| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| 329:question:329--week_2_questions_comments-2020 [2026/09/01 13:25] – 199.111.65.11 | 329:question:329--week_2_questions_comments-2020 [2026/09/01 14:23] (current) – 199.111.65.35 |
|---|
| ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== | ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== |
| |
| This film has many blatant historical inaccuracies, taking unabashed liberties with any primary source material they may have used to write the storyline. Firstly, there is of course the matter of Pocahontas' age, in which they aged her up so that she could be involved in a romance plot with John Smith's character. Pocahontas was, in the reality of their initial meeting, around 10-12 years old, while Smith was 27. John Smith wrote about her being a mediator, negotiator and trader. Her impact on his life had no romantic connotations in the slightest. Smith would actually only go on to embellish his colonial venture in a later publication and portray her as his savior from execution 16 years later (in his 1624 memoir //The Generall Historie//), 7 years after she died, which indicates a likely fabrication. John Smith also worked to trade with the natives and actually had a somewhat amicable relationship with them (he of course however still did not see them as equals). His main goal was to prevent his men from starving, as they were sorely under-prepared for this excursion, a mistake which cost the lives of many of his men. He returned to England for medical treatment following an accident in which a bag of gunpowder exploded at his waist. Relations between the Powhatans and the colonists worsened drastically soon afterwards, resulting in mass casualties. Overall, things were actually much more gritty, violent, and politically complex than what was presented in the Disney film. - Leo Tooks | |
| | |
| Being a Disney movie, I felt that the judgment of accuracy was never that important of a factor in its creation. John Smith hardly talked about Pocahontas in his ‘True Relation of Such Occurrences’, and certainly not in a romantic light. **The film exploited a child and made her into a woman of a man’s desire. Of course, this was probably done to make viewers see a colonizer and indigenous woman fall in love and have the trope of “look racism and differences don’t exist, they are in love”.** Pocahontas, as we discussed in class never did save John Smith and the entire four-day ritual of John Smith becoming a werowance was absent from the film. There are also problems with how the settler’s village was portrayed as the issue of food and illness which was one of the initial reasons contact was formed with the Native Americans (though there is a single ear of corn given to John). Most of the characters, at least the main ones, were real people as Kocoum was the husband of Pocahontas, though the film only portrays him as an admirer. -Janis Shurtleff | Being a Disney movie, I felt that the judgment of accuracy was never that important of a factor in its creation. John Smith hardly talked about Pocahontas in his ‘True Relation of Such Occurrences’, and certainly not in a romantic light. **The film exploited a child and made her into a woman of a man’s desire. Of course, this was probably done to make viewers see a colonizer and indigenous woman fall in love and have the trope of “look racism and differences don’t exist, they are in love”.** Pocahontas, as we discussed in class never did save John Smith and the entire four-day ritual of John Smith becoming a werowance was absent from the film. There are also problems with how the settler’s village was portrayed as the issue of food and illness which was one of the initial reasons contact was formed with the Native Americans (though there is a single ear of corn given to John). Most of the characters, at least the main ones, were real people as Kocoum was the husband of Pocahontas, though the film only portrays him as an admirer. -Janis Shurtleff |
| ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the 1990s, cartoons or Disney? ====== | ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the 1990s, cartoons or Disney? ====== |
| |
| I think this movie works as a pretty good primary source about all 3 of these categories. For the 1990s, I think it does well in that it explains the attitudes of the general American populace in regards to media depicting Native Americans and colonization in a more palatable and entertaining (and flagrantly embellished) manner. I only say that because this film won multiple Academy awards and seemed to be very highly praised at the time, both by critics and audiences. And from what I know, it seems like it was only after some time people started to more largely question its problematic nature. To me it is without question that Disney would never produce something like this film in 2026 without a significant overhaul. This film also serves as a good primary source for cartoons of the time, being an example of one of Disney's many renaissance era successes. Released right after Lion King, they used both beautifully hand-inked cels and a minimal amount of CGI to create this animation. The film is also noticeably very formulaic, in that many of Disney's renaissance era films had similar plot structures and character archetypes (villain song, cutesy animal sidekicks for comic relief, kindhearted princess who is a friend to all animals, romance, etc.). As for Disney as a corporation, this film does a good job in being yet another example of Disney watering down a real and horrific situation/story to create a more child-friendly, whimsical, and, most importantly to them, profitable rendition. Oftentimes this isn't necessarily a bad thing, like with much of Disney's versions of old fairy tales. But with sensitive topics like the ones discussed in this film, and with the choice to include real historical tragedies and real people, the studio definitely made some... interesting choices. - Leo Tooks | |
| |
| It says a lot about diversity and how the public responded to it. I mean disney did not have a reputation for colored people films or native americans until Peter Pan and Princess in the Frog and few others came to light after the 1990s. When they were portrayed they were inaccurately represented as menices to society or as if they lived in a drunken state the entire times. I do think disney wanted to change but it comes down to the heart and motives behind it. It was interesting to see how disney also transformed cultural issues and heavy topics like racsim and volience and adapted them on screen to musicals and shows to help families teach their children about it in a way that did not hurt more feelings than some.-jess conner | It says a lot about diversity and how the public responded to it. I mean disney did not have a reputation for colored people films or native americans until Peter Pan and Princess in the Frog and few others came to light after the 1990s. When they were portrayed they were inaccurately represented as menices to society or as if they lived in a drunken state the entire times. I do think disney wanted to change but it comes down to the heart and motives behind it. It was interesting to see how disney also transformed cultural issues and heavy topics like racsim and volience and adapted them on screen to musicals and shows to help families teach their children about it in a way that did not hurt more feelings than some.-jess conner |
