Disney Movie Challenge: Pocahontas (1995)

Disney Movie Challenge

Pocahontas (1995)

WHAT IS THE DISNEY MOVIE CHALLENGE: With Disney+ making available almost all of their films from the vault I thought it was a good time to watch all the theatrically released feature length Disney Studio Animated films. That’s a lot of qualifications so what does it all mean? It must be a film developed and released under the Walt Disney Animation Studios (so no PIXAR or Tim Burton stop motion films). Must have been released in theaters (no direct to video releases). And feature length (no shorts that played prior to the features). Currently there are 58 films. Starting with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937 going to Frozen II in 2020. 

In 1995 you had two choices for historical inaccurate Mel Gibson films. You could go with the violent and bloody Braveheart or the family friendly Pocahontas.  Neither tell a story that is close to what actually happened, but both were big hits.  

When Jeffrey Katzenberg greenlit Pocahontas he saw it as an opportunity for an animated film to score another Best Picture nomination.  He felt The Lion King was some experimental film that wouldn’t be a big hit.  To duplicate Beauty and the Beast’s success at the Oscars Katzenberg decided to try to duplicate the story and wanted a love story.   He also encouraged all his top animators to work on this film instead of The Lion King.  While some of the creators tried to keep the story accurate it became a give and take with what the studio wanted.  

In this retelling of the story of Pocahontas we follow the English as they sail to the New World to find gold and glory.  Meanwhile, in the New World we have Pocahontas and her tribe living in harmony with nature.  Pocahontas is having dreams that make her feel she is called to do more than just marry the strongest guy in the tribe.  She consults a wise willow tree that helps guide her.  When the English finally arrive there is automatic tension in the air.  They begin digging for gold right away.  But John Smith, who is there for the adventure not gold, begins exploring the area.  There he meets Pocahontas and they instantly have a connection.  Pocahontas magically learns English and begins to show Smith that there is more to nature than just conquering it, and just because people don’t act like you doesn’t mean they are savages.  They then go about trying to convince both sides that peace is better than war.  

I don't usually read reviews before I write my own but this movie had me stumped and wanted to see what others thought of it.  It’s a movie that I never really liked but couldn’t really put into words why.    But reading reviews didn't help much since the reviews are mostly about how completely inaccurate the movie is from real history.  Since it’s not a story I know really well the inaccuracies are not what put me off.  For me I think the biggest problem was trying to mix realism with the fantastical. For example a talking tree and the fact that Pocahontas learned English through magic detracts from any realism we were supposed to feel from the love story.   

Since the love story is what is supposed to be the main story if that not doesn’t work then the rest of the movie kind of falls apart.  If we are not invested in the main characters why should we care about anyone else?  The crazy thing is that  Disney films nowadays seem too long; this one probably could have used another 10 - 20 minutes to tell a more engaging story.  

The themes in the movie is what still makes this movie feel different from other Disney animated films.  While Disney’s portrayal of Native Americans in Peter Pan were very stereotypical and derogatory, they really tried to portray Native Americans in Pocahontas as well rounded people.  It also has a pro-environment theme that asks the audience to reflect on nature and what happens if we destroy it.  There is also a controversial song at the end called “Savages”. To me the song is about how people fear other people that are different from them.   It shows how easy it is for one person to lead a group of people to Racism and Xenophobia.  Although some find the song promoting xenophobia with lyrics like “Here's what you get when races are diverse

Their skin's a hellish red, They're only good when dead”.  

Overall:  This is a middle of the road movie.  Not a very compelling story.  The songs are mostly forgettable besides the Oscar winning “Colors of the Wind”.  While the animation received high praise from the critics I didn’t notice it much because I was just bored watching it.  I did think it had some good environmental themes, but I’m sure some find it a bit much.  It also touched on racism which is a lofty goal for a Disney Animated Film aimed at kids.  

Random Facts:

Some random personal facts: 

• My girlfriend at the time loved The Lion King so much that she dragged me to see this opening weekend. 

• This was the last Disney Animated film I saw in theatres till Big Hero Six in 2014

•  Last Disney Animated Film I saw until after my first kid was born and bought Frozen.  

• The only Disney Animated Movies I have seen that came out between Pocahontas (1995) and Frozen (2013) are Lilo and Stitch (2002) and Bolt (2008) I saw both after 2011.  So almost 20 years of film that I have never seen.  

In one of his earliest roles a young Christian Bale villagers.

Jeffrey Katzenberg thought they could get another Best Picture Oscar nomination for Pocahontas but was met with pretty mediocre reviews and only ended up with two nominations and wins.  Won Best Song for “Colors of the Wind” and Best Comedy or Musical Score.  

This was the first year the Oscars had a category for Best Comedy or Musical Score.  It was created because Disney won 4 out of the previous 6 years. (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King).  3 out of the 4 were won by Alan Menken.  He was so dominant they pretty much created a separate category for him. But Pocahontas would be the last time a Disney Animated film would win for Best Score and after a few years they got rid of the Best Comedy or Musical Score and just became Best Score.

There is a scene where one of the villagers kills one of the Native Americans.  It made me think this was the first time a human character died on screen in a Disney Animated Movie. I’m pretty sure it’s at least the first time a non bad guy human character died.  

During test screenings for the film people found a few of the song lyrics in “Savages” racist so Disney went and changed the lyrics for the film.  Oddly the soundtrack that was released had the original lyrics in it.  In the film you hear the settlers sing "Here's what you get when races are diverse!" and  "Dirty, shrieking devils".  On the soundtrack, they say "Their whole disgusting race is like a curse" and "Dirty redskin devils".

Braveheart

Watching Braveheart again I wasn't sure if it will stand up over time. It was released the summer after I graduated high school and of course being a 17 year old male I love the violence and gore.  So, being a bit older now I was wondering if I would still love it as much.  Turns out that it still is a great movie.

Braveheart is about the life of William Wallace a Scottish warrior who fights to free Scotland from England rule.  The film starts with Wallace as a child as he witnesses the cruel effects of living under English rule when his father is murdered during a battle.  After his father dies he travels with his uncle who teaches him to read and speak in many languages.  When he comes back to Scotland to settle down and start a family once again the English kill someone he loves. This time his wife Marron.  Fueled by rage he takes revenge on the English and in the process starts a revolution.  Uniting Scottish Clans and warriors from all around his takes on the might English Army.  The only ones who would not help him are the Scottish Nobles who betray his efforts to unite Scotland.  He eventually leads an army and attacks England before being completely betrayed by the nobles and captured and sent to London to be tortured and killed. 

The one thing I remembered and loved about this movie are the gruesome fight scenes and Mel Gibson knows how to film bloody battle scenes.  Besides all the fighting and gore the movie has a love story to it and everyone can relate to the idea of fighting for ones freedom.  The film is brilliantly filmed and looks great also the music captures the mood perfectly.  The speeches that Gibson gives now seems silly since they have been parodied so often and probably also because I had a roommate in college that would constantly recite the whole battle speech.  But you can still feel the intensity.  I remember seeing it with my girlfriend at the time whose biggest problem with the movie was all the horses that died. She didn't mind all the people getting beheaded but don't hurt the horses.  Still one of the most violent movies to win Best Picture. 

Braveheart winning Best Picture came as a shock that year for most everybody.  It did not win any of the critic awards leading up to the Academy Awards so it was kind of a dark horse victory.  There were a diverse group of nominees that year with no clear standout.  The other nominees were Apollo 13, Sense and Sensibility, Babe, and Il Postino.  So you have a kids movie like Babe against the first foreign language movie to be nominated in almost 20 years.  The biggest surprise are probably the movies that didn't get nominated. Movies like Seven, The Usual Suspects, Toy Story, Leaving Las Vegas, and Dead Man Walking.  Dead Man Walking and Leaving Las Vegas both were nominated for Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Director but did not get Best Picture. Leaving Las Vegas was also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay so it was nominated in 4 out of the 5 top Oscars just missing out on the biggest one it did win Best Actor for Nicholas Cage.  Also of note Toy Story became the first animated film to be nominated for Best Screen Play. 

Off Screen Behavior

I recently read an article  Do the Politics and Behavior of Actors Affect How You See Them on Screen? and that thought came to mind again after watching Ben-Hur because growing up all I knew about Charlton Heston was his pro gun activism with the NRA. I know a few people who refuse to watch movies if certain actors are in it. For example one of my friends is very conservative and if Sean Penn or Tim Robbins are in a movie they won’t watch it (sad for them they won’t see Mystic River because it is a great movie and they both give amazing performances in them). On the other hand I understand not watching a movie that has an agenda. Movies like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 turn me off because of its propaganda style.

While politics is one thing what if an actor does something illegal? For example should we support people who are accused of abusing women (Mel Gibson) or rape (Roman Polanski)? Mel Gibson has been in the spotlight lately due to his being cut from a cameo appearance in The Hangover 2. While the exact reasons for him being cut from the movie aren't real clear it is speculated to be because Zach Galifianakis objected to Mel on a moral grounds. It would be interesting to know if an audience would feel the same way. Would people not see the movie because Mel Gibson was in it for a few minutes? I actually think it would have been funny to see. As some have pointed out it is odd that Mel has caused a big ruckus for the cast of The Hangover 2 but no one seemed to complain about Mike Tyson in the first movie, and he was convicted of rape. That movie went on to gross a huge amount of money and I never heard anyone say they wouldn't see it because a convicted rapist was in it.

The fact that Mike Tyson was convicted brings up an interesting point. Does it make him less evil of a person since he went to jail and served his debt to society?  Are people more willing to forgive him then Mel Gibson because Mel has not been convicted of anything? I had a conversation similar to this with a co-worker of mine not about a movie star but about an athlete. We were talking about Michael Vick and how he is having a great comeback this year. She said she could not forgive him for abusing animals.  She feels that Vick did not get the amount of punishment he deserved and should not be playing football.  Personally the only person I have a moral issue watching their movies is Roman Polanski. Here is a guy charged with raping an underage girl and before he could be arrested he fled the country and is living as a free man. While it appears that Hollywood has already forgave him (they awarded him Best Director for the Pianist in 2002) I can not do it so quick. He committed a crime and has not had any punishment for it.  Should we reward him for getting away with it by watching his movies and making him richer? I don’t think so. And while his last movie The Ghost Writer got a lot of critical praise I could not bring myself to watching it. Maybe one day I will but I am torn about it.

Now everybody likes a good comeback story especially in Hollywood. The big question is when will the public forgive them and let them move on from their past. Take for instance Drew Barrymore and Robert Downey Jr. Both have overcome substance abuse and scandal to become headliners again. But to me that is different. They overcame personal demons and the only people they were hurting were themselves. Unlike Mel Gibson, Mike Tyson, Michael Vick and especially Roman Polanski who purposefully hurt others. I think that this should warrant a second look at them and maybe we should not support their careers especially if they appear unremorseful.

Another thought occurred to me while I was watching a gossip morning show while at the gym. They were talking about Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. It got me thinking if people care so much about the politics of stars do they care about their personal beliefs? The answer to this question is obviously no. Hollywood gossip has been around as long as Hollywood. The gossip columns only make stars even bigger. But why is that? Should we not watch an Angelina Jolie movie because she is an adulteress and stole Brad Pitt away from Jennifer Aniston? It hasn't hurt any of their careers. In fact it might have helped Jennifer Aniston's because now everyone feels sorry for her. Stars can do what many people consider immoral behavior and no one seems to care and in fact they get celebrated for it. It makes me wonder if people care so much about what they say politically why they don’t care what they do in their personal life. Should we only support movie stars that live by a strict moral code? It’s an interesting question for my conservative pals who feel they can't watch a movie with a liberal in it but no problem with someone who has a shady personal life.

I agree sometimes actors off screen behavior takes away from their movies. I do have trouble watching a Tom Cruise movie since he went crazy and was jumping on Oprah's coach. I don't think it is fair to boycott movies just because their actors are outspoken on an issue or issues. I think a movie should be judged on the merit of its content not the off screen antics of its stars, as long as those antics doesn't hurt anybody. The line starts to get a little blurry when it goes from talking about issues to criminal acts.  I know this is not something I have thought a lot about in the past. I have always just judged the movie based on its creative and entertainment value. But all this talk recently has given me pause and got me thinking and maybe I will be more carful who I give my money too in the future. It will be interesting to see how people greet the return of Mel Gibson in the upcoming movie The Beaver. I am still not sure if I will be seeing the movie.
What are your thoughts? Leave a comment would love to know what others think.