Greg Maletic: The Meaning of Disneyland
Page 2 of 2
The change is most obvious at a place like Hong Kong Disneyland. (For those curious, Hong Kong's dedication reads like a combination of Tokyo and Paris.) Hong Kong's Main Street is built identically to Disneyland's. The original Main Street, with its gas lamps and early motor cars, was a tribute to small town America built from the bits and pieces of its designers' memories. But by "copying the copy" in Hong Kong, the meaning of the place is decidedly different. Hong Kong's Main Street ends up being a tribute less to small town America than to…Disneyland itself. The same kinds of change are evident elsewhere in the park. Instead of trumpeting progress through technology, Hong Kong's Tomorrowland, though beautiful, has a far simpler goal: it's "Fantasyland in Space." It turns out that those dedication plaques aren't just words: Hong Kong Disneyland (along with Paris and Tokyo) isn't selling the original Disneyland message; it's just trying to make people happy, plain and simple.
In saying that the new Disneylands aren't faithful to the original dream, I'm implicitly suggesting that that the original Disneyland is. Yet as I mentioned earlier, something has changed, and it is this: Disneyland itself no longer bothers to tie its attractions back into the core story of the place. Though the park is still charming and fun, it doesn't resonate the way it used to. Over at the other American park, Disney World, Main Street doesn't tell much of a story anymore; it's morphed into a huge gift shop. Even the side streets have been enclosed, betraying a casino-like fear that someone who accidentally wandered out of the shopping complex might not wander back in. The beautiful penny arcade with its classic movieolas and baseball machines is gone. So is the Walt Disney Story and the silent movie theater showing round-the-clock 1920s-era Mickey cartoons. Anaheim's Tomorrowland has forgotten its story, too: the message of progress is only weakly evident in the lousy Innoventions technology exhibits. The original Space Mountain tied heavily into the NASA legend when it opened; the new Space Mountain is strictly sci-fi, as is the new Buzz Lightyear ride.
Back to the earlier question: since none of the Disney parks are adhering to Disneyland's original goals, are they still worthwhile? As anyone who visits any of these parks can attest, of course, they are. They're still incredibly fun, incredibly beautiful, and a source of happiness for millions of people. But there's no denying that the original inspiration has disappeared. At the foreign parks it's been tossed aside in favor of simpler, easier-to-digest goals; in Anaheim it's simply been swept under the rug. Disneyland--and Disney World as well--was built because Walt Disney wanted to see it built. There was something he wanted to communicate to his audience that he couldn't accomplish with his movies, live-action or animated. While in no way denigrating the efforts of the people who build and maintain today's Disneylands (which are, to be sure, in many ways superior to the originals that opened in 1955 and 1971), at their core, the parks are now about selling the brand more than enacting a personal vision.
During my recent Disneyland visit I saw the refurbished Tiki Room for the first time since its re-opening in March. It was great: everything worked like it was supposed to, and best of all, parts of the show were actually, truly, enjoyable. But even though the Tiki Room looks the same, it's not the place that I grew up with. That Tiki Room was a glimpse into the larger plans that Walt Disney had brewing for the future. In contrast, the Tiki Room today is a museum piece. It's kept open to keep the original spirit of the place alive, and it works, but only to a point. Over on the other side of the park there are rumors that the PeopleMovers will once again travel around Tomorrowland, and I hope the rumors are true. But I’m not sure what role the PeopleMovers will play in a Tomorrowland that doesn't mean what it used to. Like the technology of the Tiki Room, the original PeopleMovers were a stepping stone to something better and bolder. Today, both attractions seem like dead-ends.
It would be one thing if there were a new story to be told: maybe the original Disneyland story really is antiquated and needs an update. But updated to what? It's not clear what the new story should be, and as of yet the Disney Company hasn't supplied us with a replacement. In his first decade Michael Eisner almost gave us one, with his ambitious expansion plans and love of bold architecture, only to lose it in the confusion of his succeeding years. Will Robert Iger--or someone he hires--figure out the new Disneyland story? Hard to say, but I hope so. The Disney parks are great, but they could be better still.
Discuss It
Related Links
-- Greg Maletic
In addition to being a lifelong Disney park fan, Greg Maletic is a graphic designer and documentary film producer based out of San Francisco. Greg can be reached at [email protected].
The opinions expressed by our guest columnists, and all of our columnists, do not necessarily represent the feelings of LaughingPlace.com or any of its employees or advertisers. All speculation and rumors about the future of Disneyland and the Walt Disney Company are just that - speculation and rumors - and should be treated as such.
-- Posted October 14, 2005