In "Defense" of the "Terrorist" Angle on SD
Let me begin this post by saying that it is not so much a defense of the "terrorist" angle on SD as it is an offering of a viewpoint which I think people either quickly dismiss or do not consider.
Like the majority of wrestling fans, last night I waited in anticipation to see how intense the Undertaker/Hassan angle came across. I of course am referring to the angle where after Taker beat Daivari, a number of men dressed in stereotypical "hijacker/terrorist" garb attacked the Undertaker and choked him with wire, while Hassan not only looked on, but held his hands up and gave a stereotypical "jihad" scream. Following Hassan's putting Taker in the Camel Clutch, the attackers carried Daivari out of the arena, holding him on their shoulders, not unlike one might be carried in reverence in a religious ceremony.
My main reaction was not to the content of the angle itself, but rather to how gruesome Undertaker's face looked. The color and expression on his face looked not unlike those you might see on the face of a decapitated head: drained of color, and lifeless eyes. To me, that was the most striking (and disturbing) aspect of the angle.
But as for the rest of angle, which simulated a terrorist attack/sacrifice (Daivari), my reaction is this: This was not some great affront to humanity on the part of Vincent K McMahon. Was it disturbing? Yes. Was it unfortunate that it occurred on the same day as a terrorist attack in London? Of course.
But what irks me is that people feel the need to damn McMahon for this, as if he coldly and calculatingly devised this angle just to raise ire. While I concede that it might be an attempt at "cheap heat," has anyone ever considered the possibility that the angle with Hassan is that now he has decided to become the very thing he thinks people are expecting anyway? Maybe the angle is that he has felt so discriminated against and ignored that he decides it's worthless to try to plead his case, and that if it's a stereotype everyone else wants (all in his head, of course), it's a stereotype they get.
This is certainly not the 1st time that WWE has presented socially- and politically-based angles. Was there this much protesting when Terri Runnels "had" a miscarriage? Was there this much protesting when Jeff Jarrett attacked women? Was there this much protesting when Big Show's "father" "died" of cancer? All of those angles concerned serious issues, and yet I don't recall people damning Vince to Hell for them (although I do know there was plenty of "this is tasteless" comments).
My point is not to make light of the tragedy in London, nor to discount that people have had a very strong visceral and emotional reaction to the angle on Smackdown. Rather, I question why people feel that WWE should be held to a higher standard than other forms of entertainment. Is it because it is audience interactive? Is it because it is live? Is it because there is a history of children being interested in wrestling?
Why is no one damning the Eddie/Rey angle, which has very implied sexual predator overtones? The vignette with Eddie and Dominic (Rey's real life son) disturbed me more than the angle between Taker and Hassan. It seems to me that people cannot be selective about what they choose to damn and what they choose to pass off as "just another angle." I realize that there are levels of discomfort, but I think it's a bit hypocritical to pick and choose.
Or is this simply "the final straw"?
Like the majority of wrestling fans, last night I waited in anticipation to see how intense the Undertaker/Hassan angle came across. I of course am referring to the angle where after Taker beat Daivari, a number of men dressed in stereotypical "hijacker/terrorist" garb attacked the Undertaker and choked him with wire, while Hassan not only looked on, but held his hands up and gave a stereotypical "jihad" scream. Following Hassan's putting Taker in the Camel Clutch, the attackers carried Daivari out of the arena, holding him on their shoulders, not unlike one might be carried in reverence in a religious ceremony.
My main reaction was not to the content of the angle itself, but rather to how gruesome Undertaker's face looked. The color and expression on his face looked not unlike those you might see on the face of a decapitated head: drained of color, and lifeless eyes. To me, that was the most striking (and disturbing) aspect of the angle.
But as for the rest of angle, which simulated a terrorist attack/sacrifice (Daivari), my reaction is this: This was not some great affront to humanity on the part of Vincent K McMahon. Was it disturbing? Yes. Was it unfortunate that it occurred on the same day as a terrorist attack in London? Of course.
But what irks me is that people feel the need to damn McMahon for this, as if he coldly and calculatingly devised this angle just to raise ire. While I concede that it might be an attempt at "cheap heat," has anyone ever considered the possibility that the angle with Hassan is that now he has decided to become the very thing he thinks people are expecting anyway? Maybe the angle is that he has felt so discriminated against and ignored that he decides it's worthless to try to plead his case, and that if it's a stereotype everyone else wants (all in his head, of course), it's a stereotype they get.
This is certainly not the 1st time that WWE has presented socially- and politically-based angles. Was there this much protesting when Terri Runnels "had" a miscarriage? Was there this much protesting when Jeff Jarrett attacked women? Was there this much protesting when Big Show's "father" "died" of cancer? All of those angles concerned serious issues, and yet I don't recall people damning Vince to Hell for them (although I do know there was plenty of "this is tasteless" comments).
My point is not to make light of the tragedy in London, nor to discount that people have had a very strong visceral and emotional reaction to the angle on Smackdown. Rather, I question why people feel that WWE should be held to a higher standard than other forms of entertainment. Is it because it is audience interactive? Is it because it is live? Is it because there is a history of children being interested in wrestling?
Why is no one damning the Eddie/Rey angle, which has very implied sexual predator overtones? The vignette with Eddie and Dominic (Rey's real life son) disturbed me more than the angle between Taker and Hassan. It seems to me that people cannot be selective about what they choose to damn and what they choose to pass off as "just another angle." I realize that there are levels of discomfort, but I think it's a bit hypocritical to pick and choose.
Or is this simply "the final straw"?
posted by Anonymous at 4:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home