Stephanie McMahon garners a lot of criticism for her heel work on WWE television. But that’s only because she doesn’t play off her strengths.
Let me start off this article by prefacing something very important.
You and I, gentle reader, are going to share the next 1,200 words-or-so about Stephanie McMahon’s on-air Raw character, not her off-camera person or her role as Chief Brand Officer of WWE. I have no doubt she has a good mind for business and she does good by associating the WWE with great causes and charities.
Now that’s out of the way, let’s get to the meat of the situation: Stephanie McMahon is not a good heel.
See, “getting boos” is not an indication of “good heel work.” Sure, at its most basic understanding, you can take getting strong negative reactions as a barometer of how well you’re doing your heel job. But history has shown us that there is such a thing as being despised for just showing up as opposed to people loving your work as a dastardly villain (see Pac, X). This is especially true if your heel role never helps elevate the babyfaces, which is an issue that constantly comes up when discussing Stephanie.
But it can be fixed. There are ways that Stephanie McMahon can be a better heel instead of just being reviled.
Credit: WWE.com
STORYTELLING ONE-OH-ONE
First and foremost, let’s ensure we’re all on equal footing by agreeing with the following statement: Wrestling is one part athleticism and one part storytelling.
When telling a story, one must have a plot. In every plot, there is conflict. Any novelist, screenwriter, playwright or greeting card author will tell you that without conflict, there is no plot. The presence of an antagonist is essential for the typical formula of a plot, which just happens to be the very basis of most wrestling angles: The antagonist opposes the protagonist, creating conflict and a struggle.
The operating term here is “struggle.” We get behind our protagonists (babyfaces in wrestlespeak) because of the obstacles they have to overcome to foil their antagonist (the heel). This can have positive or negative outcomes for our hero, but when properly done, everyone reaps the rewards (a moment of glory or sympathy for the hero, or accrued dislike for the villain).
Stephanie avoids true conflict resolution. Her opposition is often discredited and demolished without there being a satisfying conclusion in which the babyfaces get even. See recent examples of Mick Foley’s dressing down and subsequent firing, or her torment of Seth Rollins leading into WrestleMania (no, an “accidental” bump through a table isn’t a payoff).
DON’T BE LIKE DAD
First of all, she can stop trying to be like her dad.
One of the things that irk me most about Stephanie McMahon is how much she tries to be Lil’ Mr. McMahon. She throws her authority around, she makes sweeping proclamations and she never misses an opportunity to remind people she’s the boss. Just like Vince did in the Mr. McMahon persona we all remember so fondly.
However, Stephanie does not have the natural abilities that Vince has to pull it off. The charismatic bluster, the bombast, the larger-than-life stature, the authoritative vocal baritones that could devolve into a gravelly scrape: These are elements you can’t learn. Vincent Kennedy McMahon used his natural strengths to create a character that convinced us of what he is capable of. Stephanie does not have that same authoritative presence. This doesn’t mean she cannot be in a position of authority, but trying to copy/paste the Mr. McMahon blueprint comes up short because it’s missing the natural ingredients that made it work.
There are other ways to come off as the boss rather than being a loud, swaggering, in-your-face figure. Why not be a conniving manipulator who always seems to be a step ahead of everyone? Why not a disquieting, always-smiling, everything-is-fine corporate figure who always seems to have a sinister, seething undercurrent? Stephanie could gain so much more than trying to be as huge as her dad.
SHOW A VULNERABLE SIDE
On the other hand, there is one thing she should do more like Mr. McMahon: be vulnerable.
Stephanie McMahon is like a Teflon tank with a forcefield. Nothing sticks, nothing gets through. She’s more than resistant, she’s invulnerable to any and all attacks. She doesn’t trade barbs with others, she dominates arguments. She will strike at the integrity of those she opposes but they never get to throw any real shade that will send her reeling. Nothing gets to her. She just shrugs and smirks it off and comes back swinging.
I get it, she’s the boss, but this is a fictional setting. No, you probably wouldn’t insult your actual boss at your actual work. But in a fictional setting, storytelling needs to take the front seat to any “real-life” codes of conduct. Storytelling needs conflict. Storytelling needs a struggle. Storytelling needs heroes that can be identified with.
Vince wasn’t afraid of being vulnerable. He understood that a good heel character was only as good as letting the babyfaces get one up on him. Whether it was being sprayed with beer, getting his head shaved or being clocked over the head with a bedpan, it didn’t matter that he was a big, beefy, hot-headed authority figure. He understood the value of being on the receiving end of some babyface retribution.
This is a critical lesson those booking Stephanie McMahon’s character must understand in order for her character to progress and be of value to those she feuds with. She needs to take a defeat. She needs to let the babyfaces win from time to time, not just once a year.
Credit: WWE.com
GET YOUR COMEUPPANCE
The term “comeuppance” often gets tossed around when discussing Stephanie. As in “she never gets her comeuppance,” which is what inevitably needs to happen to a heel.
“But Warren,” some of you gentle readers out there may be saying, not fully realizing that you’re talking to your computer screen and that I cannot actually hear you. “Stephanie McMahon can’t get tossed around, this isn’t the Attitude era anymore.” Yes, you’re absolutely right, I will answer your question, which is, in reality, nothing but a hypothetical situation I made up to make a point and not really someone asking me a question.
In the PG-era, there is no room for men powerbombing or chairshotting women. But that doesn’t mean Stephanie cannot be foiled. Comeuppance does not necessarily imply getting smacked around. Any situation where Stephanie loses control is getting her comeuppance. Her entire character is based on being in control. Her authority is what matters most to her, it’s her driving force.
A situation where she loses control and is humiliated will not harm her character, it will make it better. Knowing that she will “get hers” will drive fans nuts with anticipation to see which babyface is next in line to overcome her scheming. Even more importantly, to see how she gets punished for it.
Next: Ranking The Top 10 Female Superstars Of 2017
In any event, Stephanie’s heel role continues to feel like a succession of missed opportunities for helping talent break out and tell really interesting stories. Instead of trying to be something she’s not, and with perhaps a little more humility, she could truly be the asset she believes she is.