Performance signs and call-and-response: Week 2 – Characterisation Project

Seth Rollins (Monday Night Raw)

Credit: WWE

Rollins’ entrance is an interesting place to start this week’s close-reading. The 27 April edition of Monday Night Raw is opened by Seth Rollins, which is traditionally, along with the main event, the most-viewed segment of the show. In that sense, this is a signal of Rollins’ status. Though the Seth Rollins character ended the previous week’s show on notes of anger then pain, his entrance is upbeat. He runs through his typical call-and-response routine with the crowd, encouraging them to sing his theme song, saluting his pyro, inviting their adulation; at this stage there are few signs of anger, or a lust for revenge. Instead, call-and-response routines reaffirm the over-the-top nature of pro-wrestling, the need for the performer to connect with the live audience, the clear divisions of face versus heel. This draws us away from impressions of authentic emotion, in which an individual, overcome by their feelings, retreats into their ‘authentic selves’.

A performance of anger does eventually arrive when Rollins begins his promo, and especially once adversary Breakker joins him in the ring. In this case, the signs include flared nostrils, closing his eyes as if reimagining or re-experiencing the physical pain inflicted on him by Breakker, grinding his teeth, running his tongue along his teeth. By this stage, framing comes via the in-ring camera, close-up shots, accentuating these performance signs. But how could we read the juxtaposition of these performance signs with the call-and-response routine? Perhaps this is an indication of pro-wrestling’s inherent friction between reality and fiction. Although everything we are seeing is performative, of course, the juxtaposition of call-and-response with clear performance signs could render Rollins’ ‘authentic’ emotions more ‘authentic’. 

Though I’d argue Rollins’ performance signs do not invoke anything near resembling authenticity, in the closing of the dialogue exchange, Rollins does intrude on ‘reality’ territory. He does this by referencing Breakker’s pro-wrestling family, namely his father Rick Steiner and uncle Scott Steiner: “That was pretty good, baby Steiner”. Breakker’s choice of a different performance name suggests a diversion from his family history, but Rollins, the babyface, drags us back into reality territory. As with last week, when the form of Rollins’ attack rewarded viewers aware of his history with the Shield, this week the viewers’ historical and beyond-the-screen knowledge is rewarded, and they channel the excitement of that reward into support of Rollins’ character. 

Another key element of Rollins’ character is reinforced this week by the commentators, namely his history of betraying his allies. Given Breakker’s betrayal of Rollins, this might invite us to identify a karmic-type narrative, but instead Rollins’ character espouses the neoliberal value of individualism. In this spirit, he claims he had no choice but to ‘bet on himself.’ And this, he tells us, stands in opposition to Breakker’s route into the business through his father and uncle. Therefore, Rollins’ individualism offers an illusion of a working-class struggle, a heroic overcoming of the odds, while conversely playing into ideas of meritocracy and ruthlessness more directly associated with corporate strategy and neoliberalism. A final point on this: as we cut to a medium camera shot, allowing for a physical comparison between Rollins and Breakker, Rollins demands a confession from Breakker regarding his betrayal: “What did you get out of it? How did it benefit you in any way?” What emerges from this part of the exchange are the dualisms of friendship/teamwork (Breakker) vs individualism (Rollins), master (Rollins) vs apprentice (Breakker), delegation (Rollins) vs self-sufficiency/responsibility (Breakker). Note that the babyface Rollins does not always occupy the moral ground we might expect. Viewing pro-wrestling through a neoliberal lens, as I have started to do above, could shed light on this. But I want to wait until next week and a point of climax of the feud (premium live event, Backlash) to further judge these character elements.

Finally, note that once again, by the end of the show, Rollins is shown as physically inferior to Breakker. This provides an obstacle for his character to overcome in the weeks ahead.

Jade Cargill (Friday Night Smackdown)

Credit F4W/WON

As with last week, Cargill and her friends were not present on Smackdown. This deepens the space we’re afforded to speculate on the moral and professional motives for Cargill’s absence and the implications for her character. As the weeks go by, this increasingly invites a reading of vulnerability, or shame, which may invite audience sympathy.

It’s also worth pointing out that in her absence, the debuting three-woman faction Fatal Influence have occupied the space vacated by Cargill, even carrying out very similar attacks on Cargill’s enemy, Rhea Ripley. This also invites speculation on Cargill’s moral position, given it’s unlikely that two heel factions would fight over the same narrative ground, leaving the audience without a hero to root for. Finally, the space from Cargill’s character also plays into an ‘absence makes the heart grow fonder’ dynamic, allowing the audience time to revalue Cargill as a performer.