Disney, Epcot, and the Immersive Experience

I just got back late this week from my California trip, which included time spent in safari tour-guide mode at Disneyland and seeing Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest at El Capitan Theatre. I'll post more on these things later, but for now I wanted to draw your attention to a couple of blogs: both the Epcot Central blog and Re-Imagineered are well worth visiting for those interested in serious conversations about Disney taking place in the public-intellectual sphere.

Peruse Epcot Central if you're at all interested in the (as-of-today, failed) promise and the potential of Epcot. Thanks to The Disney Blog, I came across a post entitled Epcot's Rewards, a comparative look at Epcot and the Universal and Islands of Adventure parks. Part of the post's concerns are with Epcot's thrill rides, such as Mission Space and Test Track, at the expense of the park's theming; it is this concern that strikes a chord with me, particularly after having visited Disneyland during its ongoing 50th anniversary.

An excerpt from the post:

[An immersive environment] is something Epcot offers that no other theme park can match – and while the other WDW parks come close at times (and the “Walt” attractions, being the predecessors to Epcot, are the best at it), it’s what Disney’s “competition” can’t even begin to do. As I watched Universal’s guests dutifully wait in line for 45 minutes to experience a 95-second roller coaster, it dawned on me that Epcot isn’t just about instant gratification, it’s about rewarding guests who have patience, inquisitiveness and imagination. Epcot, in many ways, gives as much back as a guest puts into it, and works best for those who give themselves over to the pace and the basic precepts of the park.

Much of contemporary Disney Studies, on the rare occasions its scholarship focuses on the theme-park experience, portrays guests as passive consumers rather than active participants. (I emphasize here the rarity of discussing the theme-park experience because much of the criticism on the parks tends to concentrate more heavily on the parks' overall designs, narratives, and/or operations. Sustained discussions addressing questions of audience and reception are harder to find.) What is of interest to me is that the Epcot Central post sees Epcot as immersive, and that the writer privileges the (potentially) immersive experience of the parks and laments a shift away from that design.

Certainly, the existence and effect of Disney's immersive experience is open for discussion and debate, in spheres both public and academic. I would suggest that at a most basic level what is integral to a theme park--as opposed to an amusement park--is its ability to convey to the guest the illusion of immersion. Yet as Epcot Central suggests, the very immersive environment that helped dedifferentiate Disney from other parks, and resulted in development of other theme parks, has been increasingly undermined by expansions which privilege thrill rides offering minimal theming or those which do not take into account their relationship with the entire park. (For instance, as much as I enjoy Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin, I am less certain about its placement inTomorrowland. )

Of course, there are aspect of the parks in addition to the rides themselves that affect the immersive experience. The development of FastPass, a ticket system which provides participating guests with "windows of time" in which they visit select attractions, certainly increases guest satisfaction by permitting guests to experience more of the most-popular attractions in a given day. However, lessening the time spent in carefully-designed queues, such as Disneyland's Indiana Jones Adventure also weakens the impact of a themed attraction. One could also note that less time spent in queues also weakens interaction between guests. Of course, one might counter-argue that Fastpass increases time spent in any given park as a whole, increasing the immersive experience by encouraging guests to experience more of a park's offerings. I do wonder, however, if FastPass encourages a pinball-bumper effect, with guests bouncing from attraction to attraction instead of visiting the lands of a particular park. Further, I believe what this emphasis on thrill rides and Fastpass opportunity does tends to encourage guests to think about their visit in a rides-per-day formula.

In a serendipitous post for this general discussion, the Re-Imagineering blog, which makes observations similar to those I have offered in other venues, notes the immersive experience Disney seems most hell-bent on offering is an unlimited shopping experiences. With every attraction comes a shopping exit, and Disney encourages a guest identity that can be described as the not-so-passive consumer. [Side comment: at one time, tourists felt the need to prove they visited some place by taking a picture; now they must not only take the picture & email it to all their friends, they also need to buy the t-shirt, the mug, the Mickey ears!!] Although it tends to romanticize Disney's operation under Walt, the Re-Imagineering blog offers an insightful post on how theme-park guests are increasingly encouraged to think of themselves primarily as shoppers by presenting them with the opportunity--nay, the mandate--to purchase a souvenir at every attraction. This collective of writers, much like the author of Epcot Central, point out such changes in the park experience undermines the immersive experience so vital to Disney's ongoing success as the operator of the definitive theme-park experience.

The Lemming Connection: The corporation's investment in immersion has considerably weakened, exponentially so within the last few years. Guests certainly sense this shift, even while they enjoy some of the innovations and expansions contributing to its erosion. Still, one wonders about guests' long-term commitment to a theme-park that treats them as peripheral to the Disney show instead of central to it. It seems that Disney has forgotten that without its guests' active involvement, a Disney theme park is nothing more than a postmodern ghost town. And since the immersive experience is what helped establish the Disney Difference for its parks, I wonder at what this shift to a consumption model suggests about Disney, about its guests, and about American culture at large.

Wicked, The Musical

My theory on this show...

Wicked is musical theatre for people who don't attend musical theatre regularly.

Having just seen it, I'm dumbstruck by the over-the-top response of the audience. The show is mediocre at best: no striking numbers, unsophisticated characterization, and a weak and saccharine plot. And for those hoping for an adaptation that incorporated the most compelling ideas of Gregory Maguire's novel--of Animal rights, colonialism, of predestination even: there's very little of that which carries over into the musical. The reviews have commented on how political this muscial is, but treat those claims lightly; as with most mainstream, multimillion dollar commercial enterprises, the politics are made very palatable, particularly for its middle-class audience (which consisted of quite a few families the night I attended). Couldn't Wicked have offered sharper criticisms or deepened the ones it did allude to?

Instead, the muscial cloaks any potential critique by focusing on its setting as high school revisited, with Glinda as the popular girl, Elphaba as the brainy nerd, and Fiyero as the boy they fight over. Geez. Wicked's really been done as sort of a post-feminist girl power show for tween girls and their mothers. Ugh. I suspect it's got a cult appeal similar to the outsider status present in Harry Potter and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Seriously, can anyone explain this show's popularity to me?

And before you ask, no! I do not consider this show to be Disneyfied. That would be an insult to Disney's stage shows. As many issues as one may have with Disney bringing its animated films to Broadway--and that's for another post--those shows have done several commendable things: 1) provide family entertainment in ways that generate an interest in theatre, a gateway experience; 2) develop shows that build on an audience's knowledge of the films, which is important if there are children in the audience (less questions or fidgeting); 3) offer technically interesting moments in staging and costumes, esp. in the collaboration with Julie Taymor; 4) hire and promote theatre artists; 5) participate in pop-musical theatre trend that many middle-brow patrons enjoy; 6) possibly, just maybe, inspire a lifelong love of theatre in children.

Lemming Connection: Part of me wonders if the show's popularity is now at that snowball stage. Demand for the tickets are high, the touring company shows sell out fast, word-of-mouth encourages the audience to think of Wicked as a must-see theatre event. And once you're in the theatre, the excitement is palpable, with audience members' breathing and sitting positions noticeably changing as the lights go down. Once that happens, there's quite a bit of pressure to convince yourself to enjoy the show, I think. I know I felt it. And I know I was a lemming because I felt the the pressure simply to see the show. Don't be a lemming: read the reviews (excerpts here) and read through the lines of the reviews. (I did, and still didn't listen.) Better yet, read this--which I read after seeing the performance.

Michael Paulus: Skeletal Systems

I haven't been posting as regularly as I'd like recently, as I'm busy prepping for a research trip. Still, I couldn't resist telling you about the work of Michael Paulus. Paulus, a micromedia artist working out of Portland, has created a series called "Skeletal Systems" which features anatomical sketches of cartoon and comic characters.

Included in his series of 22 are renderings of Charlie Brown Characters, Powerpuff Girls, Schmoo, and some WB characters. My favorite, though, is the Betty Boop and I certainly hope Paulus does more.

Here's an excerpted description of the project:

These Icons are usually grotesquely distorted from the human form from which they derive. Being that they are so commonplace and accepted as existing I thought I would dissect them like science does to all living objects - trying to come to an understanding as to their origins and true physiological make up. Possibly to better understand them and see them in a new light for what they are in the most basic of terms.

I hope to return to a regular schedule of posting soon.

Loving "Lawrence of Arabia (Limited Edition)"

Lawrence of Arabia (Limited Edition)

Bold cinematography makes Lawrence of Arabia (1962) worth watching. Although its plot and characters are riveting, it is the film’s cinematography that stays with you. Director David Lean and cinematographer Freddie Young use the desert landscape to provide a sense of scope in this epic. Briefly, the film centers on the actions of T.E. Lawrence, a WWI British Army officer. Both a charismatic hero and near-delusional narcissist, Lawrence attempts to unite various Arabian tribes and convince them to establish a nation, to fight the Turks and (perhaps) to resist British colonial interests.

You should watch this film because of and not despite its nearly 4-hour running time, especially if you consider yourself a cinephile. (I can’t believe it took me this long!) The length provides the film with its depth and the audience immersive experience in the visual (and aural) experience of cinema; I’m just sorry to say I saw it at home on DVD instead of in a theatre. There are so many beautiful shots that it’s hard to pick a favorite, but I’ll mention one that has been touted by many: the jump cut between Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) and the desert’s rising sun is stunning. As addeed incentive to see the film, many directors—among them Scorcese & Spielberg (and who were instrumental in restoring this film to Lean’s original vision)—have been influenced by the film.

Also worth noting is the bold characterization of Lawrence and others, notably Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif), Prince Feisel (Alec Guiness) and Auda abu Tayi (Anthony Quinn). Lean and the actors provide us with rich, complex performances, made all the more compelling by the fact that these characters are not drawn in the blockbuster-heroic mode. They are alternately inspiring and repulsive, capable of both high- and small-mindedness. They are altogether contradictory and maddenly all-too-human and, in Lawrence’s case, rather unlikeable. These performances makes one appreciate the film’s ideological choices even more, because they highlight Lean’s critique of colonialism, of war, of discourses of heroism and nationalism. And for those interested in issues of historical accuracy and of authenticity, these decisions reflect the contradictory responses to the real-life Lawrence. True, there are debates about elements of Lawrence’s life that are alluded to or rendered as subtext—such as his sexuality, being raped in a Turkish prison, or questions of his death as a suicide—but these elements are legible to the experienced film viewer.

The film deserves its status on best-films lists and its label as a masterpiece. You deserve to watch it.

Goal: 43 films
To Date: 26 seen
Remaining: 17 films

See more about Lawrence of Arabia (Limited Edition)

Bio-Photo 8

This Michael and Francis Higgins piece, a gift from my aunt, comes from my late uncle’s art studio. I spent time working side-by-side with him as a child, and it was only much later that I realized how significant it was that I was allowed in his studio. My uncle and his artist friends would often trade their “seconds” with each other, and this is one such example.

See more progress on: Take more pictures

Bio-Photo 7

One lesson I’ve learned from my cats: sometimes all you need to make your day better is a good stretch!

See more progress on: Take more pictures

Bio-Photo 6

Not as tasty as an apple a day, but…

See more progress on: Take more pictures