interactive audience spreading beyond one very specific genre into multiple genres which I can enjoy and participate in wholeheartedly.
Let’s just say, in lit terms, the only time I tend to enjoy Man vs. Man conflict is when physical violence is an occasional last-resort necessity (okay, or frequent last-resort necessity; I like action) and not the kind of Three Musketeers bravado, to-man-with-a-hammer, that leaves me disdaining every character. I much prefer mature, adult situations. *returns to her beloved, decidedly immature and soap-opera-y Once Upon A Time, which at least uses magic more often than fighting*
*Okay, I suppose if the fighting WERE real I would have to wholeheartedly hate the concept the way I tend to hate any sign of making Real, Horrible People and Real, Horrible People Interactions into entertainment, but I suspect that’s beside the point.
This is exactly it. A lot of people are suggesting that re-workings of an existing act are comparable to what happens in pro wrestling and that’s just not right; that’s just re-drafting an existing piece of writing based on audience response. Pro wrestling adjusts an ongoing storyline based on fan response, and more importantly fan reaction is itself an element in the story.
Standup comedy doesn’t do that. Art forms that cater to fervent audiences (comics, sci-fi TV shows, whatever) don’t do it either. That’s why pro wrestling is unique.
It’s interesting, though, with shows like Hannibal and Sherlock, seeing how TV series are becoming increasingly fan-focused and fan-responsive. I could easily see a day within the next ten years when popular series might be just as responsive as pro wrestling…>>
The bigger difference between shows like Hannibal and Sherlock, though, is that they’re not live television. Pro wrestling can be this responsive simply because it’s happening live, in front of a live audience that may not want exactly what is scripted, forcing the story to change to something the fans want more. Shows like Hannibal and Sherlock, on the other hand, can be popular with fans- but the very fact that they’re taped, scripted shows means that there’s an inherent limit to how fan-focused and fan-responsive they get- even if, for example, every fan of a show demands one ship happen to the point that if they don’t end up together they’re going to lose the room-, there’d still be far more episodes in the can that can’t be changed up to give the fans the relationship they want. You’d still have to wait up to a full year to get what you want- an eternity in entertainment (especially if the fans are getting this restless to demand something happen to begin with.)
By contrast, in pro wrestling- as with the Batista/Daniel Bryan example made- there’s a far lower turnaround time due to its live nature: The fans could make it painfully clear exactly what they want immediately, and the WWE can readjust their plans to accommodate this demand within a matter of weeks.