Does Netflixâs new documentary unmask the real Vince McMahon?
A new Netflix documentary claims to âpull back the curtainâ on former WWE boss Vince McMahon â but does it succeed?
The six-part series Mr. McMahon â named after the alter-ego character he portrayed on-screen in the mid-90s â covers his life, decades-long career and the various scandals that have followed him.
It features interviews with the 79-year-old himself, as well as family members, former wrestlers and business associates.
But whether it tells us anything new about the real Vince McMahon is up for debate.
He pulled out of filming after a former employee accused him of sex trafficking, and some reviewers have said the series struggles with this missing element.
Others said itâs still a fairly âhonest portraitâ and comprehensive, depending on how much you already know going in.
But does it get us any closer to the truth?
The allegations against Vince McMahon
McMahon got his own review in early.
He called the series âmisleadingâ and accused its makers of taking âthe predictable path of conflating the âMr. McMahonâ character with my true self, Vinceâ.
The billionaire businessman resigned from WWEâs parent company at the start of this year when ex-employee Janel Grant filed a sex trafficking lawsuit against him,
Heâs denied her accusations as âliesâ and a âvindictive distortion of the truthâ.
You wonât hear much about this case in the documentary, but previous allegations are discussed.
WWEâs first female referee Rita Chatterton accused McMahon of rape, but in the series he insists âthat never happenedâ and it was âconsensualâ.
He withdraw his defamation lawsuit against her and last year, reports say, paid her a multimillion-dollar settlement.
He also calls the US government â who took him to court on charges of illegal steroid distribution â the âbiggest bulliesâ.
McMahon was found not guilty in that case.
âWomen were like a toyâ
The WWE often faced criticism in the past for its portrayal of women, especially during its so-called Attitude Era between 1997 and 2002.
Matches became far less family friendly, with wrestlers frequently seen bleeding and female stars competing in âbra and pantiesâ bouts which ended when an opponentâs costume was torn off.
Former WWE Womenâs Champion Trish Stratus says roles for women were âoverly sexualâ and recalls once being made to get on her knees and bark like a dog before removing her clothes.
âWomen were not considered wrestlersâŠâ she says.
âEye candy, thatâs kind of what they were at the time,â she says in the show.
Anthony White â aka Tony Atlas â agrees with her that the segments have not aged well.
âWe would have been looked upon in todayâs society as some of the worst human beings walking the face of the Earth,â he tells the documentary.
âWe abused the hell out of women. They were like a toy for us.â
McMahonâs daughter Stephanie, who often featured in storylines written by her father â which she describes as a âlittle bit weirdâ â says âit was a different time in our businessâ.
Current chief content officer and McMahonâs son-in-law Paul âTriple Hâ Levesque questions how they âever [got] away with that stuffâ.
In the documentary McMahon says the trend was âmore or less following what was going on in the entertainment businessâ, and some of the highest-rated segments featured women.
âNothing I wouldnât do for businessâ
Vince McMahon has gained a reputation as a ruthless operator, and the documentary does explore some of the events that helped to build this image.
One is a notorious stitch-up â or âscrewjobâ, in wrestling terms â involving legendary wrestler Bret âThe Hitmanâ Hart.
During tensions over his move to rival firm World Championship Wrestling (WCW), McMahon worked with others behind Hartâs back to change the scripted outcome of a 1997 match.
The Canadian ended up losing his championship title to Shawn Michaels in front of a hometown crowd in Montreal.
McMahon describes a similar screwjob in 1985, involving former womenâs champ Wendi Richter, as âshow business⊠nothing personalâ.
âAnd there is nothing I wouldnât do for business.â
In the documentary, McMahon says he wanted Bret Hart to do the âright thingâ for the business.
âTo this day, I donât regret any of it.â
Vince McMahon vs Mr McMahon
McMahon shares details of his own childhood, including how he was abused by his step-father and meeting his real dad for the first time when was 12.
âI know from a psychological standpoint if youâre abused as a kid, the tendency is for you to abuse,â he says, before adding: âThatâs just a cop-out.â
His own position as a father is a theme the documentary returns to repeatedly and he reveals he was âtoughâ on his own children, Shane and Stephanie.
Members of the cast also describe him as a father figure.
McMahon himself says: âI still havenât quite figured out who I am.â
Characters are the lifeblood of WWE, he tells the documentary makers â but is he playing a character himself?
We never quite find out.
âSometimes the lines of reality, of fact and fiction, are very blurred in our business,â he says.
Critics say this is a helpful get-out-of-jail-free card, placing blame on alter-ego Mr McMahon â a corrupt boss who abuses his power.
âWhich is the character and which is me? I guess maybe itâs a blend and I would suggest that maybe one is exaggerated a little bit,â says McMahon.
âIâm not so sure which one.â
But when asked what traits he shares with the character, he says: âNone whatsoever.â
Many of those close to him also seem unsure.
His son Shane says: âMr McMahon is an extension of Vince McMahon, but blown out of proportion.â
Itâs a view shared by ex-chamption Stone Cold Steve Austin, who says the character is âpretty close to Vince the manâ, but âhighly exaggeratedâ.
Others, such as Shawn Michaels, say thereâs not much difference between the two, and WWE executive Bruce Prichard says Mr McMahonâs in-ring diatribes were similar to the ones heâd deliver in the board room.
Former superstar Hulk Hoganâs opinion is much more clear-cut.
âExactly the same person, not a far stretch,â he says.