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

[PerryD]

Count me in as a big fan of both Pocahontas and Hunchback. Hunchback was an especially powerful film to me in both story and music, the opening sequence blows me away everytime. I think the problem with Pocahontas was that it followed Aladdin and Lion King, very light and silly movies. Perhaps if it would have followed Beauty & the Beast, it would have been held in higher regard.

I'm also a big fan of Mulan and Tarzan that followed, so I only consider Hercules the real misstep in the 90's, but even that film was enjoyable. Unfortunately, since then, Disney has really taken a huge downturn (Home on the Range is practically unwatchable, and Treasure Planet and Atlantis were hugely expensive boring flops), I would guess the major reason for the failures of the newer films was the huge hole that Jeffrey Kazenburg and his team made when they left for Dreamworks. If it wasn't for Pixar, Disney would have been finished in the animation business.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Were they? The scene in America opens with the chief returning to his village after having won a battle...and praising the best fighter of the group. The Native Americans also later declare war on the English and are subject to the same tendancies towards violence--shown just to be just as "wrong" during the final battle scene as the English invaders.

They *did* farm and hunt their land in more sustainable fashion than the Western culture the English brought to the American shore...but this isn't stereotyping...it's a fact of history: Native Americans lived on this continent for thousands of years in a sustainable manner with very little negative impact on the ecology...but in the last 300 years Western culture has clear-cut nearly all the old-growth forests along the eastern shore and polluted the Chesepeake Bay watershed that was once crystal-clear and brimming with sea life with the settlers first arrived. Is portraying Native Americans living in harmony with nature promoting an untruth?

 

[Paul_Scott]

it just rubs me the wrong way because Disney in this case obviously wants a true piece of history to confer some kind of gravity or legitmacy to their annual summer cross promotion vehicle, and yet they dismiss hewing to closely to facts because it will get in the way of formula and merchandising potential.

the actual historical events had plenty of opportunity for dramatic entertainment, without being blandly homogenized, or scrubbed free of any 'controversial' aspects.
so they weren't interested in a 'history lesson', what were they interested in? just another riff on R&J?
who is that aimed for?
i'm guessing an age bracket that could have easily grasped a more honest retelling of the tale.

hey, i'm fine with using the historical account as a springboard for a fictional story- but using the actual names of people, places, etc and then revising the 'facts' to fit a contemproary PC ideal is somewhat offensive and puts up a hazy barrier to the work for me, which makes it that much harder to view and appreciate whatever craft the artists involved actually achieved with it (as a musical, cartoon, film, etc).

 

[Ernest Rister]

I would guess the major reason for the failures of the newer films was the huge hole that Jeffrey Kazenburg and his team made when they left for Dreamworks. If it wasn't for Pixar, Disney would have been finished in the animation business.

Oh, really?

Lilo and Stitch outgrossed Minority Report.

Tarzan grossed over $170 million.

Emperor's New Groove was being held over for weeks by chains because of stronger than expected business. Disney miscalculated by streeting the ENG DVD in March when the film was still doing business in first-run theaters.

Sure, Disney had their share of problems -- because of blatant poor corporate judgement.

Atlantis and Treasure Planet were targeted to a male teen demographic, one that doesn't readily admit to liking "cartoons" since they're so preoccupied with appearing mature. These films met the same fate as Titan A.E. and Final Fantasy. Didn't Disney learn this lesson the hard way with The Black Cauldron in 1985? Some lessons need to be repeated before the truth sinks in, I guess.

Brother Bear was just flat-out bad, that's why it hit the wall at $60 million. Home on the Range was maybe the most inconsequential Disney animated feature since the package films of the 40's, and that's being generous. Terrific songs, but completely forgettable. Dinosaur would normally be considered a blockbuster, if it hadn't cost an arm and a leg to produce. Credit the deflated box office to Michael Eisner's personal insistence that the Dinosaurs speak in modern English slang. If the entire film had been presented in the same manner as the first ten minutes -- I think it would have given Jurassic Park a run for its money.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Paul,

understandable (and very well stated).

What I do find curious is how (Ernest mentioned this same example) we don't hear criticisms of other musical making equally or more gross alterations to suite romantic storylines (think Sound of Music).

Perhaps it's because the characters and events of Jamestown and Pocahontas are more "historical" in nature and have an impact on foundation of our nation to some degree. Maybe with this story the sakes are higher...and as you say there could have been another way of doing it.

I still enjoy this film the way it stands but I can understand why the historical changes might be an obstacle to some.

 

[Ernest Rister]

it just rubs me the wrong way because Disney in this case obviously wants a true piece of history to confer some kind of gravity or legitmacy to their annual summer cross promotion vehicle

The love story of John Smith and Pocahontas, with Pocahontas so smitten she saves him from exectuion, is some true piece of history? No, it's an American myth. The real John Smith claimed that he had been saved from execution multiple times by multiple native women on multiple continents. Its about as "true" a story as Pecos Bill riding a cyclone.

 

[Paul_Scott]

a valid point.
i have in the past heard some grumblings about SOM not being very accurate, but it could just boil down to one property is judged (rightly or wrongly) to be more 'charming' to a greater % of people and the other property much less so.

and if you are charming enough, most people will give you a pass no matter what your sins-
thats the only explanation i could give.

like i said, i'm criticizing this particular property on only one basis. i will end up netflixing it in a few weeks just to satisfy my curiosity of it.
somewhere i actually have the massive Art of... book for it. i remember Barnes and Nobel reduced it quite a bit, and there was some beautiful art work in it.
maybe after a viewing i will look at my previous comments as overblown and petty...we'll see.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Perhaps it's because the characters and events of Jamestown and Pocahontas are more "historical" in nature and have an impact on foundation of our nation to some degree. I still enjoy this film the way it stands but I can understand why the historical changes might be an obstacle to some.

It's politics. It's the culture war. It's nothing more deep than that.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Paul,

I look forward to hearing your comments after you've seen the film. Please post back here when you do.

Thanks to everyone for the spiritied and (risking sounding politically correct) diverse discussion.

 

[David Brown Eyes]

Yes it is an untruth.

Have you ever heard of the Anasazi David? Their entire culture collapsed after cutting down all the forests in the 4 corners area createing an ecological disaster that ended their civilization.

After the introduction of the horse, my people would have completely elliminated the buffalo herds by the 1940's, if the horse cultures were allowed to continue their hunting behaviors and population growth of the early 1800's.

It should shock you David that the average American today is more ecologicaly consious than the average Native. The difference is that a discarded moccasin will deteriorate faster than a discarded nike. It is not that Natives did not throw anything away, it was that what was thrown away did not have the longevity of todays trash.

sustainable agriculture is easy if you live in a small village, not so easy if you live in Manhattan. The issue is not culture but materials, technology, and population size. 10 million Natives will not have the ecological impact of 260 million Americans.

The movie set unrealistic expectations of native people, and native culture, something that really does not and has never existed.

The native culture depicted in Pocahontas is "Disney's" version not reality. As long as that fact is acknowledged then I have no problems. It is a cartoon and a musical lets keep it as that.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Native Americans lived on this continent for thousands of years in a sustainable manner with very little negative impact on the ecology.

We can agree to disagree, David -- I wasn't around, so I'm only parroting my own education, but from what I've been taught, Native Americans had a dramatic impact on the ecology of North America -- an ecology that has been in constant change for thousands of years to begin with. One of the greatest myths about our environment is that it is some sort of state of constant equlibirium. It is not, and never has been. Our atmosphere has changed composition three times in the history of our planet. The environment is contstantly changing, only at a rate mortal man can't appreciate.

Human beings are animals, just like deer and rabbits and pumas or anything else. And Native Americans played a very important role in shaping the ecology and environment of the North American continent long before John Smith arrived.

Anyway, this isn't the thread for this debate.

Later.

 

[DaveF]

Thanks for the in-depth review, David. I've never seen Pocohantas, despite a good friend and fellow childhood Disney fan telling me it was worth my time.

What I recall was very bad word of mouth within the Protestant Christian community. It was sometimes described as having anti-American, anti-Christian ("liberal") dogma. I vaguely recall hearing the (real) Pocohantas converted to Christianity at some point in her life and part of the backlash was in response to the Christian aspects of her life being stripped out, possibly replaced with Native American spiritualism.

True or not, I don't know, but it was part of what turned me off from seeing the film back then.

These days, there are too many new, good films that I don't have time far, making it hard to be excitied about a mediocre Disney film from a decade ago. But perhaps I'll finally rent it and see how it really is.

 

[Ernest Rister]

What I recall was very bad word of mouth within the Protestant Christian community

And what I recall is history -- during the same period when the pre-release hype for Pocahontas was beginning to build, Disney announced plans to build a theme park in Virginia devoted to American history. "Disney's America" was the proposed title. The outcry was so pronounced, Disney scuttled the project entirely. While the central criticism centered around Disney's development destroying the historic acres, there was also sizable condemnation of the project because "Walt Disney's view" on American history was feared to be a "whitewashed mom, dad, baseball and apple pie" take on American history.

This spilled over into the debate about Pocahontas prior to its release, with fierce condemnation that the film was a "warping" of history, that is was a "Disney formula whitewash", etc. The film was finally released, and all this talk disappeared because all of it was unfounded.

 

[CherylWI]

this is one of the most informative and entertaining debates that I have read in a long time. Ernest Rister always seems to have an interesting take on the historical aspects of Disney past and present and a great depth to his posts. It's one of the main reasons why I joined Home Theatre Forum. You just don't get this kind of background info anywhere else. I think David's review was fantastic and will purchase the Pocahantas DVD.

 

[Scooter]

I have ALWAYS loved this one!!! To this day the ending brings me to tears!!! As did the AWFUL first DVD release, in that case due to a horrible transfer! Watched that ONCE and never went back...stayed with the Laser Disc.

I can not wait to see this....

 

[DaViD Boulet]

David Brown Eyes,

I want to thank you personally for sharing your point of view on this forum and for taking the time to express yourself so clearly. Your comments add a much-appreciated balance and bring a new dimension of insight to the discussion.


There's no doubt that North American continent has changed more in the last 300 years than in the last 3000, but your comments reveal the measure of human impact may result more directly from pragmatic matters of scale and population size rather than more "noble" factors of environmental awareness and value systems. Your insights are well considered.

 

[Phil Carter]

I think your reviews are getting longer, DaViD.

I can't even conceive of the effort that goes into writing up these most excellent reviews. Thanks again for another great one; looks like I'll be picking this one up next Tuesday.

cheers,
Phil

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Thanks for all the work. Loved this in the theater, when it was first released. Great for 90's Disney. The humming birds floating around, remind me of the fairy god-mothers floating around in Sleeping Beauty. Or an acid flashback, I'm not sure...
Been looking forward too this release, since seeing the first DVD release. Ugh!!!

 

[DaveF]

I wasn't disagreeing. The historical aspect of it was the larger public response. But there was, as I described, an additional (and related) negative response from the american, protestant, evangelical christian community (to be specific to my esperience). What made me think of this was your use of the phrase "culture wars", which in my experience relates strongly to the protestant community's response to "liberal" media, "Hollywood", etc. in the past 20 years, or so.

The notion of a Disney cartoon using an historical character, stripping away an aspect of her Christian faith and instead emphasizing spiritualism really chafes certain groups. I don't know if that's what Pocohantas did, but I remember claims that it did.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

The mid-90's made Disney a very popular target for groups trying to get front-page headlines. In the mid-90's, Disney animation was king. No Lucas films, Spielberg took a 4 year break between SL and TLW, and the "effects" blockbuster was just beginning its "art"form. Disney was sole king, the champion gunfighter. Because of this, accusing Disney of something was a surefire way to get in the news. Not that any special interest group would stoop to such a tactic :rolleyes

This started with Aladdin (the change of the lyrics for the Middle-Eastren community) and continued on with every major Disney release for a few years. People were lining up to be offended. The Lion King was vociferously attacked by some pro-gay rights groups that opposed how Scar was portrayed (I am aware that Scar was not ever "outed" because it was irrelevant). Pocahontas got it just as well, from history buffs mostly. Hunchback got a very vicious response, from Southern Baptist and other major religious groups. I don't remember much for Hercules and beyond. I guess Disney wasn't as fat a target anymore.

Just a heads up,
Chuck