What is bad wrestling?

[Loss]

I don't always watch wrestling the same way personally, which I mentioned in my last post.

[jdw]

 

Jerry, I think where the confusion lies is that you assume emotional connection can only come from suspension of disbelief. John provided examples of times he has felt something when watching wrestling or listening to Beatles music, while still seeing it for what it is. To not suspend disbelief does not mean there's no connection with the material, or that it's only an intellectual activity.

 

A famous ad slogan in the United States is that "There's no wrong way to eat a Reeses." I'm pretty sure the same spirit applies to pro wrestling. And I don't think it's fair to dismiss someone else's experience.

I don't care to exchange with jdw for reasons everyone knows by now, but I do think there is a difference between narrative forms and, for example, emotionally connecting to music. I think they are really two different things.

 

I am not convinced that you can have an emotional connection to narrative forms, that is to storytelling, without some suspension of disbelief. I really don't -- and I think it comes down to what people think "suspension of disbelief" is. It's NOT believing that the thing is real. It's simply investing in the storyline enough to become engaged on an emotional level with its world and its characters. Hence, you can "suspend disbelief" watching fantasy or sci-fi. I think there's a lot of confusion over this. "Believability" is not about verisimilitude -- that is, it's not about whether the thing pertains to reality as we know it -- it's rather about something being believable within its own self-contained universe, and believable enough that you can feel something about it. I can't really see how you can dispense with that and still have a human reaction to the thing.

 

 

There are a wide range of human reactions, and they do not all need to come from "suspending disbelief".

 

When I was watching American Hustle, I enjoyed the hell out of it. But if you ask me to put my finger on how much of it sprung a suspended disbelief.

 

I popped for Bradley Cooper's perm, not because of anything about Cooper's character but instead because I grew up in the 70s where dude I knew had tight perms. When they had the scene where Cooper had his tight perm curlers on, my girlfriend and I popped... not because "Richie DiMaso" did it, but because O Russell and Singer had the attention to detail to add it, and Cooper had the balls to do it.

 

I popped for song after song popping up on the soundtrack... not because I "believed" that they were actually in the background of the movie scene (since the overwhelming majority of them weren't), but because I knew the songs from the 70s and it was cool that they were being tossed around. When "Live And Let Die" was rolled out, Lee and I looked at each other and did a fist pump... because they were cool enough to include McCartney in the movie, and we're both big fans of certain Macca songs.

 

When De Niro showed up, I popped... not because I gave two shits about Victor Tellegio (which is a name I have to go look up because I completely forget the movie)... but because, "Fucking A! They got De Niro to play a fucking mobster in the movie! Fuck yeah!" Which is you're a fan of mob movies is pretty fucking cool... or if your first drive in movie memory is seeing Godfather II at the age of 8 and popping with your dad when De Niro stuck that knife in the belly of that old Scicilian mobster in the homeland... yeah, it really had dick to do with any suspending of disblief in American Hustle, but instead about IT'S FUCKING ROBERT DENIRO uncredited!!!

 

We loved Jeremy Renner's hair... I suspect that Lee and I have talked about his freaking hair and our love of it more than Carmine. In fact, whenever I've talked about the "character" of Carmine in the movie, it's usually to be dismissive of O. Russell's decision to make Carmine sympathetic rather than the asshole crook that he really was.

 

Ditto's if we're talking about O. Russell's finish, where the Good Guys are Bad Guys, and the Bad Guys are the Good Guys... and let's ignore the far more real and powerful end of Jennifer Lawrence's "character" rather than the happily ever after bullshit that O' Russell served up.

 

In fact, if I had been forced by my brain to play the game of suspending disbelief, I actually would have hated the movie since having lived through ABSCAM and reading a lot about it, ye olde disbelief would have been cracked rather quick and I would have hated the thing for being a load of O. Russell bullshit.

 

Instead, cool music, cool things like De Niro showing up unannounced, focusing on the performances (as opposed to the characters) of Adams and Lawrence, digging the cool 70s costuming, having some laughs at some very 70s things, etc.

 

There are a wide range of reactions that we humans can have in life. One does not have to "suspend disbelief" to have the majority of them.

[marrklarr]

Speaking of tight perms

 

I wonder if this topic is so contentious because it almost feels like a return to kayfabe. Nobody thinks we should go back to pretending the Easter Bunny is real. For me, suspending disbelieft is just acknowledging that what I am watching is some kind of representation of reality. It's not real, but it resembles real athletic competition and real conflict and real human drama. At least enough for me to sit down and enjoy watching it.

 

If I were to draw you a stick figure, it could represent a human being, and we all could accept this even though a real human being is much more complex than that. We accept that the stick figure is like a person and forget that it's just five lines and a circle. We do the same thing when we watch wrestling.

 

Does this make any sense?

[ohtani's jacket]

In fact, if I had been forced by my brain to play the game of suspending disbelief, I actually would have hated the movie since having lived through ABSCAM and reading a lot about it, ye olde disbelief would have been cracked rather quick and I would have hated the thing for being a load of O. Russell bullshit.

 

 

You thought it was bullshit yet you suspended your disbelief enough to enjoy the film.... ? Since when did suspension of belief mean you can't enjoy a film because of minor details or in Matt's case structure?

[jdw]

 

In fact, if I had been forced by my brain to play the game of suspending disbelief, I actually would have hated the movie since having lived through ABSCAM and reading a lot about it, ye olde disbelief would have been cracked rather quick and I would have hated the thing for being a load of O. Russell bullshit.

 

 

You thought it was bullshit yet you suspended your disbelief enough to enjoy the film.... ? Since when did suspension of belief mean you can't enjoy a film because of minor details or in Matt's case structure?

 

 

So tell me the points at which I suspended my disbelief in the movie. I mean... obviously you sat there with me and my girlfriend and observed what I enjoyed, and slid inside my head to know what I was popping for and why. The floor is yours, Daniel... share your knowledge of exactly how I viewed and enjoyed the movie.

[JerryvonKramer]

If you don't suspend your disbelief ever, you don't function like most other humans. It's perfectly possible and I, for one, am willing to believe it. Like I said, I pity you for it. You're missing out on a lot.

[Graham Crackers]

You don't force your brain to suspend disbelief. It's something that you do unconsciously when taking in art. It does not mean you believe something is real or even realistic. You won't lose cool points by admitting you are doing this. You don't seem less smart. It's something we all do.

 

It's blowing my mind the extent to which this is not getting through to some people here.

 

jdw's post reads like a list of things that allowed him to suspend his disbelief, just worded differently. "Cool 70s atmosphere and fun performances allowed me to ignore historical inaccuracies, flat characters and a weak ending."

[dawho5]

Oh, just let jdw get under Jerry's skin and let Jerry keep letting it happen. It's not like you have to get involved and add unnecessary stress to your day.

[Matt D]

I think we've taken this about as far as we can. Now tell me how I enjoy stuff in the same way as America's fabulous freelance insurance investigator, Johnny.

[ohtani's jacket]

 

 

In fact, if I had been forced by my brain to play the game of suspending disbelief, I actually would have hated the movie since having lived through ABSCAM and reading a lot about it, ye olde disbelief would have been cracked rather quick and I would have hated the thing for being a load of O. Russell bullshit.

 

 

You thought it was bullshit yet you suspended your disbelief enough to enjoy the film.... ? Since when did suspension of belief mean you can't enjoy a film because of minor details or in Matt's case structure?

 

 

So tell me the points at which I suspended my disbelief in the movie. I mean... obviously you sat there with me and my girlfriend and observed what I enjoyed, and slid inside my head to know what I was popping for and why. The floor is yours, Daniel... share your knowledge of exactly how I viewed and enjoyed the movie.

 

 

You had to suspend your disbelief to enjoy the movie otherwise you would have thought the whole thing was bullshit. You said so yourself.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think we've taken this about as far as we can. Now tell me how I enjoy stuff in the same way as America's fabulous freelance insurance investigator, Johnny.

You both do this neat little thing of coming up with your own logical reasons for lots of little things that happen during matches. It's a matter of interpretation and is what I'd call "the art of criticism". Sometimes it's there, sometimes you're reading it into the match. Talking with Johnny over many hours now, he does that. His quirk, I suppose, is that he'll spin most things into a positive and try to look for a positive angle most of the time. But his capacity for explaining why things happen in matches is almost always interesting / entertaining to me (see also "Johnny logic"). I see you doing the same thing in your written reviews. In a way, it's quite creative: it's where the storytelling going on in the ring converge with the narrative you're putting together in your head. I don't think everyone does this, but you and Johnny definitely do. So that's what you have in common -- the real differences between you two, which SEEM much bigger than they are (getting spun as analysis vs. watching for fun), are mainly down to personality I'd say. If you look at what both of you do it's quite similar. And in both cases, I think it's an admirable way to watch wrestling.

 

I'll answer Childs's question too, which I just spotted.

 

Tangential question based on this discussion: Do you always watch wrestling the same way?

 

I ask this because the answer for me is clearly no. Sometimes, I watch in an analytical way, looking for smart work, nice execution, etc. In that mode, I'd probably appreciate the cleverness of the Liger spot Loss mentioned. But I don't know that it would excite me per se. This is probably my most common setting when reviewing footage for the '80s project.

 

Other times, I watch with a greater hope of being sucked into the drama of a match. This might be because I'm watching a show live, unsure of where it's going to take me. It might be because I'm watching in a more communal setting, like the '80s lucha podcasts. It might simply be my mood on a given night.

 

I'm just wondering if that dichotomy also exists for Matt, Parv, Loss, etc. or if the mode is more consistent for some of you.

I think I do both things at once because, for me, I'm not sure to what extent the two things can be separated out (the analysis comes out of the experience).

 

However, that said, I do think there are different types of matches that appeal to different things. A heated brawl / sprint or a fun spotfest are going to be exciting in ways that a chess match is not.

 

Technically speaking, analysis should happen after the event though. You watch something, register your experiences, emotional or otherwise, and then break down those effects. Because most of us take notes as we're watching matches, the two things converge a little more than they might if, say, you went to the cinema watched a film and then reviewed it when you got home.

 

A while back I do think I got caught up in noting down moves and each and every little thing that happened in matches and it was starting to affect my immersion and enjoyment of things. Dropping play-by-play from WTBBP helped. Watching stuff and then talking about it in a group setting where three other guys are going to riff on a match with Titans also helped. Reading Loss's "stripped down" reviews in the Tackling the 80s thread and trying to emulate what he does also helped. So I'm finding it easier to get sucked in these days because the burden of note taking is a little bit less than it was a year ago.

 

Did that answer the question? Let me look again.

 

Do you always watch wrestling the same way?

Ummmm ... yes, I think so. I can't stop being analytical it's just built into my personality and it sorta comes automatically. So I'll just try and chill out the best I can and see where the match takes me. Sometimes it takes me to boredom, sometimes I'll be checking the clock and wondering how long might be left, sometimes I'll get emotionally invested in what's going on, sometimes I'll get into a tactical war, sometimes I'll pop for cool suplexes. I think the match dictates it though, not my approach.

 

The biggest factor coming from me might be mood. I think everyone feels this on occasion: wrestling is something that watch for fun and the projects we do, we do out of love for it. But when other people are involved, suddenly those fun projects become commitments and you kind of have a duty to do what you said you would or you'll be letting others down. And so you're not ALWAYS watching wrestling when you're in the mood for it, sometimes you're just trying to get through the footage by a certain time. I suspect most here can relate to that, and guys like you who have been on committees probably more than most.

[Guest stanley]

And sometimes you just get burnt out watching it. Been following it for 26 years religiously. Bound to happen. Even when that happens I still focus on books newsletters DVDs and forums.

[marrklarr]

jdw's post reads like a list of things that allowed him to suspend his disbelief, just worded differently. "Cool 70s atmosphere and fun performances allowed me to ignore historical inaccuracies, flat characters and a weak ending."

 

Bingo!

[Death From Above]

Tangential question based on this discussion: Do you always watch wrestling the same way?

 

Not really. I want vastly different things from an All Japan match than if I were to watch RAW. There are workers I'd love in one setting who I think would be totally useless in the other. Maybe it would be better to say I go into each company's shows with expectations based around that compay's own style.

[Matt D]

In some ways i have to watch things differently because I usually don't have time to sit and watch a match all the way through if it's not happening in real time. And sometimes I don't have time to do a full write up. That, in and of itself, will change how I interact with what I'm viewing. I also watch jobber matches with a bit less attention and sometimes even just listen to the commentary while I'm doing something else if I'm watching shows in order from, let's say 94. At that point I'd double back if it was something interesting. I never APPROACH it differently, though. The brain doesn't shut off. Ever. So I make the best of it and enjoy it.

 

It might be a little different if I was watching a show at the arena/armory, whatever. I'm not sure. I haven't been to a show in ten years.

[Loss]

For the record, I very rarely take notes while watching something. I sort of disagree with the idea on principle. I can't remember the last time I did. Sometimes I'll go back if I can't remember something specific that I want to touch on, but I usually just watch it and pay attention, writing whatever my takeaway was after the match is done. My reason for that is because I always felt like Scott Keith, Todd Martin and other "big time" recappers would miss key things because they were looking down while typing instead of paying attention to what's on the screen. I also think it encourages a writing style that declares the trees far more important than the forest, and that's not how I see wrestling. I'm interested in details in wrestling, but only as they relate to the big picture. If they neither enhance nor detract from the big hook the match is going for, I don't usually think they warrant much comment or thought.

[goodhelmet]

You also have this sick freakish recall memory. I don't have that shit. Old people need to keep notes to keep track of everything.

[tim]

Tangential question based on this discussion: Do you always watch wrestling the same way?

 

I ask this because the answer for me is clearly no. Sometimes, I watch in an analytical way, looking for smart work, nice execution, etc. In that mode, I'd probably appreciate the cleverness of the Liger spot Loss mentioned. But I don't know that it would excite me per se. This is probably my most common setting when reviewing footage for the '80s project.

 

Other times, I watch with a greater hope of being sucked into the drama of a match. This might be because I'm watching a show live, unsure of where it's going to take me. It might be because I'm watching in a more communal setting, like the '80s lucha podcasts. It might simply be my mood on a given night.

 

I'm just wondering if that dichotomy also exists for Matt, Parv, Loss, etc. or if the mode is more consistent for some of you.

I watch wrestling completely differently when I'm watching a show live. Watching WK8 live, I enjoyed Shibata/Goto for what it was on the card despite knowing that if I were watching it as a stand alone match I would probably think it were bad. I also really, really enjoyed the opening tag on that show even though it's not a match I'd ever go out of my way to see on its own. The feel of the overall show matters more to me than how good each match is.

[Matt D]

I really put everything down so A) I don't miss things (and a lot of times I doubleback a bit if I blink and don't see how a transition happened or someone escaped a hold, etc), and B> So I can find a throughline in the end, whether it's there or not. Usually if it's there I catch it on the way but it's easier to read through

 

A lot of times it's so I can weigh things later and tell matches apart, especially for the 80s projects. I almost always work with two screens when I'm doing this (because that's my set up at work and I do a lot of this on my lunch break) or on one screen with a smaller window for the text beside it, so I'm never looking away from the match, really.

 

I'd like to think there's a difference between what I do and what Keith or Martin does.

[Loss]

There is a difference for sure. But I'll ask you this. If there is a throughline that wouldn't be readily apparent to anyone even casually paying attention, would you say that it's not done very well if it requires too much effort from the viewer?

[Matt D]

I don't think there's a right or wrong question to that answer.

 

If there's a book where multiple readings and analysis makes the book richer and where the more effort you get in, the more you get out of it, is that inherently worse than a book that's more direct and easier to process?

 

Again, it's subjective, but I've always appreciated things that paid off more effort with more reward.

[goc]

I don't take notes when I watch wrestling either, even if it's for putting together a ballot. I write something down after the match but I don't want to get distracted while I'm watching it the first time. If I don't remember a little detail at the end of the match then it's probably not something that would have influenced how I'd rank it anyway.

 

I'm much more interested in how I feel about the match at the end than any individual part of the match. There were a couple spots that I liked in Steve Regal vs Buck Zumhoffe, which is more than I can say for some of the things I don't remember at all like whatever tag match had Wahoo & Tom Zenk that was also in my bottom 10. But those few spots didn't make up for the fact that I actively hated that match after watching it, which I also didn't feel about the matches I've completely forgotten.