Does anyone else think that Professional Wrestling falls under the common definition of Theatre that most of us use?
1. Pro Wrestling has lines, characters and stories.
2. Pro Wrestling constructs dramatic narratives.
3. Pro Wrestling has actors (such as they are.)
4. (here's the kicker) Pro Wrestling is inherently live. It cannot function without interaction between an audience and the live performer. Imagine it without a live audience.
5. Pro Wrestling is as "real" as any play or musical.
What else, exactly, defines theatre?
I think it's important to remember that theatre is not an inherently upper class behavior, and requires exactly (apparently) no knowledge of literature or scholarly background to engage in it.
And if what I'm saying is correct...I demand Ben Brantley, Charles Isherwood or Jason Zioman review the next WWE show that comes to Madison Square Garden.
Come on. It would be brilliant.
- Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.