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.