Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kane Knight
Yeah, terrorists aren't syjmpathetic characters. If they were, they'd be "freedom fighters."
|
True, but the context here is entertainment and, particularly, pro-wrestling, which has always thrived on carnivalesque, larger-than-life stereotypes. Characters can be complex, but the plot of any pro-wrestling feud has to be good guy vs. bad guy; shades of gray can make a feud interesting, but ultimately, the crowd wants to know who to cheer for.
Look at, say, William Regal. At its simplest, his gimmick is that he's British. If he's a heel, he's a stodgy and arrogant cur; if he's a good guy, he's still got the same gimmick, but it's sold to the audience differently - his aloofness and dry wit are depicted as good things, because he's a good guy. (Who was it, again, that defined morality by the person performing the action, rather than the action itself? The ancient Greeks, perhaps?)
Getting back to the subject, Hassan is already a bad guy, so anything he's gonna do is gonna be bad. If we were supposed to see the other side, he'd be booked as a face, and would, perhaps, be dubbed a "freedom fighter." In order to have the good-vs-evil storyline that drives virtually evey wrestling feud (and just about any non-love-story out there), both we and the WWE have to acknowledge that it's just a simple form of entertainment (which it seems they did, by not attempting to blur the line for the sake of realism).