Article: Spending Time with Mr McMahon

This blog rarely talks about television. However, as a lapsed fan of sports entertainment, I took the time to binge-watch the recent release of Netflix’s limited series documentary Mr McMahon. This in-depth look at Vince McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment owner, has coincided with the WWE merging with Zuffa, creating the new company TKO. The WWE’s flagship show, RAW, is also soon to be appearing on Netflix. However, during the 3-year filming of Chris Smith’s documentary, McMahon resigned from TKO after allegations of sexual assault and sex trafficking. Rather than throwing the series into disarray, the documentary is updated with details of the allegations. Most of the interviews that appear in the series are shown before the allegations with Vince’s final interviews never taking place.

The six-episode docuseries delivers an overview of his life. Detailing how he took the once territorial wrestling federation from his father, turning it into a global entertainment phenomenon. It also charts the creation of Mr McMahon; a wildly exaggerated television character of Vince who plays the main villain for the WWE. Mr McMahon asks whether there’s a difference between Vince the character and Vince the man. 

Considering the real-life allegations now attributed to Vince, the differences seem slight. Early on, Vince remarks that he doesn’t want to show anybody the real him. This is an unfortunate remark as Vince’s own self-aggrandising ego, toxic masculinity and unrepentant capitalist viewpoint underline his true nature at nearly every turn. While many of the film’s interviewees have an alliance with Vince, the documentary has done enough homework to highlight much of Vince’s questionable behaviour. And the term questionable is too light a word. When under the microscope Vince can be seen as a vicious Tyrant who rules over his bread and circus soap opera with an iron fist and engorged loins. No one is really spared from his oppressiveness, wiliness or lack of moral fibre. Huge musclebound Titans shed a tear for Vince at points. Granted that this takes place before the allegations and stepping down, it’s still hard not to see this as Stockholm Syndrome.

Like so many Netflix documentaries, Mr McMahon is hampered by how it is presented. It’s clear that many livelihoods have been lost or destroyed due to Vince’s actions, yet there isn’t a lot of breathing space for those who have suffered over Vince’s tyranny. Instead, the questionable antics are almost shrugged off with arguments over different values. Possibly because there’s so much dirt and there’s only so much time. This becomes tough to swallow during the midway point when the tragic story of Owen Hart comes to the forefront. The Hart family have suffered great turmoil under the WWE, with Owen’s death being the peak of their heartbreak. Listening to Bret speak about his dealings with Vince and the WWE is still as troubling as it was in the 90s. The fact that Owen dies on a live pay-per-view and Vince orders the show to continue speaks volumes. The images of distressed wrestlers continuing to fight over the only just dried blood stains of their dead friend are more haunting than any horror film. Yet that might even be the worst of it.  

But the difficulty here lies with the talking heads who still favour Vince. To many, Vince McMahon is still seen as a father figure who launched their careers. Countless people owe Vince for where they are today. Late on, Senior Vice President Bruce Pritchard takes offence to what he’s seen from the documentary, with a strong feeling that the only things the filmmakers are doing are showing Vince as a villain. Pritchard notes how Vince ensured the best care available for his wife who was diagnosed with cancer. The defence given feels like the moments in Peter Biskind’s Down and Dirty Pictures in which filmmakers who found success with disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein still gave him an amount of protection despite his bullying. With this, Mr McMahon has more of an element of balance than expected at times, because so many of the ex-wrestlers interviewed don’t hold a grudge against Vince, because why would they? 

For wrestling fans, Mr McMahon doesn’t tell you anything they already don’t know. Those who didn’t realise how much of a conceited megalomanic Vince McMahon is will be shocked at what they see. The film only drains half of the swampy waters. Some will be shocked at how guarded Vince is. Many more sordid details could easily be found on the many well-researched YouTube channels or by listening to the 4-episode deep dive of McMahon on the Behind the Bastards podcast. But those other outlets aren’t as slick. The backing that Netflix provides, softens matters because, as mentioned, the company now have a stake in the WWE. So, the documentary becomes a history highlight reel of Vince and the WWE for the uninitiated.

However, Vince’s corrupted story of the American dream plays out on a scale as large as films such as There Will Be Blood (2007) or Citizen Kane (1941). Honestly. Vincent Kennady McMahon’s story is that operatic. He is Daniel Plainview for the lovers of spandex. Nothing stands in his way. With pop culture influenced in ways many couldn’t even imagine. As a docu-series, with the interviewees that Smith manages to sign off and get time with, Mr McMahon is the most comprehensive, mainstream look at the WWE of recent times.

Wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer, who is often a voice of reason through the series, delivers a throwaway comment which rings true not only about Vince and wrestling fans but also the complicated relationship that many have with celebrity idols: “People will support an entertainment product and not care about the moral fibre of the guy running the product.” It’s not a profound statement, but an incredibly accurate judgment on where many are with modern celebrity culture. An unexpected moment in a series full of expected moments for wrestling fans.

Mr McMahon is streaming on Netflix

Dug what you read? Support me on Ko-fi

Review: The Master

Year: 2012
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Screenplay: Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Laura Dern

Synopsis is here:

To many, The Master is a difficult film to love or even like. The characters we meet are not ones we would want to be cornered by at a dinner party. We observe within the film, more than enough scenes of these people gatherings just to be sure. And yet, the film, even at its most obtuse and surreal, remains utterly compelling. If one thing is for sure, it shows again that Anderson is obsessed with trying to charm us with charlatans and fallen angels.

In The Master we are given Freddie Quell (A career best Phoenix), a man who would have been completely swallowed up by his surroundings, if not for his violent and drunken outbursts against them. The film's beginning, we find Freddie; simulate sex on a sand woman made on the beach. One could say he's literally fucking Mother Nature. Of course the question is why would you do that, if you weren't quite right?

Quell sticks out. Is he mentally ravaged by war? Has destroyed his faculties with those poisonous (made with paint thinner) brews of his? Did he spend too much time away from his sweetheart? We are never given solid grounding on his ailments and yet we are shown enough to show how damaged Quell has become since the war. A blanketed statement mentions early on that those returning from the war should be able to start small businesses and perform labour, in spite of what they may have seen. But what of those who have lost more than others? It's clear from Quell's posture alone that he is a misshapen man. The erratic episodes and outbursts we see only solidify our thoughts.

By chance, Quell meets the enigmatic Lancaster Todd, leader of "The Cause", a bizarre quasi religion based around a glut of peculiar principles and rituals that are never truly explained to us. Todd is a classic Anderson character; a father figure who promises atonement with words as sweet as syrup. No different from The Porn Mogul (Boogie Nights), or The Oil Man (There Will Be Blood), Todd is so wrapped up in his words, he believes he could sell brimstone to Satan. Todd decides to take Quell on board as a protégée, as clear testament, that the teachings and practices from his book can cure even the most distraught.

Hoffman plays Todd as smoke and mirrors personified. All darting eyes and false grins and much like Quell, he is quick to anger when tested. Although they meet by chance, there is a feeling of fatalism about the situation. We delve very little into his past and yet when he states that he's seen Freddie before, the empty spaces begin to fill in. It's interesting to observe how both Todd and his wife Peggy (an exemplary Amy Adams in full Lady Macbeth mode) look at alcohol. A small bathroom scene involving the Todds shows that despite the grand gestures, Lancaster is ruled by the same masters that rule many of us.

These are primal men ruled and controlled by their urges. While Todd tries to internalise and intellectualise his baser appetites, Quell spills his out on the floor like Freudian vomit. Together their fragments complete a damaged father-son relationship Anderson's films often feature. Quell seeks guidance, Todd wishes to be that superior leader that fathers may wishes to be, the raconteur at the family wedding, the all knowing and great auditor. And yet, the two of them being together, tugs at both of their frayed edges. Many scenes bind the stress in stifling close up. Mihai Malaimare's arresting cinematography and Jonny Greenwoods hypnotic score create a sense of unease that travels from scene to scene. Like a car crash, there's something so hauntingly beautiful about the ugliness of human behaviour is captured in the film, it's hard to turn away when the spinning tops clash.

Much has been said about the films references to Scientology, as well as how damning its statements are. While the film isn't a glistening expose of all things bad about the religion, I'm in no way shocked at the reaction of a certain practitioner of the faith. The Cause's processing appears very similar to auditing, while a tense sequence, involving Todd's son in law throwing Quell's personal problems (extracted from the process) back at him, illustrates the type of fears brought up by many when the mentioning of auditing arises. What makes these moments of the film so appealing to me is in how non-judgemental the film is towards the faith.  The film holds a mirror to the audiences’ thoughts of not only The Cause, but the self help/spiritual courses that The Cause picks from.

Does this all add up to a great film? To many, they will see nothing and the film is more basic that it leads on (certainly in its narrative form). The Master at times can appear as much of a muchness. Anderson's films of the past may have been more forceful in their eras and the film is so wrapped up with these people and their vulgarities, it feels sparse and at times distancing, while its main message doesn't feel as complex as suggested.

However in the opinion of this blogger, the film is a truly exciting work of craft. A character piece in which its mesmerizing visuals are punctuated by its blinding tension. The Master is a tale of damaged men searching for inner peace in all the wrong places. To wonder why it doesn't all "fit in" to a comfortable narrative space, almost mimics why the hunched and sick Quell does just "fit in" with all the rest of Middle America. The Master takes a while to state it's case, but Anderson's execution of material is absorbing throughout.

2008 Film Review Catch Up (Very Brief)

I have not got around to review some of the films I watched this year due to a mixture of changing jobs, having a girlfriend, having a life outside my computer and of course god damn laziness.

So here's a quick update on what I saw (from ages ago btw) and if I enjoyed it:

The Dark Knight: So good i watched it twice at the cinema. The perfect batman film with the perfect joker and a script which not only riffs on the most influential dark knight comics but on a rich cinematic tapestry. The opening scene alone homages Micheal Mann on pitch perfect form. It's performances and set pieces eradicate any source of bum ache. One of the best films of the year.

Sweeney Todd: An odd beast. Like all Burton films it looks grand and the obligatory Johnny Depp performance is oddball by the way of Jack Sparrow, but the film is ultimately very shallow and lacks the charm that would keep me coming back for repeat viewings. The songs are sung well enough but nothing too memorable. Once again for true Burton fans.

Be Kind Rewind: Quirky, breezy and amusing, Be Kind could do with the Kaufman touch and a less restrained Jack Black, however Mos Def proves that he's not only a solid actor but could carry a bigger film if he tried. While the story is cute but not too sweet on the tooth. If anything it's worth watching for the "sweded" videos

There Will Be Blood: The most intense character study I've seen in a while. Daniel Day Lewis brings about a performance with the force of two tornadoes. His titanic performance is only heightened by the gorgeous cinematography (Robert Elswit) and the haunting score (Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood). The ending is so brutal and manic it hurts. Anderson's film is complex, richly layered and painfully compelling. This is also one of the best films I've seen this year.

Adulthood: Whilst the story is moderately weaker than the first film (Kidulthood). Writer/Director/Star Noel Clarke shows how multi-talented he can be. Clarke's sequel maintains a lot of the grit and British "charm" which made the first film more watchable than people would like to let on. If Clarke chills out with the OTT editing gimmicks (split screens) he can make himself to be one of the most interesting young British directors on the scene.


Well there! Due to lack of funds I've not been watching many recently released flicks as of late but now I'm more stable, expect some more in depth reviews soon. When I get time around i may even finish the five above!