I appreciate that, in naming the title of this piece after a line from a 1950’s police drama, I am alienating a major part of my potential audience. But thanks in part to Dan Aykroyd and Tom Hank’s Dragnet remake in 1987, I hope that it has become vaguely apparent that the subject for today is the protection and/or exploitation of the innocent, from a storyline perspective at least. An acknowledgement of the way the WWE has used vulnerability and honesty as a driving force for many of its most productive feuds over the years. Seeing as this is only referring to innocence from a gimmick point of view, it should not be taken as a continuation of the overly-used belief that the WWE is exploiting its employees or that it will hasten the demise of the human race through tastelessness and depravity (two things that are vital in creating an interesting and colourful environment). But just as normalcy is the antithesis of extremism, the creation of characters that are basically nice is necessary to be a blank canvas on which the heels can display their dastardly deeds.
The obvious place to start is those superstars that are living the ‘simple’ life. For anyone too new to the WWF/E to remember Jamison (a bespectacled loser who got picked on by Bobby Heenan in 1988/9 and seemed oddly fond of the Bushwhackers) the most prominent mental midget would be Eric Bischoff’s nephew, Eugene Dinsmore. Greeted with all the optimism and expectation of a weepy canker, Eugene’s gimmick was low on subtlety but stacked with potential as long as Vince highlighted his determination and abilities without recourse to schoolyard humour, unless exhibited by heels as a hurdle to overcome. Initially Eugene had depth; being a savant rather than just an idiot, mimicking his contemporaries as if absorbing their techniques and choosing HHH as his favourite wrestler, much to the chagrin of his fellow babyfaces. To date, Eugene has had two heel turns (well one, the first was the set up for his screwjob on Evolution) both of which have not lead to a long term run as a bad guy. The most recent aborted turn was interesting because, rather than reducing Eugene to a petulant child driven by selfishness (which probably would have worked), it merely amplified the fears that all children have of an unbeatable foe (in his case Umaga). This perpetuates the idea that he is a victim, almost blameless for his own actions, and that is one of the commonly held opinions debunked by charities relating to both physical and mental disability ... that the disabled are helpless, instead of just needing some help. The reason why Eugene worked so well at the start was that he was involved in segments and matches with all the top superstars of that period (Benoit, HHH, Orton, Batista, Rock, Hogan, Angle) but times change and, much like Kane in his prime, the people who doubted the gimmick’s longevity appear to have been correct. I’m glad Vince hasn’t resorted to a ‘Beaver Cleavage’ style character abandonment, even though it means Eugene is far more of a sympathy magnet than he was in his early days, but without it Dinsmore is looking at more of the same legend tags and head shaving until it runs its course.
Like Eugene, there are several other grinning doofi (the plural of doofus?) of note. Maria has been a Raw stalwart since losing the 2004 Diva Search contest and her primary role on the show seems to be a pretty dumb (no comma needed) interviewer, when she’s not getting her ass kicked by Stratus, Angle, Umaga or whoever needs to be portrayed as a callous monster this week. The difference is that Maria’s underlying character genius has already been exposed (during Bischoff’s “trial” in December 2005) so the attitude adjustment won’t be so much of a U-turn but a completion of something that was hinted at years previous (if only so that Maria can come up with a second look, other than ‘eyes wide/lips pursed’). The aforementioned Bushwhackers were certainly lacking in the brain department, judging by the way they marched to the ring and licked fan’s foreheads, though the gimmick was contrary to Butch and Luke’s initial tag team run (as ‘The Sheepherders’) in NWA and WWC (amongst others) where they were one of the most violent and feared combinations in the world and were some of the first performers to use barbed wire in American wrestling. Equally, Mick Foley went from being various incarnations of evil to being a cartoonish parody complete with a sock puppet and a ‘cheap pop’ smile for the hometown fans, albeit done out of necessity to save Foley’s disintegrating physique after years of hardcore abuse. Speaking of abuse, remember Kane, under the mask? Being mocked by his fellow Corporation members for being a “big red retard”. More than being a ‘child’, Kane’s character went a step further displaying many of the confused gestures of animals, especially tilting his head to one side like a dog. A concept that would ultimately bog Kane down in sickly sympathy, especially during the DX era and his feuds with X-Pac and Tori.
Other aspects of innocence that form the foundation of the babyface creed are decency and the spirit of competition, something that is being highlighted right now in the WWE through Santino Marella. But the ‘fan in the right place at the right time’ approach is one the WWE has been reluctant to use over the years, presumably because it spends most of its time trying to convince the audience that its roster is made up of gladiators, immortals and giants, certainly above what is to be found in average society. The ‘plucky failure’ idea has been the method of choice in the past either demonstrating a winner going nowhere (Tatanka) or a loser finally getting the big win (Barry Horowitz) although both had to wait for the change of fortunes to create any emotional interest in their characters, which were very bland beforehand. Sean Waltman’s ‘123 Kid’ gimmick in 1993 is probably as close to a Marella storyline as you’ll find, though the win over Razor Ramon on Raw was predicated by several months of colourless squashes to give the incident meaning. But unlike Santino who’s been side-tracked away from Umaga into a rivalry with Chris Masters, Waltman’s character was developed by extending the initial feud (being goaded into a rematch with increasing amounts of money by Scott Hall) and then passing that heat on to the feud Ramon had with Bret Hart leading into the first King of the ring PPV. Other notable ‘little engines’ included Jim Duggan and Marty Jannetty but they and their kind are antiquated now, a throwback to the days where children of all ages took their damn vitamins and said their damn prayers...
If we’re talking about a pure babyface, a whiter than white hero (no pun intended), there is only one Hulk Hogan (thankfully). Judging by the way the populous reacts negatively to John Cena’s overly inclusive rhetoric, we have come a long way since the days where Hogan could claim “everyone is a Hulkamaniac” and how he was a ‘role model for kids’ without sounding less cool than Carlito in flares and sandals. In fact, the reverse psychology of promoting a heel as a self-appointed leader of men has been used quite frequently since Austin reinvented the babyface wrestler in 1997. Kurt Angle’s pre-debut vignettes in September 1999 were presented as old school ‘good guy’ fodder with a sense of ironic ambiguity only appearing in the third or fourth version. On point, the only thing that separated Angle’s heelish behaviour from classic Hogan-style performance is that the Hulkster would not have been caught prepping his nipples while a diva takes a shower. Kurt’s exasperation that no one was willing to exalt him on an hourly basis (despite winning a gold medal with a ... oh you know) is eerily similar to the self-affirming tripe that went over with the masses a decade earlier and convinced thousands of spotty brats to wear yellow and red t-shirts (a level of marketing effectiveness of which Ronald McDonald would be envious).
Although created simply as an antidote to the Jerichoholics, Christian’s conclusion that he was representing the “peeps” was a simple but effective tool to guarantee that as few fans actually followed his lead as possible, even if those same crowds chanted along with The Rock when he identified the millions (“and millions”) of The Rock’s fans. Even ‘fitness guru’ Simon Dean’s misguided concern for our wellbeing is based on the notion that modern audiences hate being condescended to by someone imbuing personal fears on a gullible, fearful society in the hope of making some quick cash. The one person that seemed to hit more of these types than anyone else is Molly Holly. Debuting as a likeable but over the top optimist (in the same way that horror films can be so bad that they're good) she stayed that way for several years before becoming a prudish mood-killer hell bent on ruining the fun people were having watching Trish Stratus in her underwear. Go back in time a decade or so and the virtuous Miss Elizabeth was feuding with the sexually charged (though, in truth, quite skanky) form of Sensational Sherri, a complete character reversal from the Holly/Stratus situation. I’m not sure that really proves a great deal about how society has changed between 1988/9 and now, or even if it proves anything more than how much nicer Trish is/was to look at than Sherri, but it does run concurrently with a time where the Diva search segment has been rated quite highly compared to those on Raw that contain wrestling or well-written promos.
Logic would suggest that Vince has taken the concept of exploiting innocence to its extreme. From the simple inducement of storyline sympathy from hassling a geek, through the objectification of women, violence against women, repeated assaults on an elderly woman and finally succumbing to violence against the mentally challenged, surely there is nowhere left to go? Well, there is somewhere else to go. Somewhere that Vince has only implied, with all that has happened to Eugene over the years, and only a fool would bet against the WWE finding a way of promoting such an angle at some point. Where? ... children. Not in the way the WWE used Dominick to further the Guerrero/Mysterio feud in 2005, which was either a carefully planned and counselled angle embracing the fictitious nature of pro-wrestling or a cold and confusing bastardisation of real human emotions for the sake of entertainment (depending on your own preconceptions). I mean a child taking a bump. Let’s face it, there are fully trained stunt kids out there who do this kind of thing for a living. Just imagine the controversy of a ten-year old child getting powerbombed through a table live on Raw. Headline news, outraged pressure groups, child welfare advocates demanding interviews on primetime news networks to condemn the angle. Vince would get so much publicity he would piss himself quicker than if Austin was holding a fake gun to his head. What about a child blading? Too much? Some sweet little girl ‘accidentally’ caught by a stray kick or a careless chair swing lying on the mat with blood seeping from an open wound. How is that any different from ‘brit malah’ (the Jewish circumcision ceremony), which has to draw blood to be complete and uses a special knife to guarantee blood loss? Isn’t that the same? Or the many babies you see thesedays with pierced ears? Isn’t that as sick and wrong? Unacceptable as it sounds, history has shown that the more you bet against Vince doing something, the more likely the chance of him doing it.
For me, the only innocence that matters is when fans invest in the process. Seeing as I started watching wrestling when I was in my late teens, I never got to experience it as if it were real. Looking on with concern at an ‘injury’ angle or choking back the tears during a retirement speech just never seemed the ‘sensible’ thing to do. But it seems as though the WWE is in good hands (with the exception of that madly blubbing woman when Batista relinquished the title ... what’s her problem??) so I’ll take what I want from the stories and leave the screaming and booing up to others. And if you’re one of those fans, don’t let cynical bastards (like me) take away your fun just because we don’t believe in vampires or monsters anymore. But do wipe your nose, that can’t be hygienic.
Lee
Copyright © 2005; TheWrestlingVoice.com & Douglas Nunnally.
All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer & Privacy Statement
| What Did You Think About WWE Backlash 2008? |
|
|