This is the second article in a series where I’ll be talking about TNA Wrestling in a way I don’t believe anyone has before. Click here to read my basis for this argument and the first article in the series.
You would think TNA’s signing of Hulk Hogan in late 2009 would mean that his vision would be implanted on their business. And while that might be true to some extent (all signs point to Hogan in ridding TNA of their 6-sided ring), 2010’s brand of TNA television was largely shaped by Eric Bischoff, and predominantly by a side program that didn’t exist a year ago and doesn’t exist now.
Here’s what I said about Reaction a few months ago when it was still on the air:1
On a typical wrestling show, the audience is the extra figure, the guiding spirit of the program. Everything is to please or provoke the audience, to deliver and pull emotion and ultimately catharsis. TNA Reaction is different, because there is no audience. It is the camera that assumes a character, pulling and pushing on the tensions and emotions of the wrestlers it shoots. That’s why Reaction is so interesting. It’s the first wrestling program in 50 years that isn’t a documentary that dispels the audience and creates a new way of looking at our art.
The program was flawed in many ways, perhaps mostly because it was seen by most as a recap show using footage they had literally just seen. But I saw it in the way Eric probably envisioned: a replacement, not an augmentation. I think Eric wanted to make TNA television Reaction-only, and that would have been great.
There are three major complaints about the way TNA does television: their TV matches don’t last very long, their stories are often too rushed to make any sense, and their climatic moments are often on free TV, making their PPVs seem underwhelming (even though that’s where the good TNA wrestling matches are). If the TV show was Reaction instead of Impact, all three of those problems would (in theory) be solved.
For those who didn’t see the show, Reaction was a one-hour program that aired right after Impact, often with no segue. The show featured lengthy interviews, replay footage with additional narration, and extra content that added layers and context to stories. It was also home to a select few backstage fights and post-match injury fallouts (Ken Anderson’s concussion was far more intense on Reaction than Impact). If you’re thinking “DVD special features” you’re not far off, but it worked in its own way.
There were two elements to the architecture of Reaction that pushed the medium of pro wrestling on TV. The first was how the characters were portrayed. Although everyone stayed in character, every featured player was given significant talking time, sometimes as much as 15 minutes. In that time, everyone grew and became far more three-dimensional. They couldn’t help it. Segments that got three minutes on Impact or PPV would get 10 on Reaction, causing this interesting divide in the audience. The opinions of people who watched only Impact were far different of those those watched both, or only ReAction. TNA as a serial storytelling device was expanded.
The second was the use of the Canon 5D Mark II, a DSLR camera that shot HD at 24fps. You never think about camera equipment in wrestling, and that’s because the technology has stayed about the same ever since TV became a thing.2 The Canon camera provided a start contrast to what you’d think wrestling TV should look like. Though I can understand how many wouldn’t enjoy the style choice, I found the camera to be the best new thing in TNA last year. Footage was purposely grainy, sometimes out of focus, sometimes too close to an eye or a cut, but always interesting.
It’s actually difficult to explain in words how Reaction’s camera changed how I felt toward’s TNA’s performers. It made them feel human, vulnerable, even frail. Kurt Angle and Ken Anderson especially. I felt for them so much more than I had before. Matt Morgan also benefited. The “bad guys” of TNA weren’t quite as entertaining, as they would use their time simply to further agendas rather than show new sides.
Reaction had a slew of problems. The first 10 minutes were often the end of an Impact match. The narrative would include way too much replay footage of what we literally just saw. And while some performers shined under the new look, others just looked ridiculous (Abyss and Hardy being the most clownish examples). But what if Reaction was TNA’s only television show? As I said before, you would have to order their PPV to get the good wrestling, the fresh angles, and the in-ring stuff. Wrestlers would have more time out of the ring, but more time in front of the camera making us care about them. Reaction’s cameras sometimes visited the homes of the performers and showed us their families. It showed us their injuries, their trophies, their skin. I have to think that’s what the eventual goal was.
***
2 Yes, okay, the shift to HD was big, as it brought widescreen, better audio video. But it didn’t change how people looked, though it did make several wrestlers change their stance on body hair.
***
K Sawyer Paul is an author and publisher living in Toronto. He tweets and tumbls. In the wrestling world he is known for This is Sports Entertainment and The Footnotes of Wrestling.
Edited by Jason Mann.
