So, I spent the weekend watching snippets of What’s My Line?, the game show that, running on television from 1950 to 1967, involved panelists who attempted to guess the professions of unknown contestants and, blindfolded, to guess the names of celebrity contestants.
Hosted mostly by the radio personality John Charles Daly, it featured, as panelists, such figures as the newspaper personality Dorothy Kilgallen, actress personality Arlene Francis, book personality Bennett Cerf, comic personality Steve Allen, writing personality Gore Vidal, and magazine personality Hugh Hefner.
A something personality. That was really the point of the show. And it’s worth watching today because it was the simulacrum of a unified culture—not that culture itself, but at least the parody and ape of the thing. It was the 1950s, in other words—that time of culture’s parody and simulacrum and apery.
And yet . . .
And yet . . .
You gotta say that, at least, the era, and its show, had an idea of culture. No, an ideal of culture, without the idea. The celebrity guests were the key. Salvador Dali appeared on the show. As did William O. Douglas. And Ford Frick. And Frank Lloyd Wright. And Eleanor Roosevelt.
Oh, and Sugar Ray Robinson, Richard J. Daley, Carl Sandburg, Esther Williams, and Herman Wouk. Clifton Fadiman. Phil Rizzuto. Rosiland Russell. Yves Saint Laurent. The whole sick crew of 1950s middlebrow culture: entertainers, for the most part, but a smattering of recognizable other figures.
In fact, take the episode when the panel are noodling around, trying to guess the identity of Frank Lloyd Wright, and one of the panelists asks another, “Could it be that he’s in design or architecture like Frank Lloyd Wright?” It was, in its way, the perfect question: Frank Lloyd Wright deployed as a type and a figure to try to identify . . . Frank Lloyd Wright.
And types and figures are the raw stuff of culture. The funny thing about What’s My Line? is the old conventions that it uses. Asking if the mystery guest is famous for movies, the panelists will ask: “Are you better known for film rather than, say, legitimate theater?” Often the questions are phrased fulsomely, as in “Are you a famous actor?” or “Are you a leading lady?” And the host, John Charles Daly—who married Chief Justice Earl Warren’s daughter, uniting, um, something or other in American culture. Anyway, the host, John Charles Daly, would always answer for the celebrity: “Our mystery guest is too modest to answer with the proper reply, so I’ll answer for him: Yes, this is a very famous actor.” Or, often enough, the guest would answer no.
Look, these were conventions mostly as pretentions, mostly as apings and the fakings of what it imagined culture demanded. But what the weird, silly, self-important old show did have, that would soon be lost, is an imagination of culture. And a unified culture, at that. Randolph Churchill appeared and was a good sport. Van Cliburn was surprisingly clever and charming. Louis Untermeyer was one of the early panelists. Louis Untermeyer, of all the wonderful old hacks of the middlebrow world. Chuck Yeager. Alfred Hitchcock. Rodgers and Hammerstein.
All it needed was Charles Goren and the head of the Arthur Murray Dance Studios. Oh, wait, Arthur Murray actually was on the show. And Groucho Marx—who signed in as “Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.” And Art Linkletter. And Col. Sanders. And the perpetual panelist Bennett Cerf—did he ever actually publish books? He seemed to know everyone, and constantly asked questions like: “Did you have dinner with me this week?”
But that was kind of the point. The contestants got the celebrities—politicians, writers, but mostly Broadway and movie stars on tour to promote their latest work—an enormous amount of the time. Woody Allen did stump them, but Ronald Reagan and most others did not. They got Bishop Fulton Sheen, and they got Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., and they got Kim Novak, and they got Joe DiMaggio, and they got Yves St. Laurent.
And though the manners were copied, the world they came from was real, in its weak, weird way. There was something of a unified culture that existed in that time, that place, and they did all know each other. The acoustics on the early days of the show were awful. Beyond awful. Questions and answers had constantly to be repeated. Frank Lloyd Wright never heard a single thing said to him. Neither did Charles Coburn. Or Louis Armstrong. Of course, their answers were often misheard, too, which is perhaps what kept some of those figures from being identified just from their voices—however much they tried to fake accents.
And by the mid-1960s, when the show was dying, all that was fading away. Was the loss of that culture good or bad? I can’t decide. I mean, the culture was a shadow of a high liberal culture that was not the worst thing in the history of the world. Not the best, either. But for good or ill, it’s all gone. The Walter Winchells and the Joe Dimaggios are gone. The Fernando Lamases are still with us, but, then, they always are.
Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things.
Comments:
Since when is Louis Armstrong music an imagining of culture? Is it such a mediocre thing to be a great athlete such as Sugar Ray Robinson or Joe Dimaggio?
I have admired most of what you write for quite a few years now but in this case you mostly show yourself to be a snob--let us laugh at the fifties and all it pretended to be! Did you really mean to say that Alfred Hitchcock and Rodgers and Hammerstein were hacks? Groucho Marx was part of some sort of pseudo-culture? Pop culture is not part of "high liberal culture"? That may be but there is a fairly modern word that describes your hifalutin attitude: snarky. Otherwise I think you are a very fine writer and thinker and editor.
Michael Dodd
I think Mr. Bottum's perspective on '50s middlebrow culture has much in its favor. It was a weird, silly world, I guess. But as a fantasy of the good life circa 1959, it was a whole lot better than many alternatives. And I think that absorbing it probably did a lot of people more good than harm.



I get this feeling that culture, or being a part of "something," is SO optional today. Individualism, personal preference, and nuance, seems to rule the day. As well, to meander through the nuances of just about everything, seems to be a by-product of the "good life." To be afforded time to contemplate is luxury.
I, for one, am thankful for many of the luxuries of today. I just find it interesting that when afforded luxury, we seem to not be able to help ourselves. We are prone to squander.
Our colleges now offer courses in entrepreneurship. In contrast, I would imagine that a class on duty, and contributing to a greater good, would be the lesser attended today. I don't mean to confuse a business course with something much more core to our being, but I hope you get my point.
A "cog on a wheel" (a gear tooth) is something that works endlessly and sometimes gets chewed-up, even destroyed. We do not see being a "cog on a wheel" as a place to contribute, a place for us to help things run as they "are suppose to."
Just a little musing back at ya.