Rewriting History Through Cartoons

Growing up in a world with ever-changing video and media choices, children are given a lot of data each day to interpret and take in. While parents can limit what their child watches there are some companies that are parent approved. Disney has become of those companies. As the 90’s came around the hit after hits started coming alive on the full screen in animation. Children spent dancing to the songs of the Princesses and traveling on the adventures with Peter Pan and Simba. Parents liked these movies because Disney is known for teaching good values and keeping it nicely G-rated. Yet at the same if these parents had truly watched some of these movies and the effect they might have on children, parents might think again before buying the latest Disney DVD. One movie that can be highlighted to fit this model is Disney’s Pocahontas (1995). In this animated feature, Disney failed to accurately portray the story of Pocahontas by making the tumultuous events of Jamestown in 1606 into a fairytale romance of songs and colors.
In the movie directed by Mike Gabriel and Eric Goldberg the story of English settlers coming to America in hopes of finding gold and is played out through songs about nature and the earth. But what is at the forefront of the movie is the romance between the characters of Pocahontas and John Smith. As the movie progresses Pocahontas shows John Smith how her people are not just ‘savages’ and how the English should not assume they are uncivilized. There is a strong undercurrent of accepting other cultures and tolerance. The two main characters engage in a love affair even thought they know their respective “villages” would not approve. In the climatic scene that the director based the movie off, Pocahontas saves John Smith from being killed by her father, Chief Powhatan. In the end, John Smith ends up leaving back to England and Pocahontas stays with her people. To any child this movie would seem a happy ending for all. But what a child will not understand until later in life is that there was a real Pocahontas and she did not have her happy ending like her Disney based character.
The true story of this Indian daughter was one full of death, kidnapping and was vastly different than the movie. David Price writes, “The imaginative 1995 Walt Disney Co. movie, for example, endowed Pocahontas with a Barbie-doll figure dressed her in a deerskin from Victoria’s Secret and made her Smith’s love interest”(4). Pocahontas true name was Maotaka (Weisberg). Phillip Barbour writes, “Pocahontas’ people were one of many tribes in the great family now called Algonkians” (2). Price explains that when Smith met Pocahontas she was a girl of 11 years old (5). In his own testament, Smith tells the widely known tale of Pocahontas saving his life. Alan Weisberg questions this clam. Weisberg writes, “The legend is that she saved John Smith from being clubbed to death by her father in 1607. But that would mean she would have been 10 or 11 at the time, too young to be paid attention to”(Who was Pocahontas). In the true history, after Smith returned to England, the English colonists kidnapped Pocahontas and held her ransom from her father (Price 5). During her year being kept hostage, a British colonist John Rolfe fell in love with her and she with him and “as a condition of her release, she agreed to maryy Rolfe”(Weisberg). Pocahontas was “dressed in the English fashion and took religious instruction. Becoming baptized as a Christian”(Pewewardy). Pocahontas was baptized as Rebecca Rolfe (Weisberg). Pocahontas traveled with her new husband to England in 1616 to gain support for the British army to stay in the colonies(Wiesberg) When they were planning to return to Virginia, Pocahontas “became gravely ill on board and had to be taken off the ship at Gravesend. She died there on March 21 1617, at the age of 21”(Weisberg).
The movie highly dramatized the meeting of the Indians and the white man. All throughout the movie Pocahontas and John Smith try to convince the two sides to talk. But Chief Powhatan, in the movie, immediately dismisses the idea. There is immediate tension between the English colonist and the Indians. But in the real situation, “a Chickahominy Indian came paddling up and invited Smith to go to his village”(Barbour 17). This shows that Smith had met other tribes of Indian and was able to trade civilly with them before meeting Pocahontas and her tribe. Weisberg supports this claim, “Indian/white relations in the early days were chaotic. On any given week the settlers at James Fort could be fighting with one of Powhatan’s tribes, while trading peacefully with others.” The Disney movie is not a true portrayal of history. Barbour writes that it was during a trip with is Indian guide that smith was taken prisoner by the Pacmunkey tribe (19). When the Indians returned to Smith to his canoe, “A big fire was burning, and one whiteman lay dead; his body full of arrows”(19). This is complete change to the movie as in the only people to be harmed is the Indians. One is shot and another character, Kocoum, is shot when trying to save Pocahontas. No white men are killed throughout the movie. As Cornel Pewewardy explains the Indians in the movie, remain marginal and invisible, thereby ironically being ‘strangers in their own land’- the shadow Indians. The fight desperately on the silver screen in defense of there asserted right, but die trying to kill the white hero or save the Indian woman”(Pocahontas Paradox). In actuality the Indians were hardly defenseless.
When John Smith finally met Chief Powhatan he was given much food and was welcomed. But the story of Pocahontas saving him from being killed was mere exaggeration on Smith’s part. But of course Disney used it as the pivotal point in the movie where peace is achieved. In truth this was a “combination of mock execution and salvation, in token of adoption into Powhatan’s tribe ”(Barbour 24). What really happened was after Smith was included in the tribe Powhatan was chosen as his foster- father and Pocahontas was chosen to be his stead. But Barbour explains, “Smith could not understand, much less know, this. He simply regarded Pocahontas as his savior” (25). Although Disney said they did they research they just disregarded the truth and made it better to be seen for audiences. Gary Edgerton and Kathy Jackson write that the chief Native American that worked as a consultant on the movie was “alienated” and given “mixed signals” by the directors. Shirley “Little Dove” Custalow McGowan said, “ I wasn’t at the studio two hours before I began to make clear my objection to what they were doing…they had said that the film would be historically accurate. I soon found out that it wasn’t to be… I wish my name wasn’t on it. I wish Pocahontas’s name wasn’t on it” (Redesigning Pocahontas). Edgerton writes that Disney was hoping that this new styling and modern Pocahontas would be profitable to audiences (Redesigning Pocahontas).
While the directors and executives made major mistakes in designing and formatting the characters, there was also problem in the execution of the moral of the story. Disney executives have said “they wanted to address the rise of public criticism from various ethnic groups over racial stereotyping in their most recent productions”(Edgerton). By these productions, they meant for example the Arab American protest against Aladdin and African American protest against the “hooligan hyenas” in The Lion King (Edgerton). Disney may have had honorable intentions with Pocahontas but there were words and imagery that could be seen as very stereotypical and racist. From the beginning of the movie viewers see the English settlers talking bout killing “the savages” if they cause any trouble. Pewewardy writes, “the most obvious aspect of racism in Pocahontas is in its language, in terms such as ‘savages,’ ‘heathens,’ ‘pagans,’ ‘devils,’ ‘primitive,’ and ‘civilized’”(Pocahontas Paradox). The distinct difference and the idea that the English settlers are superior to the Indians are continually referenced in the film. It is one of the songs, “Savages, Savages” that could be quite harmful to children that are taking in the movie. Some children that could also be affected is the Indian children that might be treated differently because of the statements in the movie (Pewewardy). Pewewardy explains, “These racial experiences leave deep emotional and psychological scars on young children”(Pocahontas Paradox). Even though Disney tried to be more ethnical diverse, all they really did was increase the blatant racism and discrimination.
Pocahontas can also be seen as a movie that glorifies imperialism and genocide of other cultures. Even though the movie shows how the English settlers approached and started colonizing Jamestown, the manner that it was shown was wrong. By making Pocahontas’s history a love story full of songs about the wind and furry animals that are best friend with humans, Disney downplayed the impact of the events. As Scott Schaffer writes, “ I argue that WDC (Walt Disney Company) appropriates local stories, reinscribes them in the discourse of American imperialism, be it political, economic, or cultural and sell the stories to all as portrayals of American cultural and political Others, revising old stereotypes in the current term of American imperial expansion”(Disney and the Imagineering of Histories). Jamestown and the British coming to America and clashing with the Native Americans were a huge part of history. There is a point in the movie where the character of Governor Ratcliffe of Jamestown is wondering why the Indians attacked the Englishmen to his assistant, Williams. Williams replies, “Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees and dug up their earth?” But Ratcliffe being the epitome of capitalism ignores that answers and replies, “It’s the gold!” This is the one moment that Disney somewhat redeems itself by pointing out that this is the English did to Indian land in 1606. Pewewardy touches on the fact that possibly this story and how Pocahontas is portrayed is because of guilt felt by America. He writes, “In this regard, Indian women are portrayed in the movies is an extension of white America’s attempt to cope with a sense of cultural guilt”(Pocahontas Paradox). Although the movies contains moments that show how the English were wrong for invading the Indians territory, the producers continued to glorify the act by making it colorful and full of songs for children.
Making a fairytale cartoon out of true historical events should not be taken lightly. Disney has shown this to be true when it comes to Pocahontas. Disney has continually been shown to have racist undercurrents in their movies and portray the white man as the overall hero. Even as they tried to be more ethnic diverse with the story of Pocahontas, they ended up alienating an entire group of people. With the name-calling and images of imperialism of Pocahontas, the wrong message is sent out to young minds that soak up everything they see. But what they did not clearly think was the ever-lasting effects that component of this movie could have on children. The corporation of Disney only saw that there was a profit that could be made and they did anything to make the story bankable; even if it meant changing the facts.





Works Cited

Barbour, Phillip L. Pocahontas and Her World. New York: Houghton Miller
Company, 1970. Print.

Bridenbaugh, Carl. Jamestown 1544-1699. New York: Oxford University Press,
1980. Print.
Edgerton, Gary, and Jackson, Kathy. “Redesigning Pocahontas.” Journal of Popular Film
and Television. 24.2. (1996): 90. Film & Television Literature Index. EBSCO.
Web. 9 Dec. 2010

Horn, James. A Land As God Made It. New York: Basic Books, 2005. Print.

Pewewardy, Cornel. “The Pocahontas Paradox: A Cautionary Tale for Educators.”
Journal of Navajo Education. Fall/Winter 1996/1997. University of Kansas.

Price, David A. Love and Hate In Jamestown. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. Print.

Schaffer, Scott. “Disney and the Imagineering of Histories.” Postmodern Culture. 6.3.
1996. Muse. Web. 9 December 2010.

Pocahontas. Dir. Mike Gabriel and Eric Goldberg. Walt Disney, 1995.

Weisberg, Alan S. “So Who Was Pocahontas?” History News Network. 26 May 2003.
Web. 9 Dec. 2010.

Pan's Labyrinth Reflection

So we finally presented our analysis and thoughts on del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth. It much more nerve wracking then I thought it was going to be. How Professor Hatfield does it everyday I will never know. But on to my reflection. Well for our presentation we gathered at Marianne's apartment Verteran's Day since with the six schedules it was crazy trying to get together on a normal day. Thankfully everyone was so awesome in my group that they went for the idea. We watched the movie, three of us it being the first time. It was an eye opener! After watching we all talked about the major themes or parts that stuck in our minds. We knew that we wanted to split the class up since it is pretty daunting to speak up in a class of 30 so we thought people would be more comfy in small groups. (citation-the "Spritited Away" group- we followed your amazing idea!hope it was okay.) So each of us chose a topic/theme/part of the movie that we wanted to research more in detail to present and discuss with our classmates.

For my topic I chose the Child vs. Adults aspects of the movie. As seen in Pan's, the heroine is a child and the majority of of the adults that surrround her are evil or just plain mean. If Vidal was my step-father I would run away the moment he crushed my hand. It was this aspect of the movie that really intrigued me. I like how del Toro was able to show Ofelia on her quest and parallel it with the history of the revolution in Spain. There was also something to be said of her mother. Her mother was very selfish in my opinion. Yes she was pregnant and married, but to take her daughter into a war zone?! It seemed at times that Pan could be trusted more than the adults in Ofelia's world could.

Another adult that I had trouble trusting was Mercedes. Some will say that she helps Ofelia so much and saves the baby, but at the same time she is helping the revolutionaries. I torn on how I should feel about her. The fact that she kept tucking that knife in her dress sort of irked me. I was afraid she was going to fall and stab herself, but it was awesome to watch her cut Vidal. He was a gruesome character. I loved that he finally lost in the end. For ordering his wife around and how mean he was to Ofelia, he deserved to be killed. His machismo attitude and the constant watch checking was clearly a sign that he was not to be trusted. Why Ofelia's mother married him I do not understand.

Del Toro definitely succeded in making the child the main protagonist and heroine. I 'm still trying to figure out why she had to die at the end. I liked her and that fact that she kept believeing in fairy tales after many people told her not to. Although some say its a contradiction to have a child in an adult fairy tale, it would not have made sense. Any adult would not believed the faun and travel on the quest. That it why kids are so awesome. Kids are not as tainted as adults are. They have no fear and I truly believe sometime they are smarter than some adults.

P.S. Sorry for the length Professor, I just kept typing.

Adapting Book to Movie: Howl's Moving Castle

For my adaptation analysis, I chose to read and watch Howl’s Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones. In the book is about a young girl that is trying to find her place in the world. In the book there self-esteem is a major issue. The book is much more detailed and shows her self-depricating nature. In the book we get her back story about her two sisters and how when her father dies, her stepmother send them two stay with two other women so they will have better future. Sophie stays with her stepmother working in the hat shop her father owned and often hears about the gossip from town. One night in the hat shop the Witch of the Waste, which is one of the villains, visits the shop and put a spell on Sophie making her an elderly woman. Sophie decides to leaver her home and comes up upon Howl’s Moving castle.


In the movies the story is similar. Sophie is turned to an old woman unable to tell anyone of the spell. But instead she only has one sister who is only seen once in the beginning of the film. In the movie there are different characters too. Her mother Fanny is her real mother; her father is never spoken of. Also the first time she meets Wizard Howl is different. In the book, he is known as the wizard who makes women fall in love with him then leaves them. When Sophie meets Howl in the book she does not know it is him. It a May Day celebration and she is on her way to see her sister. He immediately tries to buy her a drink and she is hesitant and keeps on walking and he allows her. Later after she has entered the moving castle she realizes it is the same boy but he does not know it is Sophie since she looks now like an old woman. In the movie, Howl actually saves Sophie from two men that corner her in an alley. And he escorts her to meet her sister. Howl is a much different person in the book than in the movie. Also Michael in the book, another inhabitant of the castle, seems much older than the child he plays in the movie. Also in the movie his name is Markl. Calcifer, the fire demon keeps the castle moving and with whom Sophie makes a contract with in the beginning, is also much funnier and has sense of humor that this character in the book.

But one major detail that I was happy they kept in both transitioning from book to movie was all the different portals both physical and human. The first portal in my opinion is the castle itself. When Sophie step into the castle she is in a new world full of spells, fire demon, and is now able to travel to other places just by the turn of a dial. When it comes to the castle its in constant movement in the hills above Market Chipping where Sophie lived. But by a certain dial depending on which color its pointing toward the world outside the castle is different. One can go to Porthaven down by the sea, with the dial on red one can get to Kingsbury, where the king lives, and Market Chipping when the green is chosen. When the black color is chosen there is nothing but darkness and readers learn this is Howl’s childhood. While there are many place the castle can take someone the changes that happen to people can also be seen as portals. The ever-changing characters into different disguises allow them to learn more about themselves. In the movie Howl turns into a bird often and helps combat a war that is going on. In the story there is an ever-prescent theme of loving one’s self no matter what you look like on the outside. Howl and Sophie still fall in love even though they are both under spells. It is their personalities and the discovery of themselves that bring them together.

All details aside, it is a good adaptation. All the major characters are present and the theme is uplifting to children with good morals. While the filmmakers did not need to add the war aspect, I understand from a cinema sense there had to be a plot line more than just spells and finding ones identity.

The Wizard of Oz: Endings of the Book and the Movie

When comparing the ending of the book and film version of the Wizard of Oz there are many differences both in plot and dialogue. The manner in which Dorothy does return to Oz is the same. The good witch Glinda tells her all she needs to do is click her heels together and command them where to take you. One difference in props is that in the book the heels are silver where as in the movie they are red.

But the way that the good witch appears is different. In the book Dorothy and her friends must travel to through many dangerous areas like the woods filled with wild beasts and travel through the china country then must find out how to cross the land of he quadlings. Finally once they are with the good witch, her friends must explain where they will stay after Dorothy leaves and she uses the cap to help the lion, scarecrow and the tin man get back to the lands they will rule. Like in the movie Dorothy becomes upset when leaving her friend. Then the witch tells Dorothy how to return to Kansas.

In the movies Glinda appears as a pink bubble floating through the air. This scene is only prolonged because Dorothy laments over leaving her new friends. One major dialogue difference is in the book she yells “Take me home to Aunt Em!” In the movie she continually says the well known line “There’s no place like home, there’s n place like home.”

Finally when the Dorothy in the book returns home she has traveled over distance and through the air and falls to the ground. She then realizes she is back on the Kansas prairie. The book ends with the shortest scene of Dorothy running towards her aunt. She tells her aunt where she has been and time lapses of days since her uncle was able build a new farmhouse after the cyclone destroyed the last one.

This ending is completely different from the movie. When Dorothy utters the line “There’s no place like home” the scene and images fade into each other. Then the film turns to the sepia tone it was in the beginning and we see Dorothy waking up from a dream. It turns out that Dorothy had been asleep the whole time after hitting her head. We then see all the character; the lion, scarecrow, tin man and the wizard as normal men that are in Dorothy’s everyday life. She starts to tell her aunt and uncle and the men around them where she as been but her aunt just dismisses the place of OZ as dream.


While the end to the movie was disappointing that it was all dream it was much more plausible that it was a dream than in the book where a young girl is alone with these creatures for days and just returns home. The ending to the book just drops off and does not explain anything. The ending to the movie is much more pleasing both cinematically and in its plot and resolution.

Comparing Disney's "Alice" and Svankmajer's "Alice"

This past week we viewed two very different of supposedly the same story. The first "Alice in Wonderland" was made by Disney. The second film we watched was "Alice" directed by Czech Republican director Svankmejer. These two films are vastly different. The Czech Republic film was very weird in my opinion. One major difference was the cutting of a lot of dialogue. In the Czech film it was all Alice’s expression and the stuffed animals action that narratred the film. also there was something chilling about the way there were close up of the girl's mouth when she who said something. But in the Disney film there were many characters that all had many lines and personalities. There were no “he said, she said” lines.

The colors in the movies also played a major role. In the Svankmejer film the colors were very muted and the whole film had a very dusty look. It made the adventure Alicec went on seem dangerous. In the Disney version, the colors were fantastically bright, full of pastels and hues that excited the eye.

The movement of both films also played a major role. In the Svakmejer film the scenes dragged on and all the movement was the stop-motion. It was too choppy for me personally. The repetition of the tea party scene bothered me. The constant stream of the tea dripping down, the shoes moving seats, then the hatter pulling the string of the eye of the hare dorm repeated over and over was not needed. I get that the constant movement went back to the parts in the story when the mad hatter always wanted a clean cup, but the number of times in the Svankmejer was a little much. As a contrast, the Disney scenes moved fast and were still complete.

With the animation factor, Disney was able to show more but I think it stayed truer to the story being told about a young girl. If the story was written for a young girl, Alice Liddell, then the film representing it should appeal to that age group. The Disney version achieved this. it was a fun adventure full of humor and fantasy. Svankmejer’s film, I felt, was geared towards a different audience. With the silence and small sounds of toys moving throughout the scenes, the film took on a darker tone.