It would be easy to dismiss Joe Dombrowski’s latest project, The Montreal Theory, as a trite rehash of the events of November 9, 1997. On that night Bret Hart lost the WWF title in the most controversial of fashions. While wrestling is generally pre-determined, Hart believes he lost the title without giving permission to WWF owner Vince McMahon. This one event has become one of the most controversial events in the history of modern wrestling. Hurt feelings from this and other more tragic events led to Bret Hart not returning to WWE television for six years, only for the Hall of Fame, and then another five years before he returned to their flagship program, Monday Night Raw. Shawn Michaels at first denied being a part of the conspiracy but admitted fault shortly before returning back to WWE 2002, after his religious conversion. Vince McMahon used this event to become Mr.McMahon. He feuded with Steve Austin, and WWE basically started printing money for the next three years.
The assumption that Dombrowski makes isn’t that there is a hard and fast conspiracy, but that important questions need to be asked before saying whether this was a shoot or not. Even if you are skeptical or have a certain set of beliefs, it is important to look back at the history of these important events in order to learn. This is not an exploitive cash grab made by WWE to further a storyline like they’ve done in the past. Dombrowski obviously wants to make money as well, but given the amount of work and his commentary during the DVD and on a podcast I did with him, he seems engaged in the story and exploring whether or not what happened November 9, 1997 was a work or shoot.
Dave Meltzer offered a comprehensive look at the story in the Wrestling Observer. Even he cannot apparently tell the whole story until one person closely connected with it has passed away. As part of that report, Meltzer suggests a screw job was discussed as a possible finish between Hart and McMahon a week before Survivor Series 1997.Wrestling with Shadows was a documentary about the life and times of Bret Hart. Coincidentally, they were able to see the end of Hart’s tale within WWF.
The above factoids are explored a great deal by the team of experts Dombrowski assembles. The Montreal Theory is a two disk collection. Disk one gives the official story in great detail. Men like Les Thatcher, Jerry Jarrett, and Kevin Kelly discuss their opinions on the official story as presented by men like Meltzer, McMahon, and Hart. What surprised me most about this section was the lack of sympathy and support for Hart, even from the wrestlers. Their perception seems to be that Hart was a mark for himself and taking everything way too seriously. I was also shocked by how many seemed supportive toward Vince McMahon, or at least took his side in the official screwjob story. Despite the broad spectrum of opinions presented, a viewer who even knows a minimal amount can get the gist of the story to better understand what is to come in disk two. I knew a great deal about what has happened, both because I was a WWF viewer at that time, and I’ve read the Meltzer official story cover-to-cover multiple times. The only thing that could have made the first part better would have been footage of the interviews as discussed. Given WWE and the production company behind Wrestling with Shadows have rights to all of the footage which would have made this a better production, I can understand why Dombrowski had to rely on the strength of the interviews.
Credit where credit is due, there are some very diverse opinions. Wrestlers, promoters, journalists, announcers, and archival footage are used to enhance the arguments for and against this being a shoot. Kevin Kelly’s perspective is among the most valuable to understand what was going on in WWF at the time since he served as an announcer and member of the office. He was able to put things into a really good context and established himself as a solid voice of reason within the context of the documentary.
There are a few things to ding the DVD for despite my overall enjoyment of what was presented. Obviously, the lack of footage was out of Dombrowski’s control. He made the best of a bad situation by using as many interviews as he could and some on-screen text to forward the narrative. Another thing that was out of his control was the ability to get everyone into one room for a discussion. Because of the lack of footage, I feel a discussion between some of the people speaking on the documentary would have enhanced the conversation and would have allowed for a more definitive conclusion. At times, The Montreal Theory felt fragmented and disorganized. When you have two disks running a total of five hours, that’s bound to happen. Finally, a huge part of interviewing for a documentary is the ability to see the subject and judge things like inflection and body language. Some of the interviews were obviously done over phone or Skype, so the audio quality obviously wasn’t as good, but it did feel like something may have gotten lost in translation. On such a weighty topic where guys, particularly Tony Mamaluke, were saying what could be construed as controversial things. To be able to see him talking would make that much of a difference for me.
If nothing else, Joe Dombrowski allows everyone, fans and wrestlers alike, to ask question. I think his intention was ultimately to get the audience to challenge pre-conceived notions and not to simply accept the official story. His final call to arms in the waning minutes of the documentary were indeed a challenge to not only look at what happened on November 7, 1997 differently but to look at November 22, 1963 and September 11, 2001 differently as well. Obviously, there are more important events than a wrestler getting screwed from a fake championship, but with the manipulation and power involved, professional wrestling is more a representation of the world than people might think. I would strongly recommend this to someone who knows only the official story but wants to be challenged and likes asking questions. The production is certainly not perfect, but a lot of work and research went into this. And hey, at least you didn’t have to kickstart this documentary.
Grade: B+
My Theory: I wanted to separate this aspect from the review because we’re really dealing with two issues. What I think of the documentary and what I believe about the events should be seen through a different lens. I am probably one of the biggest Bret Hart fans there is simply because he’s what got me into wrestling. As a real life human being and not just a wrestling fan, Vince McMahon represents what I both love and loathe about humanity. Even after watching the documentary and hearing all the stories, I still believe the events of Survivor Series 1997 were a shoot and not some storyline concocted by desperate individuals looking for a way out. I don’t pretend to know the real Vince McMahon, but from everything I do know, I can’t see him turning Bret Hart into such a big babyface before sending him off to his biggest competitor. Maybe WWF’s dire financial position was overstated, but WCW was still competition and they were still kicking WWF’s ass in ratings and gate receipts. Also, Bret Hart made a lot of comments about Vince McMahon between 1997 and 2002 which are really hard to swallow as being a work. Go back and watch Wrestling with Shadows. For Bret Hart to say what he said about Vince McMahon, referring to him as a circus handler and putting wrestlers down when he’s done with them, is tough to see as being a work. In addition, why would Vince McMahon wait three years for a storyline to take place. As this situation proves, three years is a long time. Shawn Michaels was in the midst of a retirement at this point, and Steve Austin was mere months away from being done as a babyface and going back to top level heel. Oh, and Bret Hart’s career was ended by a Goldberg kick to the head. I don’t buy that anyone involved had anything to gain by waiting until the end of Bret Hart’s contract was over to start the feud all over again. Not to mention, who’s to say Eric Bischoff wouldn’t give Bret Hart another three years and nine million more dollars to stay around just to spite WWF. Obviously Bischoff wasn’t in power by the end of 2000, but could we have rightly assumed that in 1997? Here’s something even funnier. Five months after Hart’s deal ended, WWE bought out WCW. Who would have ever imagined that in November 1997. When pondering the various medical ailments, the stroke, and the fact that time does indeed heal all wounds, I think this was a shoot. Too many egos. A lack of trust. Drugs were involved on Michaels’s end. Unfortunately, Bret Hart has experienced a great deal of tragedy in life. Perhaps this is why Hart has come back into the WWE fold. With no family of his own, maybe he needed his second family back despite all the problems and issues.
There’s so much for promoters, wrestlers, and fans to learn. Assuming this is a work, one can find out how these things can go completely wrong and hurt parties instead of benefitting them. Assuming this is a work, it shows just how real tension can get in a fake sport. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This DVD serves as a reminder of that tired cliché.
For more information, including how to buy the DVD and to see a trailer, check out their website.
To interact with Joe Dombrowski and to spout off your own theory, check out his personal Twitter account or The Montreal Theory Facebook page.
Contact Pro Wrestling Ponderings!
E-mail: prowrestlingponderings@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/ProWrestlingPonderings
Twitter: www.twitter.com/pwponderings
Youtube: www.youtube.com/pwponderings
Contact ME!
E-mail: jcusson07@gmail.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeromepwpeditor