DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Pocahontas 2-disc 10th Anniversary set, OUTSTANDINGLY RECOMMENDED (1 Viewer)

[Steve Christou]

I've had this 2-disc special edition for a couple of months now, what kept ya?
Incredible review as always David, not one of the best Disney animated movies but I like it.

Good animation, color and a couple of decent songs, very little action, the first time I saw it I remember being disappointed by the rather feeble climax, compared to other Disney animation movies of the 90's, but it's grown on me over the years.

I'd give Pocahontas 3 out of 5 stars. I much prefer Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, one of the Disney 'greats' IMO.

 

[Ernest Rister]

In the case of Disney Studio's modern classics, they have something that many older animated features lacked: a real sense of depth and maturity, often dealing with some very adult-oriented themes while at the same time presenting a pretext as entertainment for children.

Walt Disney shied away from overt statements of social commentary, except in his environmental films like True-Life Adventures: Jungle Cat, and he drew controversey for his presentation of evolution in Fantasia (which was controversial enough without a threatened creationist boycott). The Parent Trap was a movie about a hot-button topic -- divorce -- but it has a happy ending, with the broken home all fixed up by closing credits. Proving the road to hell is paved with good intentions, Song of the South, Walt said, was about friendship crossing over racial boundaries (the child Johnny doesn't see Remus as a "black man" because Johnny hasn't been taught racism, Johnny just sees Remus as a great friend).

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "depth and maturity", David, maybe you could elaborate a little.

Walt presented ideas, he didn't preach them. In Bambi, there is no character who says overtly, "Curses to Man, He Who Rapes the Natural World and Destroys the Environment! If Only He Could Be Educated to Consider How His Actions Affect Us All!" Walt didn't have to preach, all he had to do was tell his story.

Same thing with Dumbo -- no one needs to overtly state how prejudice can do great harm in that movie, the film presents that idea through the course of the drama. And on it goes, through the course of the Disney library (with the obvious exception of the WWII propaganda films).

As for maturity, I don't think we agree on that point. The modern films do some things Walt didn't do -- for one, they let the audience off the hook by winking at them. When the forest burns down in Bambi, there's no cut-away to low comedy just to get laughs, like we see in climactic moments of The Lion King (Bruce Lee and Taxi Driver jokes), Hunchback (Wizard of Oz jokes), and Mulan (Batman and cross-dressing humour). Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin do this too, but the humour is justified somewhat.

Also, there is a great tension within films like Pocahontas, Hunchback, Mulan, Dinosaur, Tarzan -- they are too self-aware that small chldren might be in the audience, and so low comedy and unwarranted musical moments are placed within these whose sole purpose is to keep children entertained so the movie can get back to the serious stuff. Concerns over the small children in the audience did egregious harm to Pocahontas and Hunchback (and Tarzan too, to some degree). When Walt Disney was accused of frightening children in films like Fantasia, Pinocchio, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Lady and the Tramp, etc., Walt would simply say that he didn't make movies for children, he made movies for everybody. A few of the modern films like Hunchback, Pocahontas and Mulan have tried to have their cake and eat it, too -- they want to be taken seriously and they tackle serious themes, but then they want to make sure young children are entertained. They can't have it both ways, but they certainly tried.

This compromise is a striking feature of mid-to-late 90's Disney films, and I'm not sure I would call them more mature than Walt's work. I would argue that Walt's feature films had greater control over their tone and storytelling, had more wisdom, had more emotional maturity -- because the producer responsible had gone through a trial by fire in the 20's and 30's making hundereds of short subjects. By the time he tackled features, he was a seasoned professional. The executives interfering with the artists on Pocahontas and Hunchback and Tarzan did not have that kind of pedigree, and the results speak for themselves.

 

[Sean Laughter]

I've never seen this film, but I do enjoy Hunchback to a passable degree - mainly for the instances of genius that demonstrate what an amazing achievement that film could have been had certain other decisions not have been made. However, I think it sits well with me because of the gothic atmosphere and how beautiful the film is visually.

As a result I may give this a rental.

However, I live only an hour or so away from Jamestown/Williamsburg, etc. so I remember all of the media hoopla in these parts about how inaccurate the story is, etc. which I suppose kind of colors my preconceived notions of the film. A pair of girls I know who did see it when it was originally released, who, at the time of the release were in the age bracket that would have been the target audience described the film as "Wind and Hair," so my primary memory at this time is of one of these girls acting out Pocahontas's apparently olympic sprinter run up the mountain at the end and the wind blowing her hair around as if she's in "Twister",

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ernest,

excellent discussion. I'm going to digest your words for a while.

 

[Phil Crosby]

DaVid --

Even though I already owned the LaserDisc Box of POCAHONTAS, I was on the fence about buying the DVD until I read your review. I truly appreciate the care, the detail, and the LOVE you show for the films you review, as well as being candid about how well they are represented on DVD. (Your POPPINS review was, sadly, spot on.)

Keep up the terrific work!

 

[Reagan]

I wasn't the slightest bit interested in seeing Pocahontas, but I was very interested in reading your review, David (great, as always). But now, just maybe...

-Reagan

 

[Ernest Rister]

However, I live only an hour or so away from Jamestown/Williamsburg, etc. so I remember all of the media hoopla in these parts about how inaccurate the story is, etc.

That was one of the biggest straw dog media-inflated arguments I had ever seen.

Since when did people get concerned about historical accuracy in musicals? In animated musicals, at that? Ever see anyone get themselves in a huff over the accuracy of the portrayal of NY street life in West Side Story? Ever hear someone complain about the liberites taken with the Von Trapp Family story in Sound of Music? Singin' in the Rain sports several historical anachronisms -- anybody care? No. Why? Because, like most musicals, Singin in the Rain is a fantasy that uses history as a backdrop -- nobody goes to a musical for reality or history, they go to be entertained, to be transported, to be thrilled on an emotional level.

Historical accuracy? In a musical? In an animated musical?

No -- here's the truth. Walt Disney's work has long been seen as taking a certain side in what I would phrase a culture war. His political hero was Abraham Lincoln, Walt was a protestant, so his work typically approached religion with reverence, and he was fiercely patriotic. He paid great respect to the Founding Fathers and the American Dream in films and Disneyland attractions throughout his life.

And what is not known is how much respect Disney had for Native American culture. You probably wouldn't know it from watching Peter Pan, but he made several films that frequently portrayed Native Americans as the victim of caucasian prejudice. It's a long list -- The Light in the Forest, "Davy Crockett Goes to Congress", Davy Crockett and the River Pirates, Westward Ho! the Wagons, episodes of "Tales of Texas John Slaughter" and "Zorro" -- even Those Calloways is about a man raised by indians and considered out of step because of his love for the environment. When Disneyland opened in 1955, Walt comissioned tribesmen to perform authentic dances and ceremonies for park visitors, not as a sideshow, but out of respect for the role Native Americans played in the West.

What Walt did not do in these films was portray the founding fathers or American society as a collection of White Devil Murdering Racist Slave Masters. It was feared that Pocahontas' take on the meeting of these two cultures would indoctrinate the young. When the film was released, all of this controversey evaporated because the film took great pains to present the prejudice on both sides of the argument. The White Europeans are first shown to be plunderers eager to shoot Indians (they even sing about it while getting drunk on the boat ride over -- "We'll kill ourselves an injun, or maybe two or three!"), meanwhile the Natives come to have a distorted view of the Europeans.

If my studies of American History have taught me anything, its that there is no one truth -- there is simply a collection of truths. The greatest mis-step in Pocahontas, for me, is the character of Ratcliffe, a one-dimensional evil buffoon who functions as nothing more than pure propaganda. The movie is predicated on the dramatic point that there is a balanced misunderstanding between the cultures, causing conflict. Ratcliffe tips the scale and unbalances the equation. He is boring, he is non-threatening, he is stupid, he is a racist hell-bent on shooting indians and dominating and plundering the new continent, and his design - from a pure animation point of view - is needlessly complicated and singularly unappealing.

Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston wrote about appeal in their book, The Disney Villains. An antagonist should engage you in some way. You don't have to like them, but there should be something interesting or compelling about them. After watching Mermaid, Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, you'd have thought the new Disney crew had nailed that problem cold. Ratcliffe is singularly unappealing. Its like watching Manuel Noriega sing and dance.

The movie would have been stronger with NO central evil force -- just the misunderstanding between the cultures. There is more than enough powerful drama on that front alone.

 

[Eddie Estes]

Earnest said what I was trying to say much better than I could have.
Where most modern animation fails is not in the technical or artwork. Most of that at least in feature animation is incredible. Where it falls short is in the writing.

Look at any of the TV animation now. They usually ruin a story by having one of the main character break into a discourse with another character about how man has ruined the planet through greed or technology.
You may or may not feel this is true depending on your political persuasion. This is one of the problems. By doing this the writer would have turned off half the audience from the start by having overt political statemants.

Look at what Bambi was(a masterpiece) and if it was made now what it would be.
If it was made now Bambi's mother would have had a long winded conversation with the young animals about how man and hunting were the scourge of the earth and how the planet would be heaven without man.
In Bambi as Earnest said Walt let the audience make up it's own mind about these subjects.
That is the difference between what was great writing and storytelling and the mediocre writing that is the sad norm for animation these days
Eddie Estes

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Eddie,

Sounds like you're describing the difference between a film that relies on subtlety and one that is direct. There's a right and wrong way to do both...and good writing can work in either direction, though I concur that in general a more secure, subtle approach that let's the viewer "make up his own mind", all things being equal, deserves greater praise than one that simple hands over an answer. In many cases the "direct approach" is the path that a writer takes because of his lack of maturity or understanding of the complexity of the subject matter...which perhaps is what you're saying.

But it's not always the case, and there are times when an issue is important enough (or timely enough) that a direct-discussion approach is merited. In that case, it's important that the issue is looked at fairly from more than one point of view so that even if an answer is "handed" to the viewer, the viewer can see just where that position is coming from (for instance, if we lived in a society where slavery was legal, I wouldn't begrudge a film making an attempt to expose the sins of slavery and promote it's absolution).

All just my opinion!

Ernest, I've updated my movie review slightly in light of some of your comments...

 

[Chuck Mayer]

ER,
Good take on Ratcliffe. Definitely the weakest of Disney villains, and now I have a better understanding of why. And Disney films are made by their antagonists, to some extent.

I am really excited to see this new cut. In the end, Pocahontas reminds me of Gangs of New York (very different films, I know). Both have flashes of brilliance, and greatness lies within. The whole never quite works out, but with a few fixes here and there, something brilliant could have been. Big cosmic, cinematic ALMOSTS.

Still, better than most of what we're offered. I'll take it

Thanks,
Chuck

 

[Ernest Rister]

But it's not always the case, and there are times when an issue is important enough (or timely enough) that a direct-discussion approach is merited. In that case, it's important that the issue is looked at fairly from more than one point of view so that even if an answer is "handed" to the viewer, the viewer can see just where that position is coming from (for instance, if we lived in a society where slavery was legal, I wouldn't begrudge a film making an attempt to expose the sins of slavery and promote it's absolution).

Absolutely agree. You can't make Amistad without people arguing the points directly (the whole movie is essentially a legal film). Pocahontas is actually NOT the strident anti-European Imperialism film some think it is. The movie, down deep, is a plea for patience and dialog. The film is about a collision between two cultures who have stark misconceptions about each other, which bring them into conflict, and it is only through the mutual love of two people that the two sides find a basis for reconciliation. Pocahontas, in a way, isn't really about the New World at all. It's Disney's version of West Side Story or Romeo and Juliet.

This is why it was such a mistake to remove the love ballad from the film. Can you imagine Romeo and Juliet without the balcony scene? Next time you watch West Side Story, try skipping the love songs and see how that film holds up.

I've called the theatrical cut of Pocahontas a "disaster" in previous essays precisely because of the removal of the declaration of love between Smith and Pocahontas. But like Romeo and Juliet, like West Side Story, the love between Smith and Pocahontas is the soul of the film. Cut it out, you just have the husk.

 

[David Brown Eyes]

I must speak up here. I would not do so if David had not made this quote “I remember the sensitivity and respect afforded the native-American cultures depicted in the film.” I will say this, from a native perspective this film was a disaster and certainly did not reflect well on the reality of native people.

There is no more “truth” in the depiction of native people as “noble savages” living in harmony with the land and animals as there is in the “heathen savage”. Both viewpoints propose problems for the native people.

The litmus test of reality is in how people responded to the film. I remember 10 years ago when this movie was released. There was a sizable increase of non-natives on the reservation looking for something that did not exist. I heard many voices cry “But how can Indian people be like this? What about “the colors of the wind” when faced with the reality of native cultures that does not and never did live up to the cultures depicted in Pocahontas. There were hurt feelings on both sides, many natives were greatly annoyed by the intrusion, and non-natives were greatly disappointed. To be fair Dances with Wolves was even worse in this regard.

Disney has in the past dealt with issues of racism, environmental consciousness and war without using native people. Setting up expectations of native people being super environmentally conscious and super spiritual as this movie did is a great disservice to everyone. The culture depicted is no more real than the history.

Now if you like the movie because of its characters, animations, and songs, fine but to exalt the film based on cultural sensitivity and historical correctness is a true disservice to Native people and the first European settlers.

 

[Paul_Scott]

after DaVids enthusaistic review i am tempted to netflix this- never having seen it before- but i really have to call you on this-



Pocahontas is just about the most blatantly overt politically correct film Disney has made in the last 20 yrs.
just the fact that they had to change the title character from a child to a 20 yr old with the physique of an aerobics instructor was enough to forever consign this to the 'sanatized for your delicate late 20th century sensibilities' pile.
i don't find that either mature or intellignet.
just false and 'safe'.
also- maybe a historian can chime in- but from what i have gathered, there wasn't a hot and heavy romance there between Smith and Pocahontas, anyway. so basically you have the filmmakers changing basic details about the historical characters because they are 'incoinvienent' in todays political climate all to serve the inclusion of a false, formulaic romance.

or am i off base here?

 

[Ernest Rister]

It's a musical, its Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story set in the New World. Expecting realism or historical accuracy from such a movie is completely non-sensical.

Judge a movie by its INTENTIONS and the EXECUTION of those ideas.

David, why do we have to repeat that every time a Disney film is released on DVD?

As for blaming Pocahontas for perpetuating stereotypes about Native Americans (peace-loving kum-ba-ya non-violent tribes living in absolute communal harmony with nature) -- it's deja vu all over again. Disney catches hell both coming and going.

 

[Jay Pennington]

Thanks for the review, David. Some great posts, Ernest.

A Lowry restoration? Huh? This was done on CAPS. Once the artwork was scanned, it was digital through and through. What would Lowry need to clean up?

...unless they used a print rather than the digital files, which would be a shame if true.

 

[David Brown Eyes]

As they should, until they make an effort to "get it right" or just leave us out of it.

The problem will remain until people stop thinking "native culture was treated respectfully" It was not and a real disservice was done.

 

[derek]

What no DTS track!?!?! The only reason I still have my laserdisc copy with the crummy, grainy, muddy transfer is the MAJOR KICK BUTT DTS soundtrack.

 

[Steve Christou]

One thing I've never understood on this forum, the love of 'kick butt' sound over dazzling picture quality.

 

[Ernest Rister]

As they should, until they make an effort to "get it right" or just leave us out of it.

Well, who exactly is "us"? Do you speak for the entire Native American peoples? Disney bent over backwards to hire consultants on the project. Russell Means of the American Indian Movement enorsed the picture and was particularly generous in his praise for it -- not because it was a painstakingly detailed look at the reality of Native Americans in the 1600's, but because young people would be introduced to the concept of a collision of cultures, and would receive a perspective on these issues at a young age.

 

[Ernest Rister]

LOL - Steve C and I were posting at the same time. Great minds and all that...