Open Forum Friday: Should Wrestlers Be a Part of the Screen Actor’s Guild?
With all the speculation about Mickey Rourke possibly participating in Wrestlemania this week, it reminded me of an interesting discussion that came up back in December when Darren Aronofsky was doing press interviews to promote The Wrestler. He mentioned in a few different places that he thinks that wrestlers should be entitled to the benefits of being in the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG), because what they do is essentially a combination of stuntwork and acting in front of a camera. He was quoted in The Onion AV Club as saying the following:
“They’re not organized, they have no pension, no health care, so many of them are tragically dying at a young age. I was talking to Mickey, ‘Why aren’t wrestlers in SAG?’ If you really think about it, the Screen Actors Guild should organize them. I shouldn’t let Vince hear that. But they’re performing in front of a camera, and stuntmen are SAG.”
So, if wrestlers are actors, then why is it considered to be beneath Rourke to appear in an actual wrestling match, yet perfectly fine to play one in a movie? Is there a difference between professional wrestling and professional acting? Clearly there is more emphasis on physical ability in pro wrestling, and in the case of Rourke, he wasn’t just adopting a wrestling persona, but also playing the man behind the tights. On the other hand, we’ve seen wrestlers go on to have serious acting careers in Hollywood (although none have been nominated for any Oscars that I’m aware of). Should wrestlers be considered artists and entertainers, or are they athletes first and foremost? Do they deserve more respect for their craft? Should they be a part of SAG? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (5)
I think there’s a barrier with wrestlers being considered actors because of the audience they play to who, frequently, think what they’re witnessing is real (that is, not staged). If wrestlers get SAG cards, how does that alter the audience experience? How does that altered audience experience change the nature of the “sport” itself?
I think the other thing is that while it is in front of a camera, it’s also a live event first and foremost, sort of like a theatre performance that gets taped and broadcast elsewhere (or those Metropolitan Opera performances they now play in multiplexes). Obviously in theatre or opera the performers are thought of by the audience from the get go to be actors, but I’m wondering how that necessarily works in terms of whether or not being filmed during a live performance qualifies someone to be part of SAG. (Maybe they have a separate union for these things, I don’t know.)
Posted by Liz on January 30th, 2009Wait, are you telling me that wrestling is an act? Are you saying that it is fake? You just blew my mind. Jesus, you might as well go driving around with a loudspeaker telling all the kids in your neighborhood that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist!
Posted by Joel on January 31st, 2009Wrestling is considered a sport and when football players and basked ball players get a SAG card then wrestlers should also.
Posted by swarez on January 31st, 2009It always baffles the mind how these spammers work. I mean does this actually work? Do people follow those links they provide?
Posted by swarez on January 31st, 2009“the audience they play to who, frequently, think what they’re witnessing is real (that is, not staged)”
I really don’t think anyone over the age of 7 believe it’s real…at least I hope not.
Having to pay SAG minimums would definitely help those not in the WWE (I dunno what percentage of paid wrestlers that would be or how much those guys already get paid).
Perhaps these older gents need to prepare for the inevitable day they absolutely cannot wrestle and SAG would definitely help them retire…then again I saw Beyond the Mat and if Jake the Snake was in SAG those barnyard organizers would probably just go for Joe Schmo.
We need Greg on this one.
Posted by Ryan M. on January 31st, 2009Leave a Reply