9.09 - Pocahontas: Disney Does It (To Us) Again

Pocahontas: Disney Does It (To Us) Again

by Kathi Maio

The Disney Company can be accused of many things, but incompetence inthe promotion of an animated feature film is not one of them. It helpsthat they've been making full-length cartoons longer that anyone, andcan boast one of the best animation teams in the world.

But their success has less to do with tradition and art than

with a corporate synergy. The Disney studio is a part of a businessempire that includes worldwide theme parks, a cable broadcasting

-~ channel and network TV production companies (they own TV's #1endearing dad show "Home Improvement"), publishing interests, and anever-growing chain of retail stores.

) All of these entities can be brought in to promote and supportthe latest animated Disney feature. The case in point, this summer, is-~ Disney's thirty-third full-length cartoon, Pocahontas. Although the

movie is certainly doing very well (as I write this, it has earnedover $90 million in its first month), it is unlikely to equal thephenomenal success of its predecessor from last summer, The Lion King.

Little Simba's coming of age tale earned well over $300million in domestic box office and this year became the biggest newvideo release of all time. With world box-office and video sales and a

mountain of merchandise purchases, the movie is estimated to haveearned $2 billion!

Pocahontas isn't looking like that kind of money-maker. But ifour "Indian Princess" doesnOt do as well as the lion cub, itwonOt be for lack of fanfare. Disney publicized Pocahontas with a

lengthy trailer (featuring a complete musical number) attached to boththe theatrical and video releases of Lion King. It sent a big exhibitona 24-city tour of AmericaOs malls. And itOs gotten a whopperof a boost from Burger King with tie-in toys, glasses, andadvertising. (Not to mention the fact that every retailer from your

local discount drugstore to Payless Shoes is hawking Pocahontasmerchandise. )

And let's not forget the totally absurd premiere of the moviein New YorkOs Central Park (in which tens of thousands of peopletrampled what little greenery was left in New York so as to watch amovie that preached respect for nature) .

But then, Disney has never minded creating a little culturaldissonance in pursuit of the almighty dollar. In fact, mixed messagesare their stock and trade. That has always been my greatest misgivingabout the enormous social impact their supposedly wholesome animatedfamily features have on the minds of America's (nay, the worldOs)young.

I'm willing to forgive and forget DisneyOs old cartoonclassics, like Snow White, in which other women were always theheroineOs mortal enemy, but a smooch from a good-looking guy couldsolve any problem she might have ...even a coma. After all, the worldwas younger then, and you could argue that Disney didnOt know anybetter.

But by the time The Little Mermaid, Ariel, swam onto screensin 1989, I was feeling less indulgent. That particular heroine had aflipper instead of feet, but was otherwise the spittin' image of her

http://web .mit.edul activities/thistle/v9 /9.09 /8pocahontas.html

Page 1 of6

8/28/2006

9.09 - Pocahontas: Disney Does It (To Us) Again

all-for-love predecessors. Again, in The Little Mermaid, the leadvillain was' an older woman. And this time the dastardly "Sea Witch,"Ursula, was white-haired and fat-a nice lookist, ageist, anti-Wiccantwist to DisneyOs standard misogyny.

And sweet, perky Ariel was willing to give up all she

possessed-her voice, even her mortal soulNfor the chance of beingkissed by a bland, good-looking guy. And, in the end, had to abandonher society and her family forever to become the human consort ofPrince Eric.

Disney took some flack from feminists for that one, so theypointedly promoted their next fairy tale heroine, Belle, in Beauty andThe Beast (1991) as "active" and bliberated.6 The most liberated

thing she does is read romance novels, as far as I could ever

tell. But that wasn't what disturbed me about DisneyOs re-tellingof the classic tale.

It was the change in the "Beast's" character that was most

chilling. In the original story, and in all adaptations I had everseen until the House of Mouse got hold of it, the monster wasportrayed as a sweet creature who treated the heroine with tenderness

and respect, as well as self-sacrificing love. (Moral: DonOt judgea book by it s cover.)

But Disney's version features a Beast who looks ugly and actseven uglier. He is so filled with rage that his servants tremble atthe thought of approaching him. He is, Disney implies, a brute. Sowhat is the message to little girls when Belle manages to transformthis Beast into the requisite bland, good-looking prince? The filmseems to tell them that women are responsible for male anger andviolence. If they. are pretty enough, and sweet enough, any mean andnasty man will magically mend his ways -as well as his looks.

What a heart-warming fable! Why, it's a regular training filmfor the battered women of tomorrow!

The heroine, Princess Jasmine, in Disney's next feature,Aladdin (1992), is hardly worth mentioning at all. She is little morethan a sexual trophy to be fought over by the evil vizier, Jafar, andthe dashing young hero with a big blue genie friend, Aladdin.

What's more interesting, in this musical comedy cartoon, isthe not-so-subtle reinforcement of anti-Arab stereotypes. Yes, youmight say, but whatOs the big deal when the hero is an Arab, justlike all the other evil, dishonest, and stupid characters? The thingis that DisneyOs character of Aladdin isnOt played Arabic. He isportrayed as a youthful, enthusiastic, All-American good guy. ("Callme Al!" he exclaims.) So his Americanized heroism never reallycounteracts anti-Arab sentiment like the song lyric that described the

Middle East as a place where bthey cut off your ear if theydonOt like your face-ItOs barbaric, but hey, itOs home.6

Disney caught even more flack about Aladdin (and in an

unprecedented move, did slightly change the above mentioned lyric forthe video release). Then, with their eyes still on the prize of thenew multicultural marketplace, they tried again with the

pseudo-African trappings of The Lion King-and struck gold. Certainlythe animation in The Lion King is very good. And there are some fairlyuniversal themes here: fear of disappointing your parents andcommunity and loss of father. But, once again, Disney seemed to bepushing a social agenda that was at odds with that stated in theirpress. For there is a serious undercurrent of sexism, elitism, andracism in Disney's brand of diversity myth.

There are men (and I do mean men) who are born to rule andcontrol others, The Lion King tells us. Such men cannot be effeminate(as is Scar, the crypto-gay villain voiced by Jeremy Irons). And asfor the females, they may be strong and smart and brave but they are

http://web.mit.edu/ activities/thistle/v9 /9.09 /8pocahontas.html

Page 2 of6

8/28/2006

9.09 - Pocahontas: Disney Does It (To Us) Again

still incapable of leadership. All they can do is obey bad malerulers, and pray for a better fellow to come along and take over. Andpower must never be given to lazy scavenger types like the film'shyena characters who-no surpriseNare portrayed as jive-talkingurban minorities (as voiced by the likes of Whoopi Goldberg and CheechMarin) .

No, The Lion King is far from my idea of a model of

multiculturalism. But when such nasty propaganda is tucked away in apretty cartoon that encourages its audience to greet every problemwith a refrain of "Hukuna Matata (No Worry) ," those who condemn it

come off looking like Op.c.O spoilsports. (Or so Disney wantseveryone who continues to buy those Mufasa bookbags and Simba stuffedtoys to think.)

I remember seeing a segment on Entertainment Tonight lastsummer in which a Disney spokesperson answered some criticism much

milder than mine. "These people need to get a life," Mickey'smouthpiece sneered. OItOs only a story!O

Which brings this poor life-lacking critic to this year'sanimated feature. But, guess what, Pocahontas, unlike all the Disneyanimated features that came before it, is not just a story. By theirown admission, this is the studioOs first feature cartoon based on

a real personOs life. As Disney professes in their promotional kit:

"The extraordinary life and indomitable spirit of a truly remarkableNative American heroine is celebrated through the artistry andstory-telling magic of animation .... "

But is it? Disney would obviously like us to accept that theyare doing right by their title character. "With its trademark

meticulousness, Disney has thoroughly researched the story ofPocahontas," they assert. And that may be true. But if they did do

meticulous research, they ended up ignoring it For their screenplay,credited to three writers, is 80 percent florid fabrication.

Admittedly, Disney's writers arenOt the only ones to haveromanticized this particular womanOs life. The "legend" ofPocahontas (with its elements so suspiciously close to olden folkballads of the OLord BatemanO/OYoung BeichenO type) is onethat generations of American schoolchildren have been told. As it

usually goes: A sweet Indian Princess called Pocahontas takes a fancyto a British settler from the nascent Jamestown colony named JohnSmith. When the maidenOs father, the chief, decides to kill thesettler, Pocahontas throws herself between the club and the whiteboyOs head, saving his life.

Nice story. Too bad it's probably untrue. But itOs nowonder why this particular tale has resounded in the American

imagination for so long. Like the story of Sacagawea leading the Lewisand Clarke expedition to safety or the tale of Squanto helping thepilgrims to farm corn and fish and celebrate Thanksgiving, it is alegend about a "good" Indian protecting white men and promoting theirinterests, and there by (inadvertently) facilitating the vanquishmentof her own native peoples.

Although there is no doubt that a woman called Pocahontas was

born in what is now called Virginia about 400 years ago, we know, forcertain, very little about all but the last months of her life. Andwhat little we know comes not from Powhatan culture, but from thewritten memoirs and histories of the white men who "settled" her

homeland for God and England. Primary among these documents are thewritings of John Smith, himself.

Smith and his contemporaries weren't exactly producingimpartial documents. In fact, their writings-full of uncomprehendingobservations about the local "savages"Nare precisely the kind ofWhite Male HisStory OmulticulturalismO was intended to

http://web .mit.edul activities/thistle/v9/9. 09/8pocahontas.html

Page 3 of6

8/28/2006

9.09 - Pocahontas: Disney Does It (To Us) Again

counteract. But Disney gets to have it both ways, with theirPocahontas. They claim a careful, respectful approach that celebratesNative American history, all the while pushing a romantic folklorethat they have heightened to such an extent that even John Smith

wouldnOt lay claim to it.The distortion level is so intense in Pocahontas that it would

be impossible to name all the inaccuracies. Start, if you like, withthe very terrain of the film's setting. Jamestown and the tribal landsof the Powhatan Confederacy are in Tidewater, Virginia. A tidewater isa coastal plain-a low-lying area. Disney gives it magnificentmountains with spectacular waterfalls and breath-taking cliffs. (And,for an added touch, they have Pocahontas take what her animator, GlenKeane, admits is a 300-foot dive off of one such cliff, as if she werea tourist attraction in some tropical resort.)

Which brings us to the more damnable fallacies, thoseconcerning the woman the film is named after. When Pocahontas first

encountered white people in 1607, she was somewhere between the agesof ten and thirteen. Judging from one Jamestown historian's stories

about the playful young girl who used to have cartwheeling contestswith the boys of the settlement, eleven is probably aboutright. Especially since, in these stories, Pocahontas is naked-a

shocker for the straight-laced Brits, but a common practice amongpre-pubescent native children in that area.

Yes, unlike Disney's adult heroine, in her one shouldered,

form-fitting buckskin sheath dress (to show off her stacked physiqueof what looks to be 36-14-30 measurements on a six-foot supermodelframe), the real Pocahontas-even after pubertyNwould probably haveworn only an animal-skin apron. And as for the most notable thingabout her, her Barbie-style long, long tresses, thatOs probablyGlen KeaneOs fantasy, too.

And a powerful media-induced fantasy it is! When a feminist

friend surveyed a group of young girls, asking them what they mostadmired about Pocahontas, she hoped to hear something about herdedication to peace or her bravery. Instead, the universal responsewas "her hair ... her beautiful long hair!"

Sorry, girls. The women of the Powhatan tribes sportedextremely short (think: Ann DiPranco) hairdos, which were much morepractical for their muggy climate and water-friendly culture.

Mr. Keane's visual transformation of a brave, adventurousyoung girl (who would have made an incredible role model for thefemale children in the movieOs target audience) into a hot babe wholooks like sheOs ready for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is

bad enough. But then Disney felt the need to propel their buckskinBarbie with romantic impulses.

According to Uncle Walt's boys, Pocahontas did what she did

because of her death-defying love for John Smith. (And watching thefilm, you could hardly blame her if it were true. The animated Smith

looks like Malibu Ken and sounds like Mel Gibson. In reality, he wasmore than twice the age of Pocahontas and was short, dark, and hairy,with an elaborate mustache and beard that made him look like the

progenitor of the Smith Brothers of cough drop fame.)But no, this chieftain's daughter wasnOt motivated by

romance. Like her father, the fierce, brilliant Powhatan (who sharedhis name with the confederacy of tribes he ruled), young Pocahontaswas motivated more by the needs of her people than by any attractionshe felt for these strange new visitors.

The "execution" scenario, which Smith admitted took placeafter two days of feasting in his honor, was very probably a tribaladoption ritual, a ceremony by which the women of a tribe selectedwhich captives would be absorbed into their community. It may well

http://web .mit.edu/ activities/thistle/v9 /9.09 /8pocahontas .html

Page 4 of6

8/28/2006

9.09 - Pocahontas: Disney Does It (To Us) Again

have been an important event for Pocahontas, but not because she was

so hot for a white man that she was willing to risk her life. Rather,it might have been one of her rites of passage as a woman of poweramongst her clan. And, certainly, it might even have been orchestratedby her politically astute father.

After the aborted head bashing incident, the real Powhatan

called Smith "son," and hoped to use his new kinship as a means ofpeaceful coexistence with the armed but hapless whites. (The coloniststhought they were in charge, but couldn't even manage to keepthemselves from starving without regular food gifts from Pocahontasand her tribe.) Alas, a lasting peace, implied by the end ofDisneyOs fable, was not to be.

In his Proceedings of the English Colonie in Virginia, Smithwould later quote Powhatan's moving speech (of 1609) in which he asks

his adopted son: "What will it availe you to take that by force whatyou may quickly have by love, or to destroy them that provide youfood?"

It is a question that has an answer, but only an ugly andshameful one. And Disney certainly isn't in the shame business. So as

to give the most romantic and upbeat ending to a story that isessentially one of genocide, the film has John Smith become woundedshielding Powhatan from a gunshot in a brave stand for love andpeace. That of course never happened.

Smith was burned in a freak gunpowder explosion caused by thecarelessness of his own men. And when he went home to England, hedidn't tarry for a tender 10verOs farewell with young

Pocahontas. In fact, he never said goodbye. Never even dropped her aline or sent her a message. Until she met him again, several yearslater, in England (whereupon, she significantly insisted on reclaimingtheir kinship by calling Smith Father) Pocahontas believed him to bedead.

Which isn't to say that she pined away on the riverbank. Before she died-at the approximate age of 20Nshe continuedher (misguided) sponsorship of the white settlers, who repaid herkindness by kidnapping and holding her for ransom, refusing to releaseher and dressing her up in English clothes, converting her toChristianity, renaming her Lady Rebecca, and marrying her off to acolonist.

Upon the birth of her only child. a son, she was packed off toEngland where she impressed the royal court with how well thecolonists could civilize a "savage" perceived to be of noble

birth. While there, she sickened, died, and was buried a world awayfrom her home.

It's an amazing biography, but Disney wonOt tell you any ofit in their Pocahontas. TheyOd like us to think of this courageousprincess simply, John SmithOs long-lost girlfriend and theyOdlike to reduce her short, intense life into a make-believe romance

between a "copper-skinned" beauty and blond, good-looking guy.Moreover, Disney certainly doesn't want to tell you how this

womanOs people were decimated after her death. Oh, the studio knowsenough-"call us politically correct," they invited the BostonGlobeNto admit that the British colonies were no friends of the

natives. They have Governor Ratcliffe lead a chorus in a ditty aboutgreed called OMine, Mine, Mine,O and another about racialintolerance called OSavages.O

But John Ratcliffe was only one of the council of leaders

(including our adventurous good guy John Smith) who jockeyed for powerat Jamestown. He wasn't the only honcho-and he certainly wasnOt theworst. But it was convenient for Disney to lay all of the rapaciousvillainy of the British colonists on one manOs head. Then they

http://web .mit.edul activities/thistle/v9 /9.09 /8pocahontas.html

Page 5 of6

8/28/2006

9.09 - Pocahontas: Disney Does It (To Us) Again

could have him deposed for wounding Smith (this, of course, neverhappened), then pack him off to England at the end of the movie.

This leaves Disney's Jamestown as an egalitarian village ofgood-hearted, working-class (?!) blokes who welcomed the chance tolive in peace and harmony with their Indian neighbors. ItOs a

bald-faced lie, all of it. But itOs also another brilliant exampleof Disney double-think. (Go ahead, call imperialism bad ... but comfortAmericans by telling them that the stout-hearted lads that founded

Jamestown had nothing to do with that nasty old imperialism!)Disney calls this "political correctness"? (They are obviously

following the Newt Gingrich model.) But their self-annointmentworked. Many reviewers have indeed called the film Op.c.O andall the stories about Pocahontas have been careful to quoteA.I.M. activist (and Oglala Lakota Sioux) Russell Means on the

film. In an astute tactical move, Disney cast Means, a budding actor,as the voice of Pocahontas' father, Chief Powhatan. They also got himto bluster at anyone who might criticize the project. 01 thinkPocahontas is the single finest work ever done on American Indians byHollywoodO he has repeatedly said.

(Excuse me, Russell, how much did Disney pay you?)Perhaps it is silly of me to get this upset about an animated

feature. "It's only a story," the Disney spokesperson snickers in myear. But itOs not! This is a real womanOs life. And now, thecultural event that is a Disney blockbuster has coopted that life.

Little Dove Custolow, a tribal storyteller, and herself, thedaughter of a Powhatan chief, was quoted in the Washington Post assaying that she wished Disney "would take the name of Pocahontas offthat movie." I couldn't agree more. But itOs not going tohappen. Because Disney has emblazoned the name Pocahontas on more thana summer hit movie. TheyOve put that name on everything from teeshirts to MatteI dolls (with beautiful long, long hair) toOPowhatan Village PlaysetsO available at a Disney mall outlet ordiscount department store near you.

It's a corporate tidal wave that no one can stop. All I can dois mourn the fact that this cartoon biography-with all its lies,half-truths, and distortionsNis destined to be many childrenOsonly exposure to this particular piece of history. Of all thebetrayals Pocahontas endured in the last 400 years, this could well bethe worst of all.

This article first appeared in the August 1995 issue of Sojourner: TheWomen's Forum. Reprinted with permission.

http://web .mit.edu/ activities/thistle/v9/9. 09 /8pocahontas.html

Page 6 of6

8/28/2006