My Response to Davis

Usually, when reading various Disney-related articles, it is relatively easy to identify the author’s view on a certain topic and either agree or disagree.  However, while reading excerpts from Amy M. Davis’s novel, Handsome Heroes and Vile Villains, I had no opinions based on her responses to the movie.  Then it occurred to me that the author herself doesn’t even demonstrate an opinion.  I feel that she did nothing to add to the general conversation.  She mostly just summarized the movie, which, if you recently watched the movie like we just did, this article is very repetitive.  By not adding to the conversation, she leaves us with no reason or motivation to read further.

However, since her writing was mostly plot summary, it was helpful for scenes that I forgot about, or ideas that I didn’t connect together while watching the movie.  For example, she points out that “the sound of gunfire - a sound which, later, Tarzan mistakenly will think is called ‘Clayton’ - is a further symbolic linkage between Clayton as a character and the violence and destructiveness of those who hunt big game.”  During the movie, I never realized that Tarzan associated Clayton with the sound of a gunshot, but the connection makes so much sense for the character that Clayton is. 

In many ways, Clayton in Tarzan is exactly like Ratcliffe in Pocahontas.  Both characters are ignorant, aggressive, and abhorrent of any civilizations that are different than their own.  Davis even states that Clayton is “ignorant of the jungle’s secrets and its true beauty,” which is similar to how the white settlers in Pocahontas view the Native Americans as savages, simply because they have not been exposed to their culture before.  In fact, Tarzan and Pocahontas are essentially the same story, except one story is centered around animals and the other story is centered around humans.

I think it is very weird how the author mentions how after Tarzan visits the treehouse, he comes out walking upright, dressed in a suit, but doesn’t comment on the fact that Tarzan all of a sudden abandons his past.  I think that it’s very interesting in fact that he’s more similar to a princess than a typical male character, where he’s willing to abandon everything he knows to follow his true love.

 One of the few points Davis makes, that I disagree with, is when she asserts, “In his first encounters with humans, two things become obvious: he is incredibly intelligent and curious, and he is in love with Jane.”  However, I would argue that Jane seems more in love with Tarzan than vice versa.  Tarzan shows a lot of interest in Jane, but I believe it weighs more heavily in terms of curiosity than actual feelings of love and affection.  Since Tarzan has not seen or interacted with any humans in his life, it makes sense how he is incredibly intrigued by Jane.  Since that they both demonstrate an immediate connection to each other, I do find it a little odd that Jane instantly falls in love with Tarzan, who at many points resembles a gorilla more than a human.

Also, I really like how the author explicitly says that he we can’t blame Disney for the theme of man conquering land that isn’t theirs (where Tarzan stays and becomes King of the jungle as a result).  In fact, she points out, “cannot be laid at Disney’s feet: it is part of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ 1914 novel, and was cemented in over eighty other films.”  I think that it’s important that she makes it a point to remind us of this because I feel that many people tend to attack Disney for ideas in their movies that society may not agree with.