"Natural" isn't necessarily "real".
In a wonderfully
entertaining article from earlier this year, Ginger Strand traces much of
the history of Niagara Falls, and the efforts devoted to maintaining their "naturalness".
Strand uses the film Niagara, and its star, Marilyn Monroe, to question
our perception of what we understand as "natural". She writes:
The controversy reflected what biographer Sarah Churchwell
calls “the central anxiety in Marilyn’s story: Was she natural or manufactured?
Scripted or real?” In the ’50s, this was becoming a question for the Falls too.
A 1950 treaty with Canada had been signed that allowed more water to be diverted
into power plants than ever before. Anticipating the reduced water flow over
the brink, Ontario Hydro and the Army Corps of Engineers had scheduled the Falls
for a face-lift. In fact, a massive engineering project was in place to carve
out the riverbed, reshape the banks, rebuild the viewing points, and artificially
raise the water level—all in order to keep up the appearance of natural grandeur.
Marilyn’s 116-foot walk strode right to the heart of an issue that was playing
out at Niagara and on many fronts in American life. What is real, and what fake?
If something is artificial, do we admire its beauty less? How much are we willing
to be hoodwinked?
I've been assured that not too many years ago the Falls were allowed to "speak"
for themselves, with only a limited amount of touristy commercialism to maintain
the visitor's interest. That's hardly the case today.
Go to: Straight and narrow are highly relative, or
Go to: Search Rules!