| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| 329:question:329--week_2_questions_comments [2016/09/08 11:28] – [2 Things the Movie got right] nmilroy | 329:question:329--week_2_questions_comments [2016/09/13 14:47] (current) – [2 Things the Movie got right] nmilroy |
|---|
| 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. | 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 | 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 ====== |
| |
| 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 | 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 ====== |
| |
| 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// |
