My Response to Parekh

The more and more articles I read that deeply analyze Disney films and story lines, the more frustrated I feel.  These scholarly writers waste their time tearing apart the children's movie I love, pointing out every little problem they see within the film.  They often comment on how improbable it is for the prince and princess to fall in love in the matter of a second or vilify Disney for the discrepancy between its films and reality.  But my answer to these complaints is that it's a movie - a children's movie.  Since Disney films are meant for children, they should be viewed and analyzed from the perspective of a child (which means not really analyzed at all).  Similar to the other articles we have read, it's no surprise that Pushpa Naidu Parekh has done the same over analyzation of a Disney movie in her article, "Pocahontas: The Disney Imaginary."

I disagree with most of the ideas Parekh presents, especially the assertions she makes trying to vilify Disney.  She claims that Pocahontas depicts “Powhatan as unreasonable and temperamental; fitting therefore is his practice of 'savage' acts of violence, such as preparing to behead John Smith."  However, I feel that this statement is not justifiable in any way.  When I watched the film, I believe Powhatan was portrayed as a strong, level-headed, and fair chief.  He only wanted to behead John Smith after he assumed that John Smith was the settler who killed Kocoum.  Powhatan’s command that Parekh views as the stereotypical savagery associated with Native Americans, is more closely related to justice-seeking rather than stereotyping.

Parekh also detests the discrepancy between the Disney film and the real life story of Pocahontas.  She points out "elements left out in the film version: the constant tensions and conflicts that continued between the Native Americans and the English settler, the abduction of Pocahontas by the settlers to the Jamestown colony, her meeting with John Rolfe and their eventual marriage, Pocahontas being renamed 'Rebecca,' her visit to London, and her early death at the age of twenty-one."  However, I find Parekh’s problem with the film to be a little bit ridiculous.  I don’t see how it would be practical to include all of these facts in a relatively short movie meant for children.  Disney did its job in terms of entertainment and incorporating some historical ideas into the film.  I don’t believe Disney should be responsible for teaching accurate information that children will eventually learn in school.  Pocahontas succeeds in starting the conversation that could lead to learning the truth about Native Americans and settlers.

Although I disagree with Parekh on many points, the most absurd statement she made was that "Pocahontas gains heroine status not because she represents the power and wisdom of Powhatan women...but because she loves John Smith..."  The movie never implies that Pocahontas is considered a hero because she falls in love with John.  In fact, at the end of the movie, they aren’t even together.  Pocahontas chooses to stay with her father and tribe members, rather than pursue her love for John.  I believe that Disney, instead, paints Pocahontas as a hero because she resolves the problems and the fighting between the Native Americans and the white settlers.

Largely disagreeing with Parekh, I only agree with two ideas that she mentions:

1)  Contingent with the real accounts of Native American culture, Disney should have given women a more powerful role in their community.

2)  The second Pocahontas movie seemed to be way too loosely connected to fact, if incorporating any historical events at all.  If Disney was going to make a film based off of a real, well-known individual, they should have made both films more closely related to historical accounts.  And if Disney knew that their Pocahontas films would be only loosely based on fact, they should've thought in advance to change the name of the "Native American Disney Princess" so that it does not have a direct affliction with a real historical figure.