Yap Vs. Yap: "You Cannot Kill David Arquette"

"You Cannot Kill David Arquette" is a new documentary following the actor who gained fame in the mid-to-late 90s. He gained fame for starring in films like the "Never Been Kissed," the "Scream" franchise, and "Eight Legged Freaks." The ex-husband of Courteney Cox, in 2000 Arquette starred in the movie "Ready to Rumble," a pro wrestling comedy made in conjunction with the now-defunct wrestling promotion World Championship Wrestling (WCW). As part of that promotion, Arquette appeared on WCW television and became part of the storyline, winning the WCW World Championship in an angle that is considered one of the low points of the promotion and in wrestling history.

In this documentary, Arquette, a longtime wrestling fan, outlines his regrets at the long-derided wrestling angle, and chronicles his attempt to "pay his dues," which in wrestling parlance means going through the lower levels of pro wrestling, learning the proper techniques, practicing...and taking a beating.

In this Yap vs. Yap, Yappers Joe Shearer and Andy Carr discuss the film and its journey to completion and Arquette's fascinating journey through it and his attempts at redemption as he battles mental illness.

Joe: So, I'm a big wrestling fan, and I have been since I was a kid, so I was really excited to see this documentary coming out. I remember when David Arquette won the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, and it was indeed a low point for that company, which would be dead and buried within a year (though not because of Arquette; his title reign was a symptom of their problems, not the cause). And I also know that it was not his idea and he actually had to be talked into it when it happened.I also was kind of casually aware of his efforts to come back into wrestling as a way to "make up for" the "damage" he did. Wrestlers are proud people, and they tend to get annoyed by celebrities coming in and pretending they are able to do what they do, and tend to look on actors,musicians, and even other athletes coming in as cheap stunts that 1) take away an opportunity for a payday, and 2) as damaging and disrespectful to the business. As a wrestling fan, the biggest thing this documentary did was depict that. It showed both the silliness for all of it, but it also wasn't difficult to see what draws someone like Arquette to it. What was the big thing that stuck out for you with this doc?

Andy: I'm glad to hear you felt the depiction of that debacle was adequate. As a relative non-fan, I felt like it was a fair and honest representation of the issue, but I wondered if that was due to ignorance on my part. For me, this biggest thing that stuck out about this film was its ability to parallel pro wrestling in how it rides the line between reality and heightened drama. From the editing and location choices, down to the very pacing of the doc, it felt very much like a narrative film in many spots, depicting Arquette's story as this almost poetic redemption arc. All the while, I felt that it maintained its authenticity through Arquette's and others' genuine reactions and behaviors captured on-camera. It was an unusual but fascinating blend of reality and surreality that I am not used to seeing in documentaries, but feels right at home in the world of wrestling. Did it feel authentic or "real" enough for you, all told?

Joe: Absolutely. The tricky thing about wrestling is that people often focus too much on how it's "fake." No one watches "Breaking Bad" or "Ozark" and calls it fake. Wrestling is a dramatic TV show. It's performance art, and the outcome is beside the point. The fun of it is in the storylines and the spectacle and athleticism required to perform the moves they do, often live and in front of a stadium audience. Much like Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler," this documentary shows how difficult and dangerous it is to be a wrestler, and the physical and emotional sacrifices wrestlers make for their craft. For Arquette to take it as seriously as he did is admirable. Arquette insisted on being respectful, and that's where you start. That demand for respect is illustrated in the sequence where the cameraman gets into a scuffle with the wrestler Brian Knobbs. I heard about that story on a podcast a couple of months ago, and apparently Knobbs took exception to being recorded without his permission. It was a misunderstanding, but shows how seriously they take what they do. Andy, as a non-wrestling fan, how did you see wrestling being depicted how it was, and the obvious love and reverence Arquette had in it?

Andy: Totally! You make a great point about the misunderstanding of wrestling as a cultural fixture. While I, personally, have never been very invested in wrestling, I've had plenty of friends who are diehards, and I always felt it was relatively clear, from listening to them, that it was a "show" like any other—that its characters' arcs and plot events were as scripted and planned out as any other TV show, as you said. I think, often, people outside the wrestling community mistake fans' enthusiasm for delusion or gullibility. On the other hand, I think outsiders also see how upset fans get over developments like Arquette's WCW win—the vitriol thrown at Arquette, the man, and the personal offense taken by his character's win—and outsiders think, "How can you be THIS upset over something that's not real? Why are you so rough on David Arquette? He's not his character." And yet, you look at a super popular narrative property like Star Wars, where fans on Twitter bullied and berated Daisy Ridley and Kelly Marie Tran off of social media purely because those fans didn't like those characters? That kind of toxic fandom that fails to separate actor from performance, pervades all elements of pop culture, and wrestling is no different. So I think it's quite unfair for non-fans to look at wrestling fans and ask, "How do you buy into this?" Everyone has something they're invested in, and sometimes mobs of fans can react too harshly. That's just entertainment.

And I think Arquette and directors David Darg and Price James understand that; pro wrestling is a TV show, a story, just like anything else, and its fans are fans, just like any other fanbase. While Arquette didn't mean to upset so many people with his involvement in the WCW (and the infamous win wasn't even his decision), he still gets it. He understands how an outsider like him shouldn't be taking home the title unearned, and you can see his respect for that in how he doubles down and begins his road to redemption from the bottom of the ladder—taking part in backyard wrestling matches, getting beat up with chairs and fluorescent lights, and facing off against luchadores in the streets of Mexico. He knows that if he wants respect, he's gotta give respect first, and he gives it to the nth degree. He loves wrestling and wants to right the wrong. As someone who has never really given wrestling much of a chance, I admired his passion for it and the amount of commitment he gave to treating the sport with respect. Projects like You Cannot Kill honestly make me want to get more interested in the lore of pro wrestling.

As a wrestling fan, and perhaps someone who has broader context for the initial 2000 debacle, did you feel like there were any points where the film fell short in representing the issue, or in being too biased in Arquette's favor? I was undeniably rooting for him all the way through, but I couldn't help but wonder if there was part of the picture I wasn't seeing.

Joe: I don't think it fell short in terms of depiction at all. Playing up that last match vs. Mr. Anderson in a "Rocky" kind of way was silly, but it fit with the film, at least in treating wrestling as a "sport." In the context of the movie, it worked. And the moment where he cut himself in the hardcore match was nuts, and is something else I heard about when it happened, though I didn't know the severity of it. He could very well have died there, but his insistence to finish the match was brave, and possibly foolhardy.

So in that sense the film did a great job with how it showed wrestling and his role within it. That moment was harrowing, and to me is the film at its best, subtly handling Arquette's mental health. It's obvious he has some issues there, but the film doesn't play that up or sensationalize it. It's respectful and thoughtful in the way it addresses all of that.

Ironically, on the whole I probably don't view the movie quite as favorably overall as you do. At times it could probably have done with less of Arquette's vision for the movie and been a better exploration of him with a more detached view of his journey here. At times it comes off as a vanity piece because of it, I think. I really loved the wrestling stuff, and showing the training and everything, but as it ende I thought there was a little too much ego coming out. So that damaged the film overall for me a little bit.

And I think overall the film succeeded in giving attention to the wrestling business, showing the good and the bad on some level, and giving him the opportunity to exorcise some demons and regrets he has carried around for some time.

Andy: Completely understandable. I can definitely see how some elements of the film could feel like a vanity project. His wife being a producer was an immediate indicator to me of that possibility as well.

Ultimately though, I think it worked for me largely for the reasons you mentioned in your last point. Scenes like the one where he's cut by the light tube on his neck felt incredibly incisive, cutting right between the heroic triumph, and the potentially unhealthy foolishness as he continued on his obsessive journey. I think those moments, where the film is able to find the strange, dark, vain, and noble all in one place, are what end up making it for me. I really appreciate being able to speak with someone who has more background with wrestling and gain that multidimensional perspective. And I'm really glad you still liked it anyway!