They say that everything is bigger in America, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the proliferation of massive public events and entertainments that emerged in the US since the 1950s. The Superbowl, the Academy Awards, and Disney World to name but a few. But what drives America’s tendency to “go big or go home?” And why is the 1950s the key decade in the development of this story? In his new book Rise of the Spectacular: America in the 1950s, UTSC Sociology Professor John Hannigan explores the social context of these massive events and examines how spectacle has become woven into the fabric of American life. We sat down with John to find out more.
What is spectacularization and what sort of events can we consider to be examples of the phenomenon?
JH: Spectacularization is the process of creating spaces, places and experiences with striking visual images and dramatic action that provoke awe or astonishment in audiences. In the pre-industrial period, examples included lavish coronations, elaborate masques and other theatrical entertainments, and extensive private gardens that prefigured the attractions of Disneyland and Las Vegas. The Victorians had an insatiable appetite for what has been called “the theater of electrical phenomena,” physical science demonstrations mixed with illusion and conjuring. In early twentieth century America, a new public world of urban popular amusements unfolded. Nothing said ‘spectacular’ more than the staging of fire-based disaster spectacles at Coney Island. In the post-World War Two America, spectacles took the form of theme parks (Disneyland), televised mega-events (Olympic Games, World’s Fairs), technological marvels (underwater photography) and resort architecture (desert modernism). From the 1970s onwards, an era of “postmodern spectacles” emerged, corporately shaped and media dependent.
What makes America in the 1950s such a crucial time and place in the evolution of spectacularization?
JH: Spectacularization in the 1950s was characterized by three unique elements: increasing scale, themed spaces and events, and a future focus. The creation of a spectacular gaze was instrumental in legitimating an American capitalist landscape which was rapidly increasing in scale from the local to the national. Some existing events (Rose Bowl, science fairs) scaled up, aided by the rise of network television. New technologies such as the panoramic Cinerama/Circarama exploited a grand scale which favoured the awe-inspiring over the intimate or the personal. Spectacularization in the 1950s taught Americans to visualize their surroundings in thematic terms. While the construction of themed spaces and events has a long history in America, they reached a new level in the 1950s, suffusing many corners of life and culture from Disneyland and Cypress Gardens to the undersea world of “Captain Cousteau”. Finally, Americans were conditioned to view the world around them in a more future-focused, progress oriented and technology-friendly way. Central to this was the attempt by industry and government to market science through “edutainment,” a task viewed as pressing and crucial in the context of the Sputnik satellite launch by the Russians. Contributing to this were events, spaces and technologies ranging from the Seattle World’s Fair to the proliferation of planetariums and chemistry sets.
Were some Americans excluded from the spectacular culture of the 1950s?
JH: Yes. As eye-popping as they were, the spectacular events, spaces and technologies of the 1950s frequently excluded people of colour and often demeaned or exoticized them. This is a thematic thread running through the book. In Chapter 4, I include the story of Joan Williams, a 26-year old account clerk at the City of Pasadena, (California) Municipal Light and Power Association who was stripped by the Mayor of her duties and perks, including riding on the Crown City float in the 1958 Rose Bowl Parade, when a reporter from the local newspaper discovered she was black (Joan was light complexioned). A ninety-minute drive to the southwest, Palm Springs kept city building the exclusive project of the local elite. Explicitly excluded were the members of the Agua Caliente tribe who were cheated by court-appointed “guardians” out of revenues from a hotel/spa complex that they built on tribal-owned land in downtown Palm Springs
Walt Disney looms large in your narrative. How did Disney and the Disney Corporation drive America’s push toward more spectacular events? And is Disney’s cultural dominance in 2021 an inevitable result of this?
JH: Walt Disney figures in one way or another in most of the chapters in this book. This undoubtedly reflects the popular success of Disneyland, which opened its doors in 1955. Many of the original Disneyland “imagineers” had a hand in designing other theme parks and events, contributing to the reshaping of the leisure park business. However, there is more to the story. Walt’s influence as a “spectacularizer” during the 1950s and early 1960s derived equally from his place in extensive network of investors, competitors, celebrity cronies, politicians and real estate developers. In his prime, he was said to have “the biggest Rolodex in Hollywood.” Disney was in high demand as a consultant and organizer, the person you brought into your project who knew exactly how to make it work. Most memorably, in 1958, Walt was asked to pilot the Pageantry Committee of the Squaw Valley Winter Olympics and direct the opening and closing ceremonies. With his creative team in tow, he did so in spades, setting the bar for a half-century of Olympic events to follow. As well, he ended up running operations such as parking and credentialing. At the request of the United States government, he contributed a documentary, The USA in Circarama, which was the sensation of the 1958 Brussels World Fair.
Is Disney’s cultural dominance in 2021 the inevitable outcome of what its founder achieved in the 1950s? To the extent that he was the first one to realize the synergies between television, merchandise and theme parks, you could make a strong case for this. Indeed, Disney can be said to have pioneered the strategy of entertainment branding. However, Walt died in 1966, before the opening of Disney World; subsequently, the company faltered under the chairmanship of Card Walker (1972-84). More than Walt himself it is probably Michael Eisner, (Chairman from 1984-2005) who is responsible for Disney Corporation becoming the global media empire it is today.
How does spectacularization manifest itself in terms of space and architecture over the 1950s?
JH: An early chapter in the book looks in depth at Palm Springs, California, during this era. Since Roman times, there has always been a strong link between architecture, power and the spectacular. During the 1950s, Palm Springs was an elite oasis composed of a local business class who controlled city policies and planning, an émigré colony of Hollywood actors and producers (including Walt Disney), and a sprinkling of wealthy captains of industry. These prominent citizens commissioned prominent architectural firms to build luxury homes, bank buildings and gas stations, many in the style of “Desert Modernism.” The spectacular element in Desert Modernism was not a function of height, grandness or elaborate decoration; its appeal lay in the relationship of the building to its natural setting, notably the canyons which traversed the landscape of desert backing up against the mountains.
Another spectacular manifestation of the link between space and architecture was the Century 21/ Seattle World’s Fair. Its futuristic look – the iconic “Space Needle”; the Monorail (dubbed the “Train of the Future”); the US Science Pavilion with its five “space gothic” arches – conceived and designed mostly in late 1950s, forged a new relationship between leisure, consumerism and urban space. Together, they were meant to convey a sparkling, almost utopian vision of the city of the future.
How does spectacularization overlap with America’s post WW2 military, industrial and scientific supremacy? Is the context of the Cold War important?
JH: On October 4, 1957, the former Soviet Union launched and put into orbit the Sputnik 1 satellite. Shocked American politicians immediately prioritized catching up to the Soviets in the space race. Not only did this mean better rocket technology but it dictated creating a culture of science and technology on a national scale. In the book I show how this played out in the marketing of “edutainment” which merged science and the spectacular. Addressing his scientific colleagues in 1959 about plans for the Seattle World’s Fair, Donald Menzel, Director of the Harvard Observatory, stated “I consider it a challenge for each of us to find some spectacular, popular, appealing central theme which everyone will want to see and which can be used to portray ideas about his own field.” Both in the home and in the classroom a generation of young people were exposed to the wonders of science. The National Defense Education Act (1958) provided over $1 billion to boost education in science, mathematics and foreign languages, a sizeable chunk of which went to the construction of planetariums in schools. Manufacturers of chemistry sets embraced the theme of preparing young Americans for future careers in science and politics. Following the Sputnik launch, the National Science Fair, emphasized nuclear energy and science; its two goals were to assert American superiority internationally and to prepare American students for potential careers in the military-industrial complex.
Does the “spectacular gaze” persist into the modern day, and how has it changed since the 1950s?
JH: The “spectacular gaze” continues to dominate the cultural landscape of the 21st century. As I discuss my previous book Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis (1998), glitzy, themed spaces such as those on offer in Las Vegas and Orlando have been cloned globally in cities from Dubai to Tokyo. The halftime show at the 2020 Superbowl featuring Jennifer Lopez and Shakira cost a whopping $13 million, a new record. The “starchitect” (celebrity architect) has become a fixture of urban revitalization.
In so doing, spectacularization has morphed into a more passive experience in which media images and spectacles became coterminous. Whereas the modernist spectacles of the 1950s reflected and helped to shape a postwar narrative of optimism and technological progress, today’s postmodern spectacles, like Seinfeld, are about “nothing” other than consumption.
Is there a Canadian version of spectacularization?
JH: There isn’t a Canadian “variant”, but spectacularization has certainly diffused across this country. Where this has been especially evident is in the sports and entertainment sector. Anouk Bélanger of the University du Québec à Montréal describes the move from the Montreal Forum to the Molson Centre as “a shift from a space embedded in local history and memories to a new, spectacular consumption-based – complex.” I have written about the same transformation in Toronto when Maple Leaf Gardens was replaced by the Air Canada Centre. Most recently, the building of Rogers Place in central Edmonton has mobilized the spectacle as a way of re-invigorating a downtown in decline.
Rise of the Spectacular is available now from Routledge.
Photo courtesy of Orange County Archives