Stars: 2 out of 5
Pros: Beautiful songs and great animation
Cons: Political
messages ruin any entertainment for me
The Bottom Line:
History rewritten
Political agenda
Skip this Disney film
The Disney animation resurgence reached its peak with The
Lion King. The next year saw a movie
that began to mark the decline. While
still a financial success, it’s easy to point to Pocahontas as the moment when
things started to go south. The thing
is, the movie isn’t helped by the political agenda hidden in the beautiful
animation.
The story is a very, very loose interpretation of
history. As such, it follows the voyage
of the first settlers to land in Virginia . The movie actually opens in England as John
Smith (voiced by Mel Gibson) joins an expedition to found the colony. The expedition is under the leadership of
Ratcliffe (David Ogden Stiers). We even
meet a crewman named Thomas (Christian Bale).
As we travel the sea, we get to experience first hand how brave and
noble John Smith is.
Then we join Pocahontas (Irene Bedard) in the ideal world of
uncolonized America. Her father, the
chief, has just returned from a victory over their foes. His right hand man, Kocoum (James Apaumut
Fall), has just asked for Pocahontas’ hand in marriage. But Pocahontas is not happy with that
arrangement. She is restless and a free
spirit, longing for adventure.
And that’s when she sees the strange clouds that are the
sails of the ship arriving. While out
scouting, John Smith meets her. The two
form an instant connection and start sharing parts of their language and culture
with each other. Will they be able to
form a peace between their people when so many are clamoring for war?
Try as I might, I have a hard time separating myself from
the bad history here to enjoy the movie as pure entertainment. I will say that the songs are gorgeous, well
most of them. They certainly help
advance the story, and I can get “Colors of the Wind” stuck in my head for
days. There was a love song written for
Pocahontas and John Smith that is available as a bonus feature, at least on the
new Blu-Ray release. Why it wasn’t
incorporated back into the movie like was done on the last DVD is a mystery to
me.
I must also give the film credit for the gorgeous
animation. This movie is a perfect
example of why we must not let the art of hand drawn animation die. The forests of the new world are so beautiful
to look at.
And the voice cast does a fine job with their parts. The Native Americans were all voiced by real
Native Americans, who praised the film for the authenticity of the portrayals
of Native American culture. (Ironically,
other Native American groups complained about the stereotypes. Proves you just can’t win.)
Then there are the animal characters. They add some humor to the proceedings and
the film is fairly serious, so I certainly think the film needs it. And the way they parallel what is happening
or should be happening between the humans is a nice bit of storytelling.
However, they are also a prime example of what was going
wrong with Disney animation at this point.
They had become too formulaic. In
their efforts to crank out one movie a year, they went to the same well to
create characters. Dashing, virtuous
hero? Check. Independent woman who wants adventure and
won’t settle for just any husband?
Check. Cute animal sidekicks to
provide some laughs? Check. Change the names and the setting and we’ve
got a new movie.
So, now let’s get into the history or lack there of. I will grant you not much is known about
Pocahontas until later in her life (after this film was set), but what is
suspected is far different from what is presented here. For one thing, she was most likely about 8
years younger. There was never romance
between her and John Smith. And while
she did save his life, some historians even protest that much. Add to that the fact that they kill off a
character who doesn’t die during this time period, and you’ve got a work of
fiction.
Now, I have no problem with historical fiction; in fact, I
love the genre. However, you need to
adhere to the truth as much as you can.
In reality, this was nothing like reality. Since the Disney version of things gets so engrained
in our culture, that’s dangerous. It’s
one thing when looking at time periods but something completely different when
real people are changed so dramatically.
And with no disclaimer to warn people that what they are seeing is
purely fiction.
And don’t even get me started on Grandmother Willow, the
living, talking tree that gives Pocahontas advice. In a fairy tale context, I’d have no problems
with this character, but again we've got that history thing going on.
Couple this with the other messages in the film. There is the pro-environmental message
contains in “Colors of the Wind” and the way the two cultures are
presented. The English are obviously bad
for wanting to take resources and the Indians are good for wanting to keep them
around to enjoy. Mind you, I firmly
believe that destroying the Earth is a horrid idea and should never be
done. But there needs to be a balance
between the two sides, and that balance isn’t presented here.
Furthermore, our villain of the piece, Ratcliffe, is a one
note, greedy jerk. And because of him,
the only white man not painted with a horrid brush is John Smith. I mean, look at the song “Savages,” which
both sides sing as they are going off to war.
The white men are singing it because they think the Native Americans are
hiding gold and are going to kill Smith out of spite. The Native Americans are singing it because
one of their own was just killed and they want revenge. Which of these motives can you get behind?
Never mind the fact that Ratcliffe, while admittedly a weak
governor, wasn’t even in the colony during the time that the film was set. He came a few years later.
Look, I’m not going to sit here and say that the white man
was perfect in our relations with the Native Americans when we came to this
country. Far from it, as anyone who has
studied history certainly knows.
(Although the idea that we would all still be in Europe
and the Native Americans would be living here in their idealic world with the
exploring period of history is ludicrous.)
But the characters were created as strawmen that could easily be knocked
down as examples of the good (Native American) and bad (white man). It is so painfully obvious it ruins much of
the movie.
Am I expecting too much from an animated movie aimed at
kids? Maybe. Usually, I just sit down, relax, and
enjoy. But since this one took on
history and messed with it so much, it really bothers me. Besides, with the historical background and
serious nature of the film, I don’t see it appealing to kids that much. The animals, while cute and funny, will only
carry things so far. Whether they want
to admit it or not, I think this movie was aimed at adults.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for stopping by. In order to combat spam, I moderate most comments. I'll get to your comment as soon as I can.