Full of colors but not colorful enough ...

Rating: 7/10 (12 December 2011)

Only one year after "The Lion King", that can be considered as the pinnacle of Disney Renaissance, was released the groundbreaking "Toy Story", that would pave the way to a whole new generation of animated films. 1995 was the year of the 3D revolution, which -let's face it- didn't leave much room for 'the first animated Disney feature based on a true story'.
I don't intend to be ironic, because on its own, "Pocahontas" is a decent film with some solid animation but as much as I respect and appreciate the fact that the film tried to detach itself from Disney roots and deal with more adult and historically relevant material, I'm just sorry that it didn't succeed on the field of entertainment as it did on music and imagery. Something was missing and the movie did to me the same effect that an appetizing dish served in a beautiful plate but failing on the most crucial test. 'Pocahontaste' lacked the little extra spice, a pity when you consider how dazzling the cinematography was.
I insist on the imagery because it contains such a great escapist value that if only for that, it's hard to maintain a negative opinion toward the film, "Colors of the Wind" and the shot of Pocahontas rafting on the wild river is such a powerful image that it deserved a more interesting story to build around, especially since the film was intended to be a romance. But the romance proved again to be a tricky genre for Disney films as the least likely to entertain or to inspire empathy, unless it's saved by comic relief elements, scene-stealing sidekicks or memorable villains, which "Pocahontas" didn't have. And go entertain a bunch of candy-eating kids in the movie theater with an Indian princess who falls in love with a British soldier, when one year before, it was about the coming-of-age story of a young lion who to become the king, and when a bunch of toys were living a great adventure.
"Pocahontas" was meant to fail because of its own story, too historically loaded to introduce some fantasy elements and when it tried, it didn't go too far. When you make a tree speak through the soul of a deceased grand-mother, why not make the little animals speak for God's sake?! I have nothing against the raccoon and the hummingbird, but I'd be damned if they made me even smile once, their cuteness was on the same level of Disney's 1932 "Flowers and Trees" and whoever created them should have remembered that if a character doesn't add anything significant to the plot, at least, he must have some redeeming qualities, and 'being cute' isn't one.
The secondary characters were so weak, that even the running gag involving the little rivalry between the raccoon and the dog didn't work for me, and although I watched the film only one year ago, I doubt that would have made me laugh either when I was 13, and certainly not as hard as Rafiki, Timon, Pumbaa or Genie, Abu or the magic carpet. And even if we give "Pocahontas" the benefit of doubt and consider that many other Disney films featured forgettable sidekicks, I doubt they also had forgettable villains. And since the thrills and interest of the story is driven by the antagonist, "Pocahontas" deserved more than a buffoon like Ratcliffe, not in the same league than Ursula, Jafar or the flamboyant Gaston.
I hate to sound so technical, but there are some tacit rules established since the release of the first animated feature: every "Snow White" needs her "Seven Dwarfs" and "Evil Queen", and they might even be more important. While the princess is the emotional core, a good Disney film is judged on its capability to scare and to make people laugh, and if it can work with bland and even dull heroines, it can't without strong supporting characters. Not all the Disney movies were romances of course, the others were generally quests or coming-of-age stories driven by young characters: Bambi, Pinocchio, Arthur or Mowgli whose identification was much easier, probably the key of "The Lion King" and "Toy Story"'s appeal.
"Pocahontas" had nothing special to impact the memories, and if it didn't sink into oblivion, it's probably a miracle due to the high quality of the film. But the story is just too mature: not enough fantasy, not enough colorful characters, it's even as if the writers were trapped by the content of their own stories, victim of this politically correct depiction of Natives, so angelic that the movie falls into a sort of reverse racism with the whole communion-with-Mother-nature stuff, so defining of the 90's and so hypocritical when you consider that the animators didn't embarrass themselves with depicting some Arabs in a stereotypical way in "Aladdin", while they were more sensitive about the portrayal of Natives for obvious reasons.
The result is a sort of animated "Dances With the Wolves" so noble-spirited, so wise, that it's almost offensive not to love this film, when you take it from an adult point of view. But that's the problem because Disney films are precisely about awakening the inner child inside us, and while I'm writing this, I try to remember why I didn't want to watch the film when it was released, when I didn't know anything about the stuff I just wrote. And I just found out why: the movie that tries to be the least possibly offensive is still offensive, because with her geometrically drawn face, I never found Pocahontas pretty at all, and she was probably the least physically appealing of all the Disney princesses.
And that, my friends, is so offensive in my opinion it canceled out all the good intentions...