Misfire

Rating: 7/10 (12 April 2016)

I guess to really review the Pocahontas film we must first start at the origin of its creation. In 1992 the film was in production. When Disney decided on the making of this movie they explained that the film would be based on the legends and folktales surrounding Pocahontas. Based on my research it seems that not even historians agree on all the facts of the original story. What this means is that Disney chose (in a sense) the more colorful version of the Pocahontas story, no pun intended. Since Disney knew they would be going out on a ledge with this story they claimed that their main focus was sentiment when it came to portraying American Indians. So they sought the help of American Indian Activists. This was done in an effort to cover their "you know what," and to prevent an uproar within the American Indian community.
To understand the differences between the historical event of John Smith's voyage to Jamestown and Disney's interpretation of it we must first take a look at how the character's compare. The first character we will look at is Pocahontas. In the Disney version, Pocahontas is a spirited, good-natured, fearless creature. She is full of curiosity and loves everything around her, even the trees that she has no problem talking to every morning. She is the cherished daughter of chief Powhatan, and her poised stance on the edge of the cliff is evidence of her wisdom beyond her years.
In the original story, Pocahontas was also known as "Matoaka." She was still the beloved daughter of Chief Powatan, and like the movie she was still lively and playful. But one distinctive difference based on historical research is the physical appearance of Pocahontas. Historical research suggests that unlike the tall, slim, new age model type appearance that Pocahontas has in the Disney film, her figure was quite different. This makes one wonder why Disney would ignore or alter the historical knowledge that they had about the appearance of Native American women. In 1607 "hero" John Smith traveled on an extensive voyage to to Virginia, and the movie does a good job making it clear that the journey's main purpose was gold. But that is about the only thing that comes close to the actual events in Jamestown in 1607.
This brings me to my next point that this story is a drastically inaccurate depiction of the actual historical event at Jamestown. For one, Pocahontas did fall in love but not with a man named John Smith. The guy that she married and conceived a child with was named John Rowe. Now as unimportant as that may sound, it's actually misleading to children when confronted with the details of an important time in our history. The inaccuracies stretch even to the clothes that they wore— that being said I highly doubt Native American women ran around in mini-skirts. So what was Disney's angle? I'm still not sure! Grant it that it is a Disney film, and Disney movies more often than not miss the mark when it comes to historical facts, but this movie was more like a misfire. It seems that even though they had the help of Native American activists, Disney still couldn't avoid the stereotypes. Though the film shows John Smith as a "Hero," I gave Disney a pass on this one because the young viewers do need a character with morals that they can aspire to be like. But historically Smith was manipulative, and his only interest was money, power and fame. In thinking about this movie I had a talk with a friend and he brought up a good point. How the marriage between Pocahontas and Smith could have been a modern-day tabloid to distract from the horrid events that happened during this time in history. I think you can even take it a step further to say to make this movie a romantic tragedy with their wedding is added injury to insult.
But damn, sorry for the rant I actually love Disney movies in all its glory. Yes, even Pocahontas, aside from the violence, the young viewers are exposed to characters with morals and strong constitutions. It teaches them about the greater good and the power of love. If I had to change something about the story, though, I would change the moral of it. I would change it from love conquers all to, people can change. This way the marriage wouldn't be the corner stone of the film, the fact that two different nations with two different languages can find a common ground would be the conclusion to this tragic tale.