Wrestling with Theatricality
“Hey! Everyone look at me! I’m the BAD guy” –The Dimond Studd
“From the start it has been the theatre’s business to entertain people … it needs no other passport than fun.”- BERTOLT BRECHT
German dramatist Bertolt Brecht wanted theatre to be like a boxing match. Brecht wrote, “there seems to be nothing to stop the theatre [from] having its own form of ‘sport’” (6). He referred to the audience as spectators and wanted his sets to be as minimal as possible. This minimalist effect was to evoke the atmosphere of sport and for the spectators not to confuse it with real life. Brecht wanted an environment where the actors and the spectators could interact stating “a theatre which makes no contact with the public is nonsense” (7). To end this nonsense the actors had to be able to address the spectators, and the spectators needed to be able to shout and cheer as if they were at a sporting match. The use of montage is how Brecht kept suspense in the air, not suspense for an outcome but suspense as to what would happen next. He desired for each event to lead fluidly into the next in order to keep the spectators from simply waiting for an outcome. Through visual and technical aspects Brecht looked to keep the spectators engaged with the fact that it was a performance they were watching, not to be believed but questioned and scrutinized. Meg Mumford discusses Brecht’s interest and use of the boxing model in theatre in saying, “boxing matches contained both a clear demonstration of a skilled struggle and a critical audience. Brecht invoked the boxing model frequently in this period [late 1920s], even using a roped platform recalling the boxing ring in his production of The Measures Taken (1930), a play that contains no overt references to the sport” (16).
Brecht’s vision for theatre has been actualized in modern-day professional wrestling. Often perceived as a “fake” sport, it is actually theatre being performed as a sport. The largest shows are held in sports venues with minimalist scenery, often consisting of only a wrestling ring in the center of a large crowd. There are story lines that build up and new drama that unfolds in each event. Professional Wrestling draws in sell-out crowds by the thousands in the arena and millions on pay-per-view television. When asked in an interview on Larry King Live why people enjoy professional wrestling so much, Vince McMahon, chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) answered, “because it’s a variety show. There’s something here, I think, for everyone. And we have extraordinary athleticism, there’s some drama, there’s some comedy, it’s rock show elements, it’s soap opera elements, it’s really a variety show” [1](Larry King).
Professional wrestling is theatre in a sporting establishment. Bertolt Brecht described why he felt theatre venues need to be seen as kindred to a sporting establishment in stating:
When people in sporting establishments buy their tickets they know exactly what is going to take place; and that is exactly what does take place once they are in their seats: highly trained persons developing their peculiar powers in the way most suited to them, with the greatest sense of responsibility yet in such a way as to make one feel that they are doing it primarily for their own fun. Against that the traditional theatre is nowadays quite lacking in character (6).
An important element to Brecht’s vision of theatre is the montage. The moments through out the performance that keep the story moving. The focus of the show should not solely be that of the final outcome. During the same interview on Larry King Live popular pro wrestler Triple H described pro wrestling as, “It’s a sport, but we control the outcome. So you are always going to get a great show” (Larry King). This knowledge of the outcome allows professional wrestling a certain amount of freedom. It also allows professional wrestling to become a Brechtian montage. There is always a suspense in the air of, “What is goin’ to happen next?” The spectators are involved in every moment to the predetermined outcome.
Having the outcome of the match predetermined has led many critics to charge professional wrestling as being “fake.” Wrestlers and fans alike defend the authenticity. Not the authenticity of it as being a legitimate sports event but rather as being legitimate entertainment. It is real because there are real people, on a real stage, performing real moves (that can have very real consequences if done incorrectly) in front of a real audience, however the characters and the storylines are fictitious. This “fakeness” applied to professional wrestling in theatre terms would be described as “theatricality.”
Dictionnaire Encyclopedique du Theatre by Michel Corvin discusses theatricality in Western Theater. Implying that theatricality is a fictitious representation of life, it proclaims:
In Western theater history, theatricality is both a value which one must aspire to and a pitfall of which one must beware. Indeed, this word encompasses equally loaded positive and negative connotations. The positive use of this notion becomes manifest each time theater is threatened to be confused with “life:” it is then judicious to remind oneself that all representation is simulacra, a form, and that theatricality does not pertain to the thing represented but to the written dramatic movement through which it is represented; the negative use of this notion appears, on the other hand, each time theater disregards the real and indulges in the celebration of its own codes, closing in onto itself through the means of its own conventions: theatricality is then nothing more than the undeniable sign of its falsifying and deluding nature (820).
This paper will be an analysis of the theatricality of professional wrestling. It will be divided into two sections. The first section will discuss the theatricality of professional wrestling and is divided into three sub-groups: the ring, the wrestler, and the spectator. The second half will compare professional wrestling to conventional 18th century melodrama and is also split into three sections: The babyface/hero, heel/villain, and diva/heroine.
Theatricality
Wrestling is ballet with violence. – Jesse Ventura
Theatricality of the Ring
The stage for professional wrestling is known as a ring, often affectionately referred to as a “square circle” (Mazer). The space in theatricality is important because it creates an area for the spectator to create the theatrical. In Josette Fèral’s often cited essay on theatricality she examines at length the theatricality of the stage explaining, “the set alone can convey a certain theatricality” (95). The professional wrestling ring sits akin to the stage in theatre of the round. The ring is situated in a central location with the crowd surrounding it on all sides. With this central focus the spectator “perceives the spectacular nature of the stage” (Fèral 96).
Brecht had tried to bring the boxing ring to theatre as a white ring with ropes. This is also the stage for professional wrestling, a white “squared circle” with ropes around it. Furthermore the wrestling ring is similar to Brecht’s theatre and a boxing match in that the stage is lit with harsh white lights. Similar to the audience in a theatre, the crowd at a professional wrestling match “knows what to expect from the scenic design- a play” (Fèral 96). The “match” is the play for the crowd, so by seeing the ring they now have the clear impression that a performance is about to happen.
Even before the wrestlers (actors) have arrived there is already a sense of theatricality. The stark mise-en-scène has given meaning to the area in that “the presence of the actor is not a prerequisite of theatricality” (Fèral 96). Howbeit the mise-en-scène alone is not enough for theatricality, there still needs to be an actor within the set. Without the actor there can be no display of emotions and therefore nothing to separate the space and time from everyday reality.
Theatricality of the Wrestler
The presence of an actor on stage creates the distinct impression that this is theatre. While there is the essence of theatricality to the stage, there still needs to be an actor to bring that theatricality to life. He comes to the stage in his bright costume with his big personality. He does not come to the ring as Dwayne Johnson but as The Rock, a villain that has come to fight the beloved hero. No longer is he André René Roussimoff, but Andre the Giant, the Goliath to many Davids. The wrestler is heralded into the ring by music and gives a monologue about his intentions. He moves, he poses, he makes his character come alive. The wrestler “is simultaneously the producer of theatricality and the channel through which it passes” (Fèral 100). When the wrestler enters the ring he transforms it into more than a pure aesthetic.
Without the wrestler there can be no match (play). While the lights and the centrally placed “squared circle” evoke certain theatricality, they are not the channels for theatricality to pass through- the wrestler is. Vsevolod Meyerhold, a Russian born producer/actor/director, wrote of the importance of the actor within theatre in Anton Chekhov’s Seagull:
I believe firmly in the actor as the principal element in the theatre. The atmosphere was created, not by the mise-en-scene, not by the crickets, not by the thunder of horses’ hooves on the bridge, but by the sheer musicality of the actors who grasped the rhythm of Chekhov’s poetry and succeeded in casting a sheen of moonlight over their creations”(Meyerhold 35).
“To sell” for a professional wrestler is to make a move, a hold or body slam, a rivalry with another wrestler all appear believable. Most wrestlers have an athletic background of some kind that they will use to enact a move, but it is the actor within the athlete that “sells” the move. Professional wrestlers must all attend schools to train in not only making moves, but in the art of “selling” moves. After they complete school they can work their way up from minor wrestling matches held in local middle school gyms, armories, and parking lots up to the billion dollar industry of the WWE. The biggest matches of the WWE are broadcast all over the world. To get to the top the wrestler has to be able to “sell” his wrestling persona, his character. If he is a babyface (hero) he must be charismatic and charming. He has to be able to make the crowd love him and stay in love with him. If he is a heel (villain) he has to be dastardly and willing to cheat and cut corners whenever possible. He must make the crowd love to hate him.
The presence of the wrestler on stage gives the event immediacy. A live moving body in the ring helps the spectator perceive the theatre going on in front of them. The body of the wrestler, “is the privileged locus of the self’s confrontation with alterity. It is a body in motion on stage, an impulsive and symbolic body sometimes yielding to hysteria, at other times, controlled through a willful act by which it becomes the locus of knowledge and mastery” (Fèral 100).
The wrestler is a highly trained and skilled performer. They have the ability to create theatricality in the ring because of their knowledge. Inside the ring, “theatricality [is] an effect produced through mastery of skill” (Davis 19). The ring gives the space for theatricality, the wrestler brings theatricality to life, and yet there is one more key element: the gaze of the spectator.
Theatricality of the Spectator
Without that gaze there can be no theatricality. The spectator’s gaze is needed in order to give the performance an otherness, in order to separate it from real life. It is the spectator’s knowledge of the fallacy that creates and solidifies theatricality for all involved. In Keyfabe, the language and codes of professional wrestling, it is shown there are two kinds of spectators: the smark and the mark. A smark is the spectator whose gaze gives the performance theatricality and the mark is the spectator who is absorbed by the “naturalness” of professional wrestling.
The Smark
The smark is someone who enjoys professional wrestling despite its artificiality. The term comes from the Keyfabe term for a smart mark, being someone who is privy to the fact that professional wrestling is choreographed. A mark will be discussed more at length below. As Josette Fèral points out, “theatricality seems to stem from the spectator’s awareness of a theatrical intention addressed at him” (96).
The mark understands that the wrestlers are following a pre-planned storyline. smarks are keenly aware that they are not watching a “true” wrestling match and “this awareness altered the way in which he looked at what was taking place; it forced him to see theatre” (Fèral 96). The smark comes to be entertained. They become wrapped up in the excitement and the “What’s gonna happen next” of professional wrestling yet, “the spectator is never completely duped” (Fèral 100).
It is important that the spectators and actors alike maintain at least some knowledge of the fictitious nature of the ring. Meyerhold quotes from a letter from friend and Russian Playwright Leonid Andreyev:
The spectator should not forget for a moment that an actor is performing before him, and the actor should never forget he is performing before an audience, with a stage beneath his feet and a set around him. When one looks at a painting, one is always aware that it is composed of paint, canvas and brush strokes, but nonetheless it creates a heightened and clarified impression of life (63).
Most spectators at a professional wrestling match are smarks. They enjoy wrestling and have come to be entertained. People spend their hard earned money to go and be entertained by this “fake” sport. This shows how important theatricality is to professional wrestling, “The fact that civilization still values theater in spite of its being a “lie” seems to indicate, however, that the power inherent in theatricality has perhaps not entirely disappeared” (Magnat 148).
The Mark
Within Keyfabe jargon the person who believes that professional wrestling is real is known as a mark. A mark is usually a boy between the ages of 8 and 12. However, the sheer drama of professional wrestling can make anyone a mark, even if it is only briefly. A mark is experiencing what Michael Fried calls, “absorption.” In Fried’s essay Absorption: A Master Theme in Eighteenth-Century French Painting and Criticism, he looks at the viewer of a painting and their absorption by the painting. This absorption, being overwhelmed by the naturalness of the painting and therefore a belief that it is real has been an important issue related to theatricality. Absorption is essentially the opposing force to theatricality. Theatricality is dependent on the knowledge that what is happening on stage is not real life. Someone absorbed by the performance believes that this is really happening, that it is not a fictitious story being played out by actors. Theatricality cannot happen until there is the awareness of its “un-realness.”
Many actors and directors and other artists hope to create art that absorbs the audience. They strive for a naturalness that will have the audience forgetting their awareness of the stage and lights and that a performance is happening in front of them, in turn becoming consumed by the play. This kind of naturalism is found in professional wrestling. It is difficult at times for a smark not to be absorbed by the showmanship of the wrestlers. One wrestler does a pile drive on the other. Lying in pain after the blow, the pile-driven wrestler gasps and fights to regain his strength so he can get back up to face his opponent- only to be thrown back to the ground once more. The sell is so precise that even the most knowledgeable spectators become consumed with either cheering for his demise and weakness or motivated to cheer and encourage his recovery and retaliation against the gruesome blows.
Famous Russian director Konstantin Stanislavsky strove for this kind of realness. Stanislavsky writes, “a stage creation has to be convincing, it has to instill belief in its being. It has to be, to ‘exist’ in nature, to ‘live’ in us and with us, and not merely appear to exist.” (167-168). For a smark professional wrestling is some a being. It is real and something they believe in.
Professional Wrestling and the Melodrama
There’s no drama like wrestling. –Andy Kaufman
Professional wrestling is often seen as a vulgar and vile sport that lacks any true sportsmanship. It is a sport that lacks honesty of competition and cannot be appreciated by people sophisticated enough to know that it is not real. Pro wrestling and the unrefined spectacle of the ring, has been entertainment for naïve audiences of the past. The perception of professional wrestling is similar to the perception of Melodrama in that “Today, as in the mid-nineteenth century, the word melodrama seems to name an archaic form- what vulgar, naïve audiences of yesteryear thrilled to, not what we sophisticated realists and moderns (and post moderns) enjoy today” (Williams 11-12).
Professional wrestling’s strength comes from the battle between good and evil, hero and villain, antagonist and protagonist; this is the drama that carries professional wrestling. In 1989 the World Wrestling Federation (WWF- Later became World Wrestling Entertainment) admitted to the New Jersey Senate that it was in fact not a real sport and was fixed (Kreit, “Professional Wrestling and its Fans”). The WWF did this to become free of state regulations on performance enhancing drugs and sports taxes. This opened up the drama and theatricality of wrestling even more. Professional wrestling was able to caste off the thin veil of a sport that was covering a performance of theatre. Professional wrestling has been called “participatory theatre”(Mondak 143) and “a morality play” (Kreit), and in this paper already it has been compared to Brecht’s Epic Theatre. To show the theatre element of the theatricality of pro wrestling we will now go in depth in comparing pro wrestling to 19th century melodrama.
There are three main dramatic characters in a melodrama, and there are three key players in a wrestling match. In a melodrama they are the hero, villain, and heroine in professional wrestling jargon they are the babyface, heel, and diva respectively.
The Babyface/Hero
“I’ll give you a show like you’ve never seen before… Why? Because I can.” – Shawn Michaels
The Babyface/Hero is the good guy, the crowd favorite. The music heralds his entrance to the stage to save the day and win the hearts of the crowd. In The Clergyman’s Daughter the Hero is said to be “filled to the very brim with the old fashioned principles of virtue, chastity, sobriety and all that sort of stuff… This pious, chaste, virtuous, timid young man has lived his days in the country. His body has been fed with milk and his mind with sermons” (21-22). The Babyface that personifies these heroic ideals is legendary Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea. One of Hulk Hogan’s most famous catch phrases from the 1980’s was, “to all my little Hulkamaniacs, say your prayers, take your vitamins and you will never go wrong.” At Hulk Hogan’s peak throughout the 1980’s he was the All-American Hero, his entrance music was “Real American” by Rick Derringer. Hulk Hogan “invites us to clap along with him, to chant ‘U-S-A,’ or to mimic his characteristic gestures- a swing of the arms or a rally cry” (Mazer 100).
The Hero of melodrama “prove[s] his goodness, as the villain his evil, primarily by his attitude toward defenseless women” (Grimsted 181). Hulk Hogan was always a gentleman to the ladies of the ring. At Saturday Night’s Main Event XII Hulk Hogan came to the rescue of the most beloved Diva of Professional wrestling, Miss Elizabeth (discussed in more detail below). In an effort to save Macho Man Randy Savage, Elizabeth had been thrown to the ground by the Honky Tonk Man. When she ran from the ring most thought she had run to save herself. But instead she returned with the All-American Hero Hulk Hogan. When seeing Macho Man being unfairly beaten by Honky Tonk Man, Hulk Hogan rushed to the ring and quickly defeated Honky Tonk Man. The Heroine was not the love of Hulk Hogan’s but of Macho Man Randy Savage. He had come to rescue not only the heroine but her true love as well.[2] This echoes the similar ideals of the nineteenth century melodrama The Signet Ring in that, “to love is the hero’s privilege; and his first duty [is] to protect the helpless” (Payne 12).
Many melodramatic plays revolve around the patriotic duties of the hero. When called to duty he gallantly defends his beloved land and her morals. The heels of professional wrestling like the villains of the melodrama are often foreign-born. In the 1980s Hulk Hogan defended his title against Iranians and Soviets. This allowed the audience to identify with Hogan and therefore see him as good and see the foreign born heel as the bad guy. For, “‘Good’ is the self, and ‘evil’ is the other- the stranger” (Mason 18).
The Heel/Villain
“Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat.” – Jesse Ventura
The heel/villain is “full of external niceties, often exaggerated to a ludicrous extent, but this fashionable façade covered a totally insensitive heart. Often he was a foreigner, and almost always his manners were foreign-tainted” (Grimsted 177). Josip Nikolai Peruzović, whose wrestling name is Nikolai Volkoff, was the perfect Cold War heel. Volkoff was an especially great heel when pitted against American Hero, Hulk Hogan.
Before matches Nikolai Volkoff would sing the Soviet National Anthem, firmly establishing himself as the other. Volkoff even teamed up with another American enemy Iranian Iron Sheik. His “otherness” was re-enforced with his singing and his partnerships. Even his red uniform with a hammer and sickle on the belt denoted that here is the villain, here is the other.
It is the heel/villain who provides the comic relief. It is hard to laugh at the guy you are routing for, “hence much of the burden of the fun fell on the comic villain” (Grimsted 177). This can be seen by one of the most popular heels turned Hollywood star Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson when he said, “Everyone wants to know what the Rock thinks about the homeless. Well, as long as they keep their cardboard boxes off The Rock’s freshly manicured lawn, everything will be copasetic.” His disregard for the helpless and his flash of wealth keeps him in line with the insensitive heart of a melodramatic villain.
The Diva/Heroine
“I would rather hurt a man than love a woman.” – Cactus Jack
The diva/heroine is often the source of the conflict between the polarized male figures. When the diva/heroine is present, “the conflict and excitement of the melodrama grew from the fragility of both the heroine’s position and the concept of virtue she represented” (Grimsted 174). Indisputably the most beloved and well-known Diva of professional wrestling is Elizabeth Hulette, most affectionately referred to as “Miss Elizabeth.” The virtue of Miss Elizabeth was never questioned, even when she did wrong. She was the perfect heroine for the melodrama of professional wrestling. Miss Elizabeth was the manager and main squeeze of “Macho Man” Randy Savage. In 1986 a major storyline was developed around the virtue of Miss Elizabeth and a yearlong battle between George “The Animal” Steele and Macho Man. The Animal fell in love with Miss Elizabeth, which made Macho Man very angry and over a year long battle ensued for her affection. Macho Man, a Babyface, had to battle The Animal because “between the villain and the heroine, morally and often physically, stood, the hero” (Gimsted 179). The Heroine’s great melodramatic dilemma of a, “woman’s natural enemy took the same form as her natural protector” (Grimsted 175). Miss Elizabeth had a Babyface and Heel battling over her, and both were men.
The diva/heroine is the central figure, driving force, for these battles between good and evil, “virtue and the heroine stood almost indistinguishable at the center of the melodrama, the one a personification of the other” (Grimsted 171). While the Diva/Heroine is central to the advancement of action and storyline, she is at the same time side-lined by the men. She must stand ringside to watch her protector and her enemy battle; however, “when faced with open attack on her chastity the frail vessel of woman became an iron virgin” (Grimsted 176). When pushed too far Miss Elizabeth was not adverse to pulling a baseball bat on a heel or breaking a plate over any villain’s head that would not let her virtue reign.
The Smack Down
“I guess you could call that poetry in motion.” – Jess Ventura
When professional wrestlers enter the arena they are brought in by their own music. The spectators know who is coming by the music. The most famous entrances are done by babyface Shawn Michaels. When the upbeat theme music of his starts to play the crowd goes wild, they know that the hero is arriving. The same goes for melodrama. The name for melodrama comes from melody + drama. Trumpets would blare when the hero entered, or dark menacing music to warn the audience that the villain is about to enter.
Melodrama akin to pro wrestling sets out to polarize the constituents. They set out to create such a divide between good and evil that they seem irreconcilable “and then sustaining their interdependent relationship within a shared structure. Melodrama [Wrestling] provides a paradoxical means of resolving fundamental contradictions” (Mason 16). Hulk Hogan chanting U-S-A while Nikolai Volkoff sings the Soviet National Anthem sets the stage for the drama to unfold. The audience is able to instantly recognize the self from the other or good from evil. And good(self)always triumphs over evil(other). Sharon Mazer sums the drama of professional wrestling:
Thus, a professional wrestling match may be described in conventional dramatic terms. There is a central conflict between to people (generally men) representing distinct moral poles. Each articulates his stance in an alternating series of pre-event televised verbal attacks and live matches which allow the spectators to become familiar with his character and especially, to identify him as a good guy or bad guy. This conflict builds to the actual live bout, a climatic event that ends either tragically- the bad guy wins by cheating- or with a comic reassurance of the good guy’s- and by extension the audience’s- rightness (101).
The theatricality of professional wrestling is evident in all aspects of the show. The ring, the wrestlers, and the gaze of spectator all contribute to the theatricality. The ring evokes certain emotions before the wrestlers have even arrived. The appearance of the wrestlers make it so the space has become distinctly theatrical. And the knowing gaze of the spectator makes it false and therefore theatrical. These wrestlers, these athletes, perform their skills with flare for the theatrical. The 18th century melodrama is not lost nor is Brecht’s vision for theatre. The bare stage and the intermingling between the actors and the audience are Brechtian. However, the characters are classic 18th century melodrama archetypes. The hero comes in to the cheers of the crowd to defeat the villain and protect the heroine’s virtue. Despite professional wrestling’s conventional characters it is hardly conventional theatre. The precise skill and athleticism to this form of theatre make it unique and gripping. To pile drive this home, we will conclude with a quote from Tracy Davis about melodrama:
Melodramatic drama and performance are faulted not only for the surplus of emotionalism and spectacular dramatic action but also for the lack of truthful representation. And yet this surplus maybe precisely what makes theatre (or opera and dance [and wrestling]) gripping, providing the thrill of difficult accomplishment and uncommon talent that catapults a viewer into pleasures that derive from abandonment of certain restraints (Davis 21).
Professional wrestling is theatre of uncompromised precision and skill.
Bibliography
Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht on Theatre. Trans. John Willett. London: Methuen Limited, 2001. Print.
Conan, Neal. “An Inside Look at Professional Wrestling.” Talk of the nation. National Public Radio. Washington DC, 5 Apr. 2007. Radio.
Corvin, Michel. Dictionnaire Encyclopedique du Theatre. Paris: Bordas, 1991.
Davis, Tracy C. Theatricality. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.
Fèral, Josette. “Theatricality: The Specificity of Theatrical Language.” SubStance 2/3 31.98/99 (2002): 94-108. Print.
Grimsted, David. Melodrama Unveiled: American Theater and Culture 1800-1850. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Hays, Michael, and Anastasia Nikolopoulou, eds. Melodrama the cultural emergence of a genre. New York: St. Martin’s, 1996. Print.
Jestrovic, Silvija. “Theatricality as Estrangement of Art and Life in the Russian Avant-Garde.” SubStance 2/3 31.98/99 (2002): 42-56. Print.
Kerrick, George E. “The Jargon of Professional Wrestling.” American Speech 55.2 (1980): 142-45. Print.
King, Larry. “Fight Night.” Larry King Live. CNN. Los Angeles, California, 27 Mar. 2008. Television.
Kreit, Alex. “Professional Wrestling and its Fans.” Solie’s Vintage Wrestling. Jump City Productions, 1998. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. <solie.org>.
Library.thinkquest.org/3369/wrestle/history.htm
Magnat, Virginie. “Theatricality from the Performative Perspective.” SubStance 2/3 31.98/99 (2002): 147-66. Print.
Mason, Jeffrey D. Melodrama and the myth of America. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1993. Print.
Mazer, Sharon. “The Doggie Doggie World of Professional Wrestling.” The Drama Review: TDR 34.4 (1990): 96-122. Print.
Meyerhold, Vsevolod. Meyerhold on Theatre. Trans. Edward Braun. London: Methuen Limited, 1969. Print.
Mondak, Jeffery J. “The Politics of Professional Wrestling.” Journal of Popular Culture 23.2 (1989): 139-49. Print.
Mumford, Meg. Bertolt Brecht (Routledge Modern and Contemporary Dramatists). New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.
Payne, John. The Signet Ring. New York, 1823. Print.
Reinelt, Janelle. “The Politics of Discourse: Performativity Meets Theatricality.” SubStance 2/3 31.98/99 (2002): 201-15. Print.
Somma, Robert. “Rock Theatricality.” The Drama Review: TDR 14.1 (1969): 128-38. Print.
Stanislavsy, Konstantin. Konstantin Stanislavsky. Trans. Vladimir Yankilevsky. Moscow: Raduga, 1984. Print.
White, William C. The Clergyman’s Daughter. Boston: Joshua Belcher, 1810.
Williams, Linda. Playing the race card melodramas of black and white from Uncle Tom to O.J. Simpson. Princeton, N.J: Princeton UP, 2001. Print.
World Wrestling Entertainment. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <wwe.com>.
[1] The interview with Vince McMahon, Triple H, John Cena, Big Show, and other can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKZ5bDklDJg
[2] Entire drama can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H04XhV5_KSI
