| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| 329:question:329--week_2_questions_comments [2016/09/08 10:57] – [3 Questions about interpretation] jmcclurken | 329:question:329--week_2_questions_comments [2016/09/13 14:47] (current) – [2 Things the Movie got right] nmilroy |
|---|
| A**side from periodically bursting into song dialogue**, Disney’s romanticized rendition of these accounts, though founded on historic similarities, does appear to contain a number of factual errors of which several are (somewhat) considered common knowledge and/or had been discussed during Tuesday’s lecture such as names, ages, romance (or lack thereof) and cultures. Further analysis of these sources produced additional inaccuracies of which the more notable are; **the initial meeting of Smith and Amonute (Pocahontas) which was not immediate nor under civil circumstances as the movie suggests; topographic elements depicted by the film which are incongruous to the physical geography of Tidewater Virginia (as explained in exploratory aspects of the reading); and perhaps the gravest fallacy wherein the movie failed to portray, was the high mortality rate suffered by the increasingly malnourished settlers via starvation and disease.** This body count/reality was undoubtedly repressed from the plotline to accommodate a G-rating for a child demographic. --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/08 02:27// | A**side from periodically bursting into song dialogue**, Disney’s romanticized rendition of these accounts, though founded on historic similarities, does appear to contain a number of factual errors of which several are (somewhat) considered common knowledge and/or had been discussed during Tuesday’s lecture such as names, ages, romance (or lack thereof) and cultures. Further analysis of these sources produced additional inaccuracies of which the more notable are; **the initial meeting of Smith and Amonute (Pocahontas) which was not immediate nor under civil circumstances as the movie suggests; topographic elements depicted by the film which are incongruous to the physical geography of Tidewater Virginia (as explained in exploratory aspects of the reading); and perhaps the gravest fallacy wherein the movie failed to portray, was the high mortality rate suffered by the increasingly malnourished settlers via starvation and disease.** This body count/reality was undoubtedly repressed from the plotline to accommodate a G-rating for a child demographic. --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/08 02:27// |
| |
| | In Disney’s Pocahontas, there are many inaccuracies in the film. It all starts with a palpable connection between John Smith and Pocahontas. First, Pocahontas is around 12 when John Smith (30) came to Jamestown, which is a weird fact for Disney to ignore. On top of that, Disney completely skips the fact that the two would have a culture and language barrier when they first meet. The love story, when looking at historical educated guesses, is just weird even for a Disney movie. There are more inaccuracies but this one was the first to come to mind. |
| | |
| | Although they are minor, several historical inaccuracies plagued the back of my mind as I watched the film. Firstly, the film portrays the men who arrived in Virginia as workingmen while in reality they were affluent, ill-prepared, and ill-dressed (did no one tell them that velvet was SO out of fashion in 1608?). Secondly, as someone who grew up in Gloucester, Virginia, in the thick of all this action, the geological inaccuracies are hard to ignore: no waterfalls exist in the Historic Triangle. The film’s portrayal of the relationship between Pocahontas and John Smith is also unnerving. Pocahontas was 10-12 when she first met the 35 year old John Smith. However, the film romanticizes whatever interactions may or may not have occurred between the two. Lastly, while I am no expert on the indigenous corn of the 1600’s, I find it hard to believe that it would look like the homogenously-golden, genetically-modified corn that was portrayed in the film. **Milroy, Nancy** 2016/09/08 06:57 --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/13 09:45// |
| ====== 2 Things the Movie got right ====== | ====== 2 Things the Movie got right ====== |
| |
| From the reading I learned that Ratcliffe and Kocoum were actual people, though their portrayals, like those of John Smith, Pocahontas, and Powhatan are inaccurate. | From the reading I learned that Ratcliffe and Kocoum were actual people, though their portrayals, like those of John Smith, Pocahontas, and Powhatan are inaccurate. |
| The film did get the us v. them mentality right. Both the English and Powhatan's people express the sentiment that "because they're not like us, they must be completely backward and evil." This is very realistic (although the movie seems to imply they were equally at fault for the violence, which is not accurate). --Julia Peterson, 1:05 am | The film did get the us v. them mentality right. Both the English and Powhatan's people express the sentiment that "because they're not like us, they must be completely backward and evil." This is very realistic (although the movie seems to imply they were equally at fault for the violence, which is not accurate). --Julia Peterson, 1:05 am |
| | |
| | As I compare John Smith’s journal entry to the film, I find that both portray a man who is interested in learning about the New World. In the journal entry Smith is very detailed with listing the names of the various Native American tribes and the rivers, spelling them to the best of his ability (and to the pain of our having to read awkward vowel placements). In the film, Smith is portrayed as an earnest man who is receptive to learning about nature and cosmology. **Milroy, Nancy** 2016/09/08 06:57 --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/13 09:46// |
| | |
| | |
| | Pocahontas, as a kids film managed to get a certain number of details right and a lot more wrong. At the start of the movie we see kids in the beginning and they were playing a game that looked like lacrosse. My question is whether or not that was a game that was played by American Indian kids or was that more a 90’s sport thrown in by the movie makers. I believe other facts they got right were the women and the “princess” doing the agriculture. I did feel the movie was pretty borderline when it came to the marriage part. I know from our class discussion that marriage was a group decision with the entire tribe. It sort of felt like Pocahontas had a choice, but it felt that her father might have just respected her judgment and let her choose her own destiny. The movie could have been more clear but I saw this as an area in which Disney got at least close. --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/09/08 06:29// |
| ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ====== | ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ====== |
| |
| |
| ====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ====== | ====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ====== |
| The account that John Smith wrote and the character John Smith in the movie both share a main similarity that both depict him the primary acting agent in the events. The Smith’s accomplish feats far beyond what would have been usual and appear more exaggerated. In the film the introduction to John Smith revolves around his great exploits and bravery. While the reading is more subdued it still includes many instances where Smith avoids trouble without anyone else to help him after he shoots and kills some native American men. --- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/09/06 18:34// | **The account that John Smith wrote and the character John Smith in the movie both share a main similarity that both depict him the primary acting agent in the events. The Smith’s accomplish feats far beyond what would have been usual and appear more exaggerated.** In the film the introduction to John Smith revolves around his great exploits and bravery. While the reading is more subdued it still includes many instances where Smith avoids trouble without anyone else to help him after he shoots and kills some native American men. --- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/09/06 18:34// |
| |
| Even though the primary source we read wasn’t the third version of the story, you can tell that instead of looking at all sources Disney only viewed the last. Instead of going with what was actually (using that term very loosely since John Smith was not the most reliable) happening during his capture as stated in our readings, they went with the violent description of his capture. It is clear that, instead of looking at an actual historical event and person and treating it as such, they are looking at the fictional version and treating it as fact. This is not to say they don’t have their similarities. As Catherine said, they both live up John Smith’s exploits, either with him going “to hundreds of new worlds” as Disney claimed or him somehow dodging 30 arrows in his own words. They both try to tell a better story then the truth. --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/09/07 16:04// | **Even though the primary source we read wasn’t the third version of the story, you can tell that instead of looking at all sources Disney only viewed the last.** Instead of going with what was actually (using that term very loosely since John Smith was not the most reliable) happening during his capture as stated in our readings, they went with the violent description of his capture. It is clear that, instead of looking at an actual historical event and person and treating it as such, they are looking at the fictional version and treating it as fact. This is not to say they don’t have their similarities. As Catherine said, they both live up John Smith’s exploits, either with him going “to hundreds of new worlds” as Disney claimed or him somehow dodging 30 arrows in his own words. They both try to tell a better story then the truth. --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/09/07 16:04// |
| |
| John Smith in the reading had a lot more to say about what was happening in terms of trade and interpersonal events. He explained who got sick, who attacked them, how the Native Americans treated them upon their various interactions, and what the colony was actually doing while he wasn't off trading. This first account, while perhaps not totally reliable, gave a much more in-depth description of what he experienced socially and personally. He had a lot of opinions about the settlers he worked with and took up the role of providing food for people he didn't seem to think worked very hard. He mentioned the changes in power and the disorder within the colony, not just what he was personally running into in his adventures. His explanations of what the Native Americans were doing is pretty vague at the beginning and appears spontaneous, but of course if whatever happened was his fault, he probably wouldn't write to his superiors about it. The central focus on John Smith and the lack of interaction between the Native Americans and English settlers are the biggest difference between the film and the reading. --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/07 16:45// | John Smith in the reading had a lot more to say about what was happening in terms of trade and interpersonal events. He explained who got sick, who attacked them, how the Native Americans treated them upon their various interactions, and what the colony was actually doing while he wasn't off trading. **This first account, while perhaps not totally reliable, gave a much more in-depth description of what he experienced socially and personally. He had a lot of opinions about the settlers he worked with and took up the role of providing food for people he didn't seem to think worked very hard.** He mentioned the changes in power and the disorder within the colony, not just what he was personally running into in his adventures. His explanations of what the Native Americans were doing is pretty vague at the beginning and appears spontaneous, but of course if whatever happened was his fault, he probably wouldn't write to his superiors about it. The central focus on John Smith and the lack of interaction between the Native Americans and English settlers are the biggest difference between the film and the reading. --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/07 16:45// |
| |
| So I admit that I have the blu-ray version of Pocahontas, just because while it is inaccurate and nowhere near one of Disney’s best films, it’s also not anywhere close to the worst films the company has put out, and I appreciate the good things the movie does have to offer, like the color and backgrounds, and scores and music from Alan Menken, who is one of my favorite composers. I therefore have special features that I can look at, to include commentary by the directors Eric Goldberg, Mike Gabriel, and the producer, James Pentecost. They spoke multiple times of how they knew they were dealing with historical people and how they strove for historical accuracy, and the irony of still having a lot of Disney tropes put into the movie (love at first site, bursting into song, etc.) was not lost on me. | So I admit that I have the blu-ray version of Pocahontas, just because while it is inaccurate and nowhere near one of Disney’s best films, **it’s also not anywhere close to the worst films the company has put out,** and I appreciate the good things the movie does have to offer, like the color and backgrounds, and scores and music from Alan Menken, who is one of my favorite composers. **I therefore have special features that I can look at, to include commentary by the directors Eric Goldberg, Mike Gabriel, and the producer, James Pentecost. They spoke multiple times of how they knew they were dealing with historical people and how they strove for historical accuracy, and the irony of still having a lot of Disney tropes put into the movie (love at first sight, bursting into song, etc.) was not lost on me**. |
| |
| However, after reading John Smith’s journal entry dated 1608 and learning what he wrote in 1624 years after Pocahontas had died, I venture the opinion that it’s obviously not just Disney who is guilty of the historical inaccuracies, but their version isn’t even the most insulting. Smith does say that he was shot, but for the most part, (what I could gather anyway) he did say he was treated very well, and barely mentioned Pocahontas then. We discussed that his memoirs followed an attack between the settlers and the Native Americans, but for him to completely revamp what happened later on was still something that I just can’t wrap my head around. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/07 16:46// | However, after reading John Smith’s journal entry dated 1608 and learning what he wrote in 1624 years after Pocahontas had died, **I venture the opinion that it’s obviously not just Disney who is guilty of the historical inaccuracies, but their version isn’t even the most insulting**. Smith does say that he was shot, but for the most part, (what I could gather anyway) he did say he was treated very well, and barely mentioned Pocahontas then. We discussed that his memoirs followed an attack between the settlers and the Native Americans, but for him to completely revamp what happened later on was still something that I just can’t wrap my head around. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/07 16:46// |
| |
| I feel with all sources historians need to take a chill pill and understand this is just another dimension to another story, interpreted for another audience, and made in another period in time. We (historians) dont go around reading one primary source and take it as fact. One does not read John Smiths journal and claim to know the history, rather a piece of history that can be used to gain a better understanding of the bigger picture. Comparing the reading to the movie, The movie follows that of the John Smith journals and stories to an extent a kids movie can. It emphasized the story through the lense of a specific side (in this case sides) of the story. With that said it's a historical horror, and a cinematic classic none the less. --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/09/07 19:01// | **I feel with all sources historians need to take a chill pill and understand this is just another dimension to another story, interpreted for another audience, and made in another period in time.** We (historians) dont go around reading one primary source and take it as fact. One does not read John Smiths journal and claim to know the history, rather a piece of history that can be used to gain a better understanding of the bigger picture. Comparing the reading to the movie, **The movie follows that of the John Smith journals and stories to an extent a kids movie can.** It emphasized the story through the lense of a specific side (in this case sides) of the story. **With that said it's a historical horror, and a cinematic classic none the less.** --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/09/07 19:01// |
| |
| Jon, I agree with your apt analysis. While applying what you said about the movie, I do not think we can make an accurate conclusion of what people thought of Native Americans in 1995 based solely off of Pocahontas. Instead of looking at Pocahontas as THE primary source, we should simply take it into consideration when looking at the treatment of Native Americans in the mid 1990’s as a whole. --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/09/07 22:48// | Jon, I agree with your apt analysis. **While applying what you said about the movie, I do not think we can make an accurate conclusion of what people thought of Native Americans in 1995 based solely off of Pocahontas. Instead of looking at Pocahontas as THE primary source, we should simply take it into consideration when looking at the treatment of Native Americans in the mid 1990’s as a whole.** --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/09/07 22:48// |
| |
| I think the reading was slightly more credible than the movie, but we should keep in mind (as we mentioned in class) that John Smith did not write well, thought quite highly of himself and pretty much only wrote of himself in those tones, and frequently used a friend or ghostwriter to write his writings for him. So this makes the two potentially relate more in inaccuracies than accuracies. --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/07 21:03// | I think the reading was slightly more credible than the movie, but we should keep in mind (as we mentioned in class) that John Smith did not write well, thought quite highly of himself and pretty much only wrote of himself in those tones, and frequently used a friend or ghostwriter to write his writings for him. So this makes the two potentially relate more in inaccuracies than accuracies. --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/07 21:03// |
| |
| Smith's journal clearly paints a different picture than the film. At first glance, we can see Disney drew on Smith's later account (after Pocahontas' death) of events. Smith's journal actually describes the Native Americans he came across with more nuance I expected. Smith, being a member of the Virginia Company, does emphasize trade, but what interested me was how much exchange went on between himself and the tribes he came across early on. While there were ambushes and skirmishes (which, like in the film, caused them to quickly establish a fort), a good amount of early contact between Smith and the Native Americans he met in this period seemed amicable. Smith's journal also does not mention Pocahontas by name, but of course includes that she was around ten years old when they first met, which would definitely not make for the best Disney film. --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/09/08 04:56// | Smith's journal clearly paints a different picture than the film. At first glance, we can see Disney drew on Smith's later account (after Pocahontas' death) of events. **Smith's journal actually describes the Native Americans he came across with more nuance I expected.** Smith, being a member of the Virginia Company, does emphasize trade, but what interested me was how much exchange went on between himself and the tribes he came across early on. While there were ambushes and skirmishes (which, like in the film, caused them to quickly establish a fort), **a good amount of early contact between Smith and the Native Americans he met in this period seemed amicable.** **Smith's journal also does not mention Pocahontas by name, but of course includes that she was around ten years old when they first met, which would definitely not make for the best Disney film**. --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/09/08 04:56// |
| ====== 6 The "So, what?" question ====== | ====== 6 The "So, what?" question ====== |
| So what if the movie is so historically inaccurate that it hurts, it doesn’t hurt anyone right? In a sense that is right, it doesn’t really hurt anyone at the moment, but **in a way it can hurt in the long run, especially to the viewers. The typical audience for this movie would probably be young children, let’s say 5 or 6. When they watch this movie, they probably aren’t thinking, Oh this movie is historically inaccurate this movie sucks. What they are probably thinking is how do they get a raccoon domesticated enough to keep it as a pet. (Okay maybe this is just me)** However, in the long run when that 5 or 6 year old becomes older and they learn about the real history, they might start to think oh well if they can reshape history to make it work then maybe so can I. Let’s honestly hope they don’t do that, **let’s hope that this so what if the movie is inaccurate will encourage them to go above and beyond to do additional research on the topic to see what history actually says about this event.** However, **we got to give it to Disney though for shaping this historical inaccuracy into a tale of women heroism and that women can be strong individuals, especially when it comes to saving their “love”. Yes women power indeed…** --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/09/06 21:43// | So what if the movie is so historically inaccurate that it hurts, it doesn’t hurt anyone right? In a sense that is right, it doesn’t really hurt anyone at the moment, but **in a way it can hurt in the long run, especially to the viewers. The typical audience for this movie would probably be young children, let’s say 5 or 6. When they watch this movie, they probably aren’t thinking, Oh this movie is historically inaccurate this movie sucks. What they are probably thinking is how do they get a raccoon domesticated enough to keep it as a pet. (Okay maybe this is just me)** However, in the long run when that 5 or 6 year old becomes older and they learn about the real history, they might start to think oh well if they can reshape history to make it work then maybe so can I. Let’s honestly hope they don’t do that, **let’s hope that this so what if the movie is inaccurate will encourage them to go above and beyond to do additional research on the topic to see what history actually says about this event.** However, **we got to give it to Disney though for shaping this historical inaccuracy into a tale of women heroism and that women can be strong individuals, especially when it comes to saving their “love”. Yes women power indeed…** --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/09/06 21:43// |
