Hello reader! This is week 14 of my year-long WWE Characterisation project. A little reminder, here I offer ‘cold’ analysis based on what’s presented to us on-screen. I am solely interested in the different ways character is presented to us, and how character arcs emerge. Let’s get into the action this week.
Seth Rollins – Raw
During Rollins’ promo with Solo Sikoa, an issue that has dominated previous weeks – collectivism vs individualism – rears its head again, as Sikoa offers to help Rollins at Summerslam. “Maybe we work together, we could do something special, man,” Rollins says, staying open to his collectivist approach from the early summer: working together, forming professional relationships. Much like his relationship with the Street Profits, any alliance with Sikoa would be strategic and goal-oriented.
Rollins then acts as provocateur – first by taking the opportunity to attack Jacob Fatu in the ring, then by insulting him backstage. However, Rollins then doesn’t back down from prospect of a fight. This appears to fuse a more noble version of Rollins with his past self.
Perhaps the most interesting part of this week’s analysis is the short videos setting out key episodes from the Rollins/Reigns history. This week these videos briefly relive Rollins’ ‘Heist of the Century’ Money in the Bank cash-in at WrestleMania 31, then the Shield’s reunion. These videos use camera angles not normally used on Raw/SmackDown/PLEs. This, along with the camera’s soft focus, offers a heavily stylised, romanticised history. There’s an epic quality to the events, maybe playing into The Odyssey’s summer film release. Also, Rollins’ dialogue has a film noir quality:
- “It was the right time, the right guy and the right moment”.
- “As I ran down that ramp, I could barely feel the ground beneath me. I was floating.”
- “We don’t bend. We don’t crack.” “We got the band back together, but it never felt right.”
Taken in isolation, these could be lines of a hard-boiled 1940s detective. And so they invoke the cynicism and moral ambiguity associated with this genre. Rollins brings into his feud with Reigns not just cynicism and moral ambiguity, but the weight and lessons of history. The idea of determinism is at play here – things could not have happened any other way. And perhaps Rollins’ fate is already written in the stars.
Jade Cargill – SmackDown
This week, Cargill and her ‘baddies’ interfere in Charlotte Flair’s match, allowing Flair to progress from a competition standpoint, yet inflicting physical damage on her. This shows that Cargill’s emotions run stronger than rules or opportunity. Though the Cargill character values competition and dominance highly, which suggests discipline, her ego undermines this and ultimately controls her actions. Note that again there’s no narrative escalation here – events are very similar to last week.*
*Breaking ‘cold analysis’ character for a second – please don’t think I’m deprioritising the Cargill analysis. With SmackDown moving to two hours, she is appearing in fewer segments. And week to week, these segments are so similar that it’s tough to find new things to say. Next week and the PLE should be much better.
Remember, next week after Summerslam, I’ll be reflecting on the first quarter of this year-long project. I’ll be identifying trends in narrative form, and trying to relate that to the character arcs. These findings will be part-shown in graph form – woo hoo! – with a scientific approach, as well as reflections from my perspective as a fan. Until then…
Work Shoot Confessional 
Leave a comment