So, over the last couple of days I have watched all but the final episode of Netflix's Mr McMahon "documentary." It's what I expected.....you don't get the "real" Vince, because he never shows you what he doesn't want you to see and no one will say differently, publicly. His interviews are the usual BS justifications, rationalizations, narcissism, arrogance, "tough businessman" line that he has always fed to journalists and filmmakers. It was the same in Beyond The Mat as it is here. Just as Triple H said. The family won't say differently because too much money is involved (when interviews were recorded) and it is family and they really don't want to air their dirty laundry, unless it serves their purpose....and then it will be altered and nuanced and exaggerated. Some interesting interviews. Tony Atlas calls it like it is. Bret does, to a certain extent, while still living in his own fantasy world and hypocrisy. When he says that he wasn't a champion who was going to get caught in scandal, with a teenage girl in his hotel room, he conveniently ignores the fact that he confessed to multiple affairs, on the road, with women and that was his scene, not the drugs. They may have been of legal age; but, it was still narcissism and infidelity and led to his divorce, among other things. When Shawn Michaels accused him of having "Sunny Days," and he says it crossed the line and interfered with his marriage, he misses that he was having an affair....maybe not with Sunny, but with other women, and it was still the same hypocrisy. So, expected.

Hogan is not going to say the truth because I don't think he even knows what it is anymore. he is so caught up in the world of kayfabe that he can't let if go, even when the business did...much like Bret. Rip Rogers has the best take on Bret, that he grew up in the business people who grew up in it never really see the reality outside it. It was true for the Von Erichs, it was true for the Harts, the Funks, the Lawler kids, the Armstrongs (though they seemed to be a bit mentally healthier than some of the others), the Rock, etc.

There are good and bad points. Nice to see Wendy Richter, but you don't really get the story and she says no more than about 3 or 4 sentences. The story was that she wanted more money, because she was drawing and Vince never cared about women's wrestling, didn't pay them nearly what underneath guys got and Moolah skimmed her cut off the top. Wendy wouldn't tow his line and he dumped her, though she had to know something was up as, physically, you knew it wasn't Judy Martin under the costume, as the body was different and it wasn't anyone else wh had worn that mask. I had always read it had been created with Lisa Sliwah (wife of Curtis Sliwah, founder and head of the Guardian Angels vigilante group) in mind, but that it fell apart and Martin and others were portraying the character. Wendy, though, has still not deviated from the story that she didn't know it was Moolah. Given that she was trained by Moolah and wrestled against her, I can't understand how she wouldn't know, coupled with the fact that the heel, The Spider Lady, would generally call the match and I can't see Moolah disguising her voice that well.

So, to fans, it is a highlights documentary, with no real new info. To the general public, it probably doesn't change whatever opinion they had, if any; and, they probably aren't watching anyway, unless they are a fan or are drawn to scandal documentaries.

Jim Cornette has been reviewing the episodes and adding some of what hasn't been said or expanding on what was, or contradicting it with facts and theorizing about elements. he also gives probably the only real assessments of Vince, as a person, as best he can, via quirks that he witnessed and little details about how he was, like loading his bags into a car, and laying his suit jacket across them, after everyone else who was riding in the car loaded their gear. Or how he obsessively used an electric razor on his beard, or how he ate, or whatever. Plus he contrasts what he saw, with reports of Vince later. It gives a lot of insight to what isn't there and enhances it, as well as provides some entertaining schtick and some questions that don't come up and that relate to motivations of individual speakers....



He praises Tony Atlas for speaking bluntly, in an entertaining way and Bret, for just not giving a f@#$ and being blunt. Bischoff is Bischoff...he likes the insights from Bonnie Hammer and founder Kay Kopolovitz, about the relationship between the USA Network and the WWF.

Vince does get challenged on some things, like complaining about Turner taking talent and then being asked if it wasn't the same thing he did to Verne Gagne and the AWA, more than any other territory or promotion. He rationalizes it away, but sort of admits it is the same; but it's against him. No surprises. When he does it, it's good business, when others do it, it is an outsider messing with his business. He claims he never tried to hurt his competitors, which is BS. He had wrestlers leave, without notice. Took broadcast talent, told them to no-show events, bring belts with them, like Flair, which is why he was afraid of Bret appearing on WCW tv with it, even though he could legally block such a thing and Bret's contract didn't let him appear on WCW tv, immediately (my memory is 3-6 weeks, though that might be stretching it...definitely not for at least a couple).

It looks better than a Vice show and there are some nice uses of clips, as well as some family photos and home movies. Stuff like Wrestling With Shadows gets used, TSN interviews, the infamous Bob Costa interview where Vince starts getting threatening with Costas, the 20/20 footage. Heyman adds grandiose pseudo-literary commentary, looking, as Cornette likes to say, more and more like Alfred Hitchcock, while trying to make it sound Shakespearian, as if that forgives some of the sleaze factor. People in the industry can't seem to see how messed up some of their stuff was (neither can many fans) and even Melzer explains it, even if he says it didn't justify it, but always dismisses it as "the times." At the time, much of the subject matter was attacked and criticized, including by Dave, but, they act like you can't apply the same standard. You could and it was, just not from within. When they say you couldn't do it now, it is never, "We have learned enough to know we shouldn't do it now," rather than, we would be shut down now, not just chastised.

Mosty, I think it is preaching to the choir, without really having a sermon.