Section II of Mike Wallace’s Mickey Mouse History and other Essays on American Memory focuses on Disney and its possible contribution to the display of American History. The first article primarily looks at Disney’s Main Street and EPCOT and raises some questions about the type of history presented and also the influence of corporate sponsors on those historic presentations. It is not so much historic material that is being displayed for the public, but more of an ideal past, smooth, romantic and almost uniquely positive. Reality is not often the dominant element of those presentations and, if it is, it is mostly in its non-controversial way. Wallace presents the case of Main Street, supposedly a reproduction of Mr. Disney childhood home but not really. He then goes on with the Hall of Presidents, the Carousel of Progress and, finally, EPCOT. The latter being his primary focus, as he lengthily describes the different thematic journeys (transportation, communication, etc.) sponsored by big companies (AT&T, General Motors, Kraft, etc.). According to Wallace (once again, I have not been there, so it is a little harder to comment thoroughly), all of those journeys focus foremost on “investors and businessmen”, praising the evolution of capitalism and leaving peace-disturbing elements in the silence. Of course, no Wallace’s article would be a true Wallace article without references to social classes and social inequalities. As a conclusion to this first study, Wallace explains that the vast majority of visitors coming to Disney World are middle-class people and that, therefore, the history presented in those entertainment parks is some sort of “self-affirmation” of their social status. As a conclusion, Wallace wonders if a more controversial history would be boring for those people and also explains that this “entertaining history” produced by Disney blurs the frontiers between reality and fiction.
Wallace’s second essay is called “Disney’s America” and elaborates on the Disney Company project to create a new theme park, which would focus on the history of America. The project was entirely cancelled, but Wallace describes the plans, the oppositions to the project and why it was eventually set aside. Once again, this essay raises the question of “educating with entertainment”. It is rather obvious that making materials more lively will make it more appealing to large audiences, but there surely is a limit. The transmission of history to the public should not be a dry and boring one, but it also does not necessarily imply creating a commercial- and Disney-based approach to history. Wallace does raise a very valid point when he mentions that Disney theme parks are utopian spaces (p.171), so the question is how to introduce historic reality in such a type of institution. How can we be sure that Disney’s America would have presented a more realistic and academic history to its public? Historians would have to work with Disney if they ever had a project of creating a consistent history museum, but the question should maybe be looked at from another point of view.
Maybe it comes from my European background, and maybe I am not that accustomed to American culture yet. I cannot help but wonder why Disney should be considered as museums and, as such, as valid contributors to the transmission of history. Disney Worlds are entertainment parks. People go there to relax, have fun, and forget about everything else. How serious can it therefore be? Isn’t it a little ironic to go to an amusement park, hoping to learn more about one’s history? Is it all that is left for Americans? Go to Disney World to learn about their past? Let’s say that I am a very optimistic person, and I still believe people can make the difference in content and quality between a museum and Disney; they go to one place or another for different reasons, with different ideas in mind. Going to Disney with the serious hope and expectation to live a history museum-like experience is close to considering that Las Vegas will one day host so many miniature reconstitution of famous worldwide places and buildings that it will replace traveling around the world and discovering different cultures.
Call me old-fashion or conservative if you want… But I still believe Disney should focus mostly on entertainment, instead of trying to propose a shallow/pseudo and disneysized history of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You bring a different perspective to this reading than most of us in the class. The Wallace article on Disney and the role of history in the entertainment industry has always a problematic one for me and I was glad to hear that from your point of view it is as well. I think the idea of addressing important historic events in an entertainment venue that visitors use as a way to escape reality is a dangerous trend to move in and was reassure to hear that you also saw the problems assoicated with this concept.
Valerie, I completely agree with your comment, just want to add something - when WD uses historical scenes, it claims the right to present history in such a way. We have to remember, that many foreigners from around the world visit parks and they see our American history and us in this entertainment way. True, history should be left for historians and specialists, but when you do use history, as a background, should not it least be accurate? As Wallace put it, "the dissatisfactions of African-Americans, women, and ecologists are presented as having been opportunities in disguise" (p. 152). Unfortunately, for many today, an occupation does substitute profession and Internet - literature and books, as well. History is not learned in the amusement parks, but it least it provokes (hopefully) creation of the inquiring mind for our children. We can compare it with Santa Claus - nobody really believes in him but, nonetheless, all like him!
Post a Comment