#pocahontas and john smith | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

artist-issues · 4 months

Note

Hi! I've seen you comment a bit here and there about Pocahontas. This movie has had this quite messy reputation attached to it since it came out and hasn't been able to escape from it since then. Personally, I've always liked Pocahontas, but I do acknowledge that it has its glaring issues, especially when it comes to the context of what actually went down and Pocahontas's true story. I'm interested in reading your thoughts on the movie and what Disney could have done better regarding the whole "diversity" and historical accuracy thing. I genuinely believe Disney had the best of intentions when it came to the themes, message and depiction of Native American culture, but the execution unfortunately did not seem the most appropriate at times. What do you think?

I don’t know. I don’t have a settled opinion on Pocahontas. I will say I really enjoy it, and I think maybe the aesthetics of the movie are what appeal to me the most because it’s the one I want to have on in the background most often.

When you say “what Disney could’ve done better regarding the whole ‘diversity’ and historical accuracy thing” and “did not seem the most appropriate at times,” I don’t know if I understand what you mean. I don’t know if I understand what anyone means when they say that.

There are almost zero cold hard facts about the historical Pocahontas that EXPERTS agree on. Almost zero. So when people say “oh no, it wasn’t historically accurate,” it’s like, “no, of course it’s not. It’s a fairy tale based on a historical person that we know very little about to begin with.” Seems like what they’re mainly mad about is that Historical John Smith’s version of Historical Pocahontas saving him is the framework for the animated film, and we all generally agree that his version was fake. And people are mad about that?

But…why? If it’s already supposed to be a fairy tale loosely inspired by a historical person we know very little about…I mean, nobody is furious with the Robin Hood stories and going “how dare you misrepresent Robin of Lockersley, 1160, and King Richard I!!” Because we all know that they’re stories loosely based on—anyway. You get my point. Why would you have beef about a fairy tale being based loosely? Moving on.

You can say “because now generations of kids are growing up thinking that’s the real story of Pocahontas!! What an outrage!”

…All right, well, then you’re doing a terrible job teaching your kids discernment as a parent. When kids I’m responsible for watch a movie, I tell them “it’s a movie. It’s not real.” If it’s a movie about historical events, I tell them, “If you want to know more about the real story, let’s learn about the real story.” It’s not on Disney to teach your kids that a fairy tale is a fairy tale, it’s on you.

Anyway, you get it. Moving on.

Thing is, the Pocahontas movie’s message is “Love tries to understand, not to possess.” Great message. Especially good when applied to the problem of prejudice.

So then, they just shift the events, the character motivations, and the depictions around as needed, like they would any fairy tale in order to send that message in the best way. And because it is a fairy tale, not a documentary, great. Do it.

If Historical John Smith’s fake story makes that message more compelling, great. Use pieces of it. Why not? After all, they never claimed that this was the true, accurate history of colonization, the Anglo-Powhatan war, or John Smith’s interactions with Pocahontas. If they had made that claim, sure, let’s talk about historical accuracy. But they didn’t, so let’s not.

That’s all I had to say about the “historical inaccuracies” thing. Now let’s talk about “representation.”

What is it that people have an issue with here? Did they really want Disney to animate hundreds of Powhatan’s people dying of disease? Did they want Disney to animate heads getting chopped off and women getting raped? What’s the argument? That Disney should’ve made the colonists the clear and undeniable villains, the monsters of history, and the Native Americans 100% pure and innocent, wronged victims?

They’re not mad that Disney did a bad job representing Native Americans in a movie that was supposed to be a fairy tale. They’re mad that Disney didn’t represent Native Americans the way they would’ve.

Far as my eyes can see, people who call Pocahontas racist or misrepresentative just don’t want the story to be “Love tries to understand, not to possess.” They want the story to be “White colonists were unredeemable racist monsters and sub-human tyrants who deserved to rot in hell, while the Native American people were entirely innocent victims who did nothing wrong.’

The problem is that’s just not a true, or even helpful message for any movie to have. Sorry. The statement I just typed out up there in bold is not a true or helpful statement. And thank God the Pocahontas movie didn’t make it.

There’s nothing racist being said in the Pocahontas movie. There are depictions of the sin of racism in the Pocahontas movie. There is a difference. Characters in the Pocahontas movie talk and sing about each other as if the other people group is sub-human. That is a depiction of racism. But the message of the movie, and the way it treats Native Americans, is to treat them like human beings. Therefore, the message is not racist.

In terms of who is good and who is bad, who is right and who is wrong, the movie very clearly shows that the Native American characters did not start the violence. The Native American characters did not want war. The Native American characters were willing to be friendly and willing to defend their land and each other. The Native American characters were the first to try and make peace with the colonist characters. And they were all (Kocoum included) entirely human characters. They were even the good-guy-coded characters, in the movie’s conflict. All of the Native American side characters are noticeably smarter, kinder, drawn more carefully, and are more heroic than the white characters. (When Thomas is thrown overboard the other white side characters leave him behind. In contrast, when Namonteck is shot the other Native American side characters rescue him immediately and fall back.) And, not a caricature among them. Meanwhile, Wiggins, Ben, and Lion are all drawn with exaggerated characteristics. The heroine is Pocahontas the Character, not John Smith the Character. So what is the issue you have?

What people think is racist is the “idealization” of a Native American woman falling in love—or, as they like to say now—“committing herself to a white colonist.” But that’s like…a gross oversimplification of the movie. John Smith (the character) committed himself right back to her, nobody wants to talk about that? Also, they low key didn’t commit themselves to each other at all costs—he tries to, at the end of the movie, stay with her or have her come with him, and she won’t leave her home and her people?? So what’s the argument?

Not to mention, why is anyone even upset that the character Pocahontas falls in love with a white colonist character? Are you saying that this sort of thing would never happen? That a young woman who’s people are embattled with and mistreated by invaders would never find one invader who comes to an understanding with her, and then they fall in love? You’re mad because that would never happen? Incorrect. It happened all the time in history. It happens all the time in other stories you love, like West Side Story.

Who the heck cares if it didn’t happen exactly that way (even though maybe it did) with the historical Pocahontas? We already established that this wasn’t supposed to be a historically accurate retelling, it was supposed to be a loosely-based fairy tale. And the message “Love tries to understand, not to possess,” works perfectly with a fairy tale where the girl from one side of a racially-charged hate war understands and falls in love with a guy from the other side.

I mean people who talk about Pocahontas, the historical figure, with reverence and respect, all usually agree on one thing: she did help maintain some kind of peace between colonists and Native Americans. Whether or not you think the colonists should’ve even been there in the first place is beside the point—sorry, but it is; they were there, now let’s deal with the reality.

So when Disney makes a movie where the goal is to tell the message “Love tries to understand, not to possess,” and they have to be true to the universally-agreed-upon “Pocahontas probably helped bring some peace…” in their fairy tale…why on earth do you have a problem with Pocahontas the Character falling in love as a reason for bringing about that peace?

It’s because you don’t find “falling in love” to be anything other than demeaning for a woman. And it’s because you don’t want John Smith, or any white colonist character, to be depicted as human. You want them all to be unredeemable racist monsters.

The goal is no longer to have movies that say what Pocahontas said. We don’t want movies where there’s messy racism, but then it ends with attempts at peace and understanding. We want movies where there’s entirely one-sided racism, and then revenge for that racism. That’s what we want. We want endless apologies and zero forgiveness.

And for better or worse, Pocahontas is not a movie about endless apologies and zero forgiveness.

IN CONCLUSION: 1. None of the “you” statements were directed at you, idiosyncraticrednebula. 🫡

2. Anyone who wants to teach me where I’m wrong is welcome to, but you have to show your work, and you have to be consistent, you can’t just say “lol imagine thinking Pocahontas isn’t racist. You are the problem.” and then block me. 🙄 all right, well, you can, but all you’ll get out of it is an echo chamber.

3. If you want me to talk about the art, the storytelling, the quality of the movie outside of all this (and it should be outside of all this, because this was a fairy tale, not a historically accurate documentary) it’ll have to be in a different ask, and I’m happy to.

4. Should Disney have made it more clear that this was a fairy tale, a stylized story based only loosely on historical events? …Yeah. Definitely should’ve done a Prince of Egypt-style title card or something. But they didn’t—so now show me why it’s racist or misrepresentative.

45 notes · View notes

wisteria-lodge · 11 months

Text

SORTING DISNEY LADIES (1995-1998)

Part 1 - Disney Ladies 1937-1985

Part 2 - Disney Ladies 1988-1993

I’m going in chronological order, and doing both A Squad and B Squad, because I’m interested in tracking how the ideal “disney girl” has changed in the past 85 years (right now I’m only looking at the human-shaped heroines of Disney animated theatrical releases) A more detailed break-down of the system I’m using is right here, but the basics are these:

PRIMARY (ie MOTIVE)

BADGER ~ Loyal to the group.

SNAKE ~ Loyal to yourself and your Important People.

LION ~ Subconscious Idealist. Ideals are linked to feelings and instincts.

BIRD ~ Conscious Idealist. Ideals are linked to built systems and external facts.

SECONDARY (ie METHOD)

BADGER ~ Connect with the group. Make allies, work steadily and well. Be whatever the situation calls for. If you find a locked door, knock.

SNAKE ~ Connect with the environment. Notice things. Tell people what they want to hear. If you find a locked door, get in through the window.

BIRD ~ Collect skills, tools, knowledge, personas, useful friends. If you find a locked door, track down the key or learn to pick the lock.

LION ~ Be honest, be direct, speak your truth. Either the obstacle is going down or you are. If you find a locked door, kick it in.

POCAHONTAS (1995)

(& John Smith)

Pocahontas is an incredibly loud Lion Primary. Marrying Kocoum is the good choice, the responsible choice, the right choice - she knows this - but she just can’t do it. It feels wrong. She “goes wherever the wind takes her,” accompanied by the swirling leaves that are a kind of physical manifestation of her primary, since they match up so perfectly with the compass. (Classic Lion primary metaphor - see also Jack Sparrow.) When Pocahontas doesn’t know what to do she dreams of the confusing “spinning arrow,” but when she does... that arrow points straight in one direction and she just goes. She “listens with her heart” to the degree that it gives her superpowers.

It’s tempting to say she’s a Lion secondary too. She enjoys whitewater rafting and BASE jumping, which I guess are activities stereotypically associated with Lion secondaries. Also, the climax of the movie does involve her physically flinging herself across John Smith’s body. BUT her big song (“Colors of the Wind”) is just so, so, SO Bird secondary. John Smith isn’t getting it, and so Pocahontas’ response is - let me explain my worldview, show you, you clearly don’t have all the information. She’s a problem-solving Bird. Pocahontas’ first instinct when the English arrive is to investigate from the shadows, with two animal sidekicks that represent Curiosity and Caution. (Which is perfect, because is that not what a Bird secondary is? Observe, assess, plan.) Pocahontas is also convinced that there must be some perfect way of explaining her situation to the rest of her tribe that will make them get it. In her eyes, the problem is again that they don’t have all the information. This is almost a Bird secondary compulsion.

As for John Smith, well. His arc is about shifting his definition of “Person” to include everyone he categorized as “savages” early in the film. That’s very Badger primary character development, and John Smith is very Badger primary. He loves being part of a group, he loves his men, and the fact that he doesn’t really belong anywhere bothers him. The implication is that he keeps going to all these “New Worlds” trying to find one where he fits. It’s a cool bit of costume design that he’s the only one in Spanish armor - like maybe he did a similar trip with the Spanish conquistadors a few years ago. And it’s gutsy that his ‘I want’ song (“Mine”) is literally a duet with the villain. Like, sure John Smith and Governor Ratcliffe don’t like each other, but they start off with pretty similar politics.

I like that at the end John isn’t accepted into the Powhatan tribe or something. He finds personal peace by redefining his own community, and gaining a broader perspective on the world. HE is absolutely a Lion secondary though: really straightforward, cannot lie, and always solves problems by throwing himself physically at them. Pocahontas only does that the once, after her Bird secondary strategy - trying to reason people around to her point of view - didn’t work.

ESMERALDA (1996)

(& Quasimodo, Claude Frollo, Phoebus)

At first Esmeralda seems like she might also be a Lion primary. She’s the revolutionary, she stands up on platforms and yells things like “Justice!” Even through all the adaptational changes, the Victor Hugo soul of the story is still very much there, and he loves a Lion primary. But… that’s not really where Esmeralda is coming from. She cut Quasimodo’s bonds very specifically to try and change the vibe of the room - “Letting the crowd torture that poor boy? I thought if one person could stand up to him…” And that’s a Badger primary motive. Esmeralda has deep roots in her outsider community, and being separate from them (trapped in the cathedral) is very, very bad for her.

But then she brings Notre Dame itself into her community. Esmeralda goes up to the statue of Mary, the cathedral's patron, and says, “Still I see your face and wonder / if you were once an outcast too.” Once she does that, the ‘outcast’ bellringer of Notre Dame and even the building itself start fighting for her. It’s important that Esmeralda’s ‘I want’ song has nothing up to do with her at all. “God Help the Outcasts” is about helping her community - the outcasts. We get lines like “I ask for nothing, I can get by / for I know so many less lucky than I” which are all about Badger primary need-basing. Esmeralda consistently goes to whoever needs her help the most, doesn’t matter if she knows them or not. And her way of helping Quasi is to give him a map of the city that brings him straight to her Community.

It’s nice to pair this very understanding, inclusive Badger primary with basically a Jack Sparrow secondary. Esmeralda likes disguises. She likes improvising weapons. She improvises her escapes, and comes up with stuff as she goes along. She also has a lot of faces that are all equally her. She is the sexy pole dancer. She is also the grounded, spiritual earth mother, and when her primary requires it, she’s the revolutionary too.

If you put the weird tonal mismatch that is the gargoyles to one side, this film has a really elegant little structure. There are three men who are in love with Esmeralda: Quasimodo, Claude Frollo and Phoebus. And it’s subtly done, but Quasi and Frollo both dehumanize her - Frollo by only seeing her sexy side and deciding she’s a demon temptress, and Quasi by only seeing her more motherly side and deciding she’s an angel. I always thought it was interesting that “Heaven’s Light” and “Hellfire” - Quasi and Frollo’s songs about Esmeralda - are back to back, with similar titles, even the same track on the soundtrack. They’re almost a duet, and I think it’s a way of showing that there are two ways to make someone inhuman. (In a movie that is SO interested in the idea of what makes someone inhuman.) And then Phoebus just sees Esmeralda as… this cool chick, with a great sense of humor and some sweet moves, who he’d like to get to know better. Of course she goes with him.

Frollo, Phoebus and Quasi are ALL Lion secondaries (no wonder they butt heads.) It’s harder to tell with Quasi, because his secondary is so ridiculously Burnt, and only wakes up once his Snake primary finds something to latch onto that isn’t Frollo… which takes him most of the movie. Phoebus has a very straightforward Paragon Lion primary that seems to match up with Esmeralda’s Badger, and Frollo, oh man. Frollo has the most twisted Bird primary imaginable. He has a belief system that is impossible to live up to, so - instead of maybe questioning that - he blames Esmeralda? Or he blames God? for making Esmeralda too tempting for him to resist? and so therefore it’s not his fault? He’s a Bird Primary who consistently fails at following his system, and deep down he knows it. That’s why he’s so scared of the actual Notre Dame cathedral, why it keeps hurting him, and why it ultimately kills him. He cannot look those statues in the face, he cannot look at the system he tells himself he follows better than anyone else.

(Inspector Javert of Les Mis is also a Bird Lion villain. Big Victor Hugo trope.)

MEGARA “MEG” (1997)

(& Hades)

Meg is the example I would use to illustrate a Burnt Snake primary. She sold her soul (gave up everything) for her boyfriend, he left her, and now she doesn’t think it’s safe to love like that again. “Look I learned my lesson, okay? I’ve sworn off man handling.” Meg won’t let herself trust anyone: “He comes in with this big handsome farm boy act, but I can see though that in a Peloponnesian minute.” It’s because she doesn’t trust herself: “If there’s a prize for rotten judgement / I guess I’ve already won that.”

Her only connection in the world is Hades, this weird and kind of compelling combination of bitchy best friend and shady producer who’s trapped her in a bad five-record deal. They are both similar flavors of Snake secondary, which is how they they can be antagonistic… but still kinda get each other, and work well together. They both enjoy sitting in a kind of blunt Neutral, but get things done by being charmers - creatively telling the truth, and switching approaches quickly in order to to figure out what resonates best with the person they're talking to.

We see Meg use Hercules’ fan girls as a smokescreen to sneak into his villa, and then talk him into playing hooky and having a night on the town. After which, she falls into his arms with her line about “weak ankles” as a way to get him to get him talking about potential weaknesses. But of course, she catches feelings and her big song “I Won’t Say I’m In Love,” is a nice little portrait of a Snake primary unBurning. Meg goes from not trusting herself at all, to deciding that… maybe it could be different this time.

And this is where Hades misreads Meg, which is ultimately his downfall. He assumes that Meg is a Lion primary like he is. Because Hades is (a bit of a narcissist) and a huge Glory Hound Lion. He hates that he got the shitty assignment, hates that things are “a little dark, a little gloomy, and as always, hey - full of dead people." He wants to be the top dog, he wants to be Zeus. So he offers Meg freedom. That's what a Lion primary like him would want more than anything, were he in her position. But Meg’s not a Lion. She’s a Snake. So we get exchanges like this:

HADES. Hear that? It’s the sound of your freedom, fluttering away. MEG. I don’t care. I won’t do anything to hurt him.

And Hades just does not see that coming.

FA MULAN (1998)

(& Fa Zhou, Mushu, Li Shang, Shan Yu)

So my question is... why does Mulan run away and join the army? Get the obvious answer out of the way - it's not “to uphold the family honor."

FA ZHOU. It is an honor to protect my country and my family. MULAN. So you’ll die for honor?

Fa Zhou is definitely a Badger primary, and Mulan… isn’t. She doesn’t get it. He’s not speaking her language. But she clearly loves her dad, and the next explanation we get is that she did it all to protect him. However, at her lowest and most vulnerable she says - “Maybe I didn’t go for my father. Maybe I went to prove that I could do things right.” That’s an interesting shift. Now the issue isn’t with why she acts, it’s with how she acts. Which means Mulan’s internal conflict isn't coming from her primary, it's coming from her secondary.

This is where we start getting into gender and gender performance. There is a lot of Badger secondary in this movie, and it’s all framed as female (Mulan's mom and grandmother are both Badger secondaries, for example.) There’s also a lot of Lion secondary, which is framed as male. (Fa Zhou, Li Shang, and Shan Yu are all Lions.) And Mulan… tries both options, and fails both times. She gets into a huge amount of trouble trying to be the quiet, caretaking bride at the matchmaker’s, and just as much trouble trying to be the brash, fight-starting Ping at the camp.

Then we have Mushu, who is Mulan's Lion secondary coach… despite not being a Lion secondary himself. He wants to be - disgraced failure Mushu is introduced trying to breathe fire and shake awake the bigger, tougher Great Stone Dragon. He’s trying to seem like an intense Lion when he is happiest and most effective doing a more Badger secondary thing. He comforts Mulan, makes her breakfast, carefully forges letters, wins her allies and generally gets… maternal (“my little baby is all grown up and saving China.”) This is a smart movie, and in a very light, comedic way… it’s saying that Mulan is not the only one self-sabotaging because of gender presentation roles.

So Mulan tries to be a Badger, which doesn’t work. She tries to be a Lion, which doesn’t work. And eventually, of course, realizes that she was a clever, inventive Bird secondary all along. We are introduced to her while she's making little gadgets to do her chores, and when she taps into that she becomes powerful. She is able to figure out a way to use the handicap weights to climb the post and reach the arrow, and defeat Shan Yu’s army by starting an avalanche. She even finds time to plan during the heavily improvised final battle in the palace. Mulan coordinates a two-pronged attack, luring Shan Yu up onto the roof, where she knows Mushu is already in place with a rocket.

As for why she does things… Mulan has an intrinsic inner truth, and just wants to project that truth out into the world. She’s a Lion primary who wants to “be myself” be “true to [her] heart,” and not hide. “When will my reflection show who I am inside?” Lion primaries will get hit especially hard with that kind of identity angst.

And to round out the sorting for this film (which really holds up) - Mushu is probably a Lion primary like Mulan, which is why he gets where she’s coming from. He starts off as a bit of an immature “stage mom” Glory Hound Lion, but gets better. Shang is definitely a Loyalist, probably a young Badger primary. (I think Mulan just likes Badger Lions, her dad is one too.) Shang is very group-orientated, wants to be “the leader of China’s finest troops - no, the greatest troops of all time!” He's also, to be honest, kind of Establishment. Shang has a much harder time getting his head around Girl!Ping then Mulan’s more Snakey buddies, and ultimately needs an authority figure to tell him to cut it out. And Shan Yu, the film’s comment on toxic masculinity, seems like an Exploded Lion primary. He gives his motivation in the first scene- “[the Emperor] invited me. By building his wall he challenged my strength.” Which means that - with the single exception of Hades... all the guys in this wave have been masculine-coded Lion secondaries, and the heroines aren't girly Badgers, but the cool "third option" - Birds or Snakes.

Tl;dr

Pocahontas ~ Lion / Bird (occasional Lion model)

John Smith ~ Badger / Lion

Esmeralda ~ Badger / Snake

Quasimodo ~ Snake / Burnt Lion

Phoebus ~ Paragon Lion / Lion

Claude Frollo ~ Burnt Bird / Lion

Megara ~ Burnt Snake / Snake

Hades ~ Immature Lion / Snake

Fa Mulan ~ Lion / Bird (unhealthy “girl coded” Badger performance) (unhealthy “boy coded” Lion performance)

Fa Zhou ~ Badger / Lion

Mushu ~ Immature Lion that matures / Badger (unhealthy Lion performance)

Li Shang ~ Badger / Lion

Shan Yu ~ Exploded Lion / Lion

(art credit to Cursed Concepts for the beautiful pins I have used to illustrate this post.)

80 notes · View notes