Madness Kingdom: SHDL- America Without Americana

[the.dreamfinder]

https://madnesskingdom.com/america-sans-americana-shanghai-disneyland-2ecf7d5c3450
First real in-depth piece of criticism on SHDL placing it within the context of the Disney theme park legacy, Chinese culture and politics.

 

[RandySavage]

A long read, but Hilger's writing is as good as his photos. I disagree on a few points but, overall, he gets it... the definitive piece on SDL.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

A long read, but Hilger's writing is as good as his photos. I disagree on a few points but, overall, he gets it... the definitive piece on SDL.

Just curious, but which points?

 

[RandySavage]

Just curious, but which points?

I sped read and most of it I strongly agree with (his commentary on the worldwide Tomorrowland issue is dead on), but here is an early example. He seems to take the position that actual SDL had to be the way it is:

"These three factors ultimately led to the Shanghai Disneyland that was eventually built, arguably the only Disneyland that could be built in mainland China by a foreign company where the government is a majority stakeholder."

I would definitely take the 'arguably' side on that point. There is of course today's unavoidable grand guiding Igervision of the "Disney Brand" that was going to shape it no matter what (the "distinctly Chinese" part of Iger's mission statement is mostly lip-service). But in the micro - and even the macro - the end results could be have been anything, content-wise, and could have ranged from an F to an A in execution. If one rates SDL as an overall "B" park, there could have just as easily been an "A" or a "C" version of the park, even with the same budget. In the other trip report thread here, I recently commented on Fantasyland design: a big part of the end result comes down to choices made by design & planning teams, as opposed to the CEO or Communist party.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

I sped read and most of it I strongly agree with (his commentary on the worldwide Tomorrowland issue is dead on), but here is an early example. He seems to take the position that actual SDL had to be the way it is:

"These three factors ultimately led to the Shanghai Disneyland that was eventually built, arguably the only Disneyland that could be built in mainland China by a foreign company where the government is a majority stakeholder."

I would definitely take the 'arguably' side on that point. There is of course today's unavoidable grand guiding Igervision of the "Disney Brand" that was going to shape it no matter what (the "distinctly Chinese" part of Iger's mission statement is mostly lip-service). But in the micro - and even the macro - the end results could be have been anything, content-wise, and could have ranged from an F to an A in execution. If one rates SDL as an overall "B" park, there could have just as easily been an "A" or a "C" version of the park, even with the same budget. In the other trip report thread here, I recently commented on Fantasyland design: a big part of the end result comes down to choices made by design & planning teams, as opposed to the CEO or Communist party.

I skimmed for now and plan to ingest the whole story later, but having just been in the park a few weeks ago for the first(and most likely only time)I could not pinpoint what the park lacked before, I was thinking color, or whimsy, and now reading this, maybe it was Americana. It seems like a lot of money went into having really amazing effects on few rides, but then literally none on others(would have killed them to have a few moving things or even better detailed statues on the canoe ride?) but it also got me wondering if this was almost a little experiment in how to build a smaller park somewhere, even in the US, if the current group could. Less small details, less hiding backstage elements, no expensive train to operate.

 

[BrianLo]

https://madnesskingdom.com/america-sans-americana-shanghai-disneyland-2ecf7d5c3450
First real in-depth piece of criticism on SHDL placing it within the context of the Disney theme park legacy, Chinese culture and politics.

I was a bit confused about your threads headline as it relates to the body. The writer seems to praise the lack of Americana, but you've implied the opposite?

Shanghai Disneyland needed to accomplish two incredibly difficult goals. The first was to extricate the specific American cultural ties from its DNA. In this, it succeeds. Shanghai Disneyland is a Disneyland sans Americana and it somehow still works. This is no small achievement, and a hugely important first step in porting the Disney experience to new people and new cultures not necessarily tied to the American viewpoint or so willing to accept it. This is in sharp contrast to a park like Hong Kong Disneyland, which has simply ported the American Disneyland experience arguably to a fault. Hong Kong Disneyland has an overly reliant connection to the Americana Disneyland, which creates a dynamic where the park has a quant appeal to American and longtime Disneyland fans, a sort of alternative Anaheim Disneyland preserved in a time where crowds weren’t so rampant. However, this aspect of Hong Kong Disneyland’s appeal is ultimately masturbatory and represents a missed opportunity to explore new ground and broaden appeal beyond an ode to Americana. Hong Kong Disneyland is absolutely charming, but it’s essentially cheating to accomplish that charm, trading on Disneyland nostalgia in turn trading on American nostalgia. Shanghai Disneyland takes the risks Hong Kong should have and while it doesn’t always stick the landing, it is doing a lot of heavy lifting that no other Disney park since Disneyland in 1955 has been forced to do.

It's a great article though, thanks for the read!

 

[lazyboy97o]

I have not finished reading the article, but I think it falls into a trap common of these types of cultural comparisons. Comparisons between Disney parks tend to always be against Disneyland. That’s the benchmark and it ends up ignoring the role of other parks and what is happening in a far larger context. The worst offenders of this are the early academic analysis of Tokyo Disneyland which analyze differences between that park and Disneyland, ascribing cultural meaning to differences that first occurred in Florida and not Tokyo.

The biggest crock about Shanghai Disneyland is this idea that it is “distinctly Chinese.” The park is devoid of not just Americana, but any meaning and place. Shanghai Disneyland is an example of what would be plopped down anywhere, a park with no effort to be its own entity.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

I have not finished reading the article, but I think it falls into a trap common of these types of cultural comparisons. Comparisons between Disney parks tend to always be against Disneyland. That’s the benchmark and it ends up ignoring the role of other parks and what is happening in a far larger context. The worst offenders of this are the early academic analysis of Tokyo Disneyland which analyze differences between that park and Disneyland, ascribing cultural meaning to differences that first occurred in Florida and not Tokyo.

The biggest crock about Shanghai Disneyland is this idea that it is “distinctly Chinese.” The park is devoid of not just Americana, but any meaning and place. Shanghai Disneyland is an example of what would be plopped down anywhere, a park with no effort to be its own entity.

Um EXCUSE ME the Chinese love large gardens so I think the GARDENS OF IMAGINATION proves you wrong here. They even did a little wall with images of Disney characters in the Chinese zodiac!!! Doesn't get more distinctly Chinese than that!!!!