How Football Came to Dominate America

The start of the football season provides an interesting window into American culture.  The incredible hype surrounding the beginning of the NFL, following all of the fears there wouldn’t even be a season, only reinforces how football has become the most dominant sport in the country by a large margin.

It wasn’t always this way.  For years, baseball was the “national pastime” and the most popular sport in the nation.  Opening day used to attract the kind of attention that the first Sunday of football now receives.  This past summer, however, talk about a possible NFL lockout subsumed discussion of the actual baseball season.  What happened?

Throughout the first six decades of the 20^th century, the three most important sports in the country were baseball, boxing, and horse racing.  The World Series was the most important annual sporting event and the Super Bowl did not even exist.  College football was actually more popular than pro football until at least the 1950s.

Pro football’s coming out party was the “Greatest Game Ever Played,” the 1958 NFL Championship game between Johnny Unitas’ Baltimore Colts and Frank Gifford’s New York Giants.  One of the early games on TV, it ended in dramatic fashion as the Colts’ Alan Ameche scored on an one yard run in overtime.  Many credit the exciting contest for raising the NFL’s profile.

The popularity of the sport grew during the 1960s as the rivalry between the newly-formed AFL and NFL eventually resulted in the merger that created the modern NFL at the end of the decade.  The first Super Bowl, held in 1967 as a contest between the AFL and NFL champions, was not a major event, but quickly grew in the following years.  The famous Super Bowl III victory of Joe Namath’s New York Jets, indicating the competitiveness of the AFL, was another marker in the sport’s rise.  By the early 1970s, polls showed pro football ahead of baseball in popularity.  The Super Bowl became the biggest sporting event in the nation, a virtual national holiday that even non-fans feel obliged to watch.

What else accounted for the rise?  No doubt television was instrumental.  While baseball has made a tremendous amount of money from TV, football is more suited to the medium.  NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle, who was probably the greatest pro sports commissioner, developed relationships with the networks in the 1960s that helped grow the sport.  Moreover, the wealthy owners embraced a kind of socialism, equally distributing the television money so that Green Bay could be as competitive as New York.  This helped to bring about parity between large-market and small-market teams, giving every fan hope at the start of each new season.

Still, as recently as the mid-1980s, football was still barely ahead of baseball in popularity.  In 1985, a Harris Poll showed 24 percent of fans choosing pro football as their favorite sport while 23 percent chose baseball.  By 2010, 35 percent picked the NFL while only 16 percent picked major league baseball.

I think a number of factors account for the growth in the gap.  Clearly, baseball’s labor strife during this time, including multiple strikes and the cancellation of the 1994 World Series, hurt the game.  At the same time, the NFL had labor peace from 1987 to 2011, with no games lost to labor stoppages in that period.

Furthermore, football is a game more suited to the shorter attention spans of Generation X, raised on MTV and USA Today, and Generation Y, used to downloading music or receiving information immediately.  The languid pace of baseball, which may account for declining Little League participation, doesn’t seem to suit those 40 and under.

On a personal note, I grew up a bigger baseball fan than football fan, but in recent years my allegiances have changed.  I still love baseball, but it is a more difficult sport to follow as an adult.  I enjoyed following the batting races and memorizing statistics as a kid, but I don’t have the time anymore.  Part of the genius of football is that we can follow it by watching one day a week during the fall and winter, when the weather in most of the country precludes other activities

Post 9/11 Popular Culture

As we approach the 10^th anniversary of 9/11, we are about to see a great deal of commentary about how the attacks altered the country.  Over the last few months, I have procrastinated by watching a number of films that deal with terrorism and related issues.  They provide a window into how much the culture has changed because of the attacks.

When you look at films that deal with terrorism from the 1980s and 90s, the humorous tone of the movies is noteworthy.  Both Die Hard (1988) and Die Hard 2 (1990), for instance, are full of Bruce Willis’ wisecracks and public officials who don’t take the situations seriously.  The lack of airport security is notable in Die Hard 2, as John McLane engages in full-scale firefights within the airport itself while security seems to exist solely of glorified rent-a-cops.  I realize that some of these elements exist for dramatic effect, but it would inconceivable today for a film to depict the head of airport security ignoring a shooting in his own airport, as occurs in Die Hard 2.

Similarly, 1994’s True Lies, one of the first films to deal with the possibility of terrorists getting nuclear weapons, features a similar comedic tone.  The film is a complete farce with cartoonish terrorists and includes a scene with Jamie Lee Curtis and Arnold Schwarzenegger kissing as a loose nuke explodes in the background. 

Some film franchises provide clear demarcations between pre and post 9-11 culture.  For example, the 90s Batman films, particularly Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997), feature over-the-top villains and cartoonish plots reminiscent of the Adam West TV show from the 1960s.  On the other hand, the 21^st century Christopher Nolan directed Batman Begin (2005) and Dark Knight (2008) have depicted relatively realistic threats similar to terrorist plots, such as Raz-a-Ghul’s attempt to poison the water in Gotham and the Joker’s multiple attacks.

Another clear contrast can be seen in the difference between the James Bond films of the 1990s and the post 9-11 007 movies.  While Pierce Brosnan revived the franchise, the films are notable for ludicrous plots that couldn’t possibly be taken seriously, culminating in 2002’s Die Another Day, where Bond uses an invisible car and drives through an ice palace.  It makes Moonraker look positively believable!

On the other hand, the Daniel Craig films feature a Bond that is ultra-serious and doesn’t even bother to engage in the usual puns and wisecracks.  The plots of Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace (2009) are relatively believable and it seems as if genuine issues are actually a stake.  Bond doesn’t even use the usual gadgets that have been such a trademark of the franchise as Q doesn’t appear in either movie.  One couldn’t imagine Roger Moore, the Bond of my childhood, starring in these films.

Indeed, the Craig films seem inspired by the Bourne movies.  Though based on the Robert Ludlum novels of the 1970s, the movies update the plots for the post 9/11 era.  Bourne is a somber CIA-trained assassin trying to figure out his own identity.  The third film, the Bourne Ultimatum (2007) is replete with commentary on the Bush era.  When Joan Allen’s ethical CIA officer questions the agency’s extreme tactics, asking “When does this end,” her counterpart played by David Straitharn says, “It ends when we win!” When Bourne later asks Allen’s character, Pam Landy, why she is helping him, she responds, “This isn’t what I signed on for. This isn’t us.”

Generally speaking, action adventure films have taken a more serious tone in the years after 9/11.  We will see if this continues or if this development will fade as we gain more distance from the attacks

Return to the Planet of the Apes

                With the release of Rise of Planet of the Apes, it seems a perfect time to revisit the original Planet of the Apes, released at a pivotal moment in contemporary US History in 1968.  By this time, the optimism of the early 1960s has given way to cynicism as race riots, divisions over the Vietnam War, and assassinations roiled the country.  In the film, which is conceived as an allegory for the civil rights movement, three astronauts, led by Charlton Heston, arrive on a world where apes rule over humans.  The astronauts left Earth thousands of years ago on a journey to find alien life.

                The film reflects a number of the key issues of the 1960s.  Opening a year before the Apollo 11 moon landing, the use of the astronauts as protagonists demonstrates the centrality of the space program during this period.  I discussed this in my earlier post on the end of the shuttle program.

                The movie also reflects the racial tumult of the period.  In a scene that is repeated in Rise, the apes use a fire hose on Heston while they hold him in prison.  This scene was inspired by a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement, when the Birmingham, AL police do the same to children protesting in 1963.  This incident, which was replayed on television, led JFK to propose legislation that would eventually become the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

                Echoes of the youth revolution and the generation gap of the period can be seen as well.  One of the apes helping Heston tells him not to act like another adult giving orders.  “Never trust anyone over 30,” jokes Heston to the younger ape, a common refrain of the New Left at the time.

                Though the civil rights movement had achieved many legal goals by 1968, the women’s movement was still only in its infancy.   Betty Friedan and other second-wave feminists had only formed the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966. Heston is accompanied by three other astronauts, including one African American man.  However, the crew only includes one female astronaut, who was brought for little other purpose than procreation and died during the flight.  Though the Soviet Union had already sent up a female cosmonaut, Sally Ride only became the first American women in space in 1983.

                Of course, the most famous scene in the movie is still the ending (Spoilers), when Heston discovers that the planet he landed on is actually the Earth of the future.  When he sees the remains of the Statue of Liberty, we are left to believe that there has been a full-scale nuclear war, which was one of the central fears of the Cold War. This had been a theme of a number of films of this period, including Dr. Strangelove and Fail-Safe, both released in 1964.   Of course, we had come perilously close to that outcome in the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had occurred a few years earlier in 1962.  It’s possible that younger viewers don’t make that connection.

         Finally, in a preview of his later role as head of the NRA, Heston carries a gun throughout much of the film.

Captain America and World War II

I enjoyed “Captain America;” it was a fun movie that shows how summer movies can be a nice diversion.  Unlike “X-Men: First Class,” it did not, however, hold up much when it came to historical scrutiny.  While I know it is only a Hollywood film, I found it annoying that the movie shows black, white, and Japanese American soldiers serving together in World War II.  We fought World War II with a segregated army with blacks and Japanese Americans fighting in separate units.  The all-Japanese 442^nd combat division was one of the most decorated units in the conflict.  President Truman did not issue an order integrating the army until 1948, three years after the end of World War II.  In reality, the military did not fight a war as an integrated force until the Vietnam War in the 1960s. While some have commented that the inclusion of minorities highlights their contributions, I don’t think it is helpful for Hollywood to sanitize our past.

A couple of other interesting items.  The German émigré scientist, Dr. Erskine, who develops the formula that transforms Steve Rogers into Captain America, seems to represent the German intellectuals who fled the Nazis in the 1930s.  Most of them were Jewish, though the film never makes it explicit that Erskine is Jewish.  In the comic book, the character’s name is Reinstein, which is likely a reference to Albert Einstein.

Another interesting nod is the appearance of Tony Stark’s (Iron Man) father, Howard Stark, in this film.  The use of the name “Howard” seems to be a nod to Howard Hughes, whom some have theorized was the original inspiration for the Tony Stark character when the Iron Man comic premiered in the early 1960s.

Harry Potter and Diversity

In recent years, the United States has experienced a huge wave of immigration which has transformed the nation’s demography.  At the same time, many European countries have undergone a similar transformation, including Great Britain.  Western Europe experienced a significant labor shortage after World War II and welcomed “guest workers” from North Africa and Asia.  Many people from India, Pakistan, and other former British colonies emigrated to Great Britain.  These “guests” and their families stayed and have become part of the fabric of these countries.   I have been to London twice in the last ten years and it feels a lot like New York City with a tremendous diversity of cultures.

The “Potter” books and films reflect this phenomenon.  Though none of the main characters come from minority groups, a number of supporting characters do.  Perhaps the most important was Cho Chan, Harry’s first crush.  Ron and Harry went to a school dance in Goblet of Fire with the Patel twins.

Other British sci-fi products have reflected this change.  For instance, the new “Doctor Who”, which has featured a couple of black cast members, has had a much more diverse feel than the original program, which aired from the 1960s-1980s. 

Harry Potter and the Suburbs

Another interesting element of the Harry Potter series is its depiction of the suburbs.  Through the Dursleys, Harry’s Aunt and Uncle, suburbanites are portrayed as completely narrow-minded, conformist, and career-obsessed.  This echoes the criticism that many American observers have made of suburbs since the 1950s.  After the emergence of the post-WW2 Levittowns, intellectuals like David Riesman, Betty Friedan, and others have attacked the suburbs as repressive centers of boredom and homogenous thinking.   

For a half-century, films like “American Beauty” and numerous others have echoed and reinforced this criticism.  For instance, it has been a subtle theme throughout the films of Steven Spielberg.  Think of the shot of Eliot’s suburb in “E.T.” which shows a sea of look-alike houses.  Spielberg’s critique of the suburbs reached its peak in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” when a nuclear test destroys a model suburban community in Nevada. The Potter series reveal that at least some British observers feel the same way about their suburbs.

Harry Potter and the Historical Interpretation

With the Harry Potter films ending this week, it is an appropriate time to analyze the series, which is now the highest grossing in the history of Hollywood.  First, I’d like to examine the historical roots of some of J.K. Rowling’s ideas.  A re-watching of Deathly Hallows, part 1 and parts of some of the other films this weekend reinforces my view that Voldemort and his allies are partially modeled on the Nazis.  For instance, Voldemort is obsessed with a desire for “pure-blood” wizardry and wants to purge the magical community of “mudbloods” (wizards with Muggle, non-magical parents).  This is eerily reminiscent of the Nazis’ views toward the Jews.  Furthermore, in Deathly Hallows, Part 1, Voldemort expresses his fear of mating between Muggles and pure-blood magicians, another typical concern of the Nazis and others who have promoted ideologies of racial superiority. Also, the Ministry of Magic’s architecture in the film version of Deathly Hallows, pt. 1 bears a strong resemblance to Albert Speer’s Nazi style.  Finally, Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) paints “mudblood” on Hermione’s forearm and it looks almost like a concentration camp tattoo.

Rowling and the filmmakers did not simply draw upon the Nazis as an inspiration for the villains.  Voldemort’s fear of “race-mixing” also laid at the root of white supremacy in the Jim Crow South.  Similarly, the description of the Death Eaters in the attack on the Quidditch Cup in Goblet of Fire bears a strong similarity to the Ku Klux Klan.