Difference between revisions of "329--Week 2 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
It is evident that Disney was more interested in creating a captivating story rather than bringing to the big screen an interesting piece of history. I agree with Whitney about the display of the character's physical appearances. Why is it a universal conception that the only way a movie, and in this case a historical account, can only be interesting is if the those involved have beautiful features and muscular and toned bodies? In this movie it is totally unrealistic, especially since realistically John Smith was 35 and Pocahontas was 10, although in the movie she looked 25. The movie does not represent John Smith's 1608 account because in his version of the story about meeting the Native Americans, he barely talks about Pocahontas. When he does he notes that she is a young girl of 10 years old and refers to her as Powhatan's "little Daughter." I did like how in the movie the Native Americans are very in tune with nature, as seen by Pocahontas' relationship with Grandmother Willow and Meeko. --Mallory C. | It is evident that Disney was more interested in creating a captivating story rather than bringing to the big screen an interesting piece of history. I agree with Whitney about the display of the character's physical appearances. Why is it a universal conception that the only way a movie, and in this case a historical account, can only be interesting is if the those involved have beautiful features and muscular and toned bodies? In this movie it is totally unrealistic, especially since realistically John Smith was 35 and Pocahontas was 10, although in the movie she looked 25. The movie does not represent John Smith's 1608 account because in his version of the story about meeting the Native Americans, he barely talks about Pocahontas. When he does he notes that she is a young girl of 10 years old and refers to her as Powhatan's "little Daughter." I did like how in the movie the Native Americans are very in tune with nature, as seen by Pocahontas' relationship with Grandmother Willow and Meeko. --Mallory C. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I want to rant a little about Disney and its depiction of women. I've seen Disney getting lambasted pretty often for helping to perpetuate the "Pretty Pretty Princess" stereotype, where the meek, kind-hearted, helpless woman needs a strong manly man to save her. I would agree that many of Disney's earlier films, like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, do fall into this stereotype. But considering the time these movies were made, should we be surprised? Wasn't Disney was just following the feminine ideal of the time? I think we can safely say that Disney has done a better job since then in depicting its women as more independent, strong, and complex. For instance, Princess Jasmine wasn't exactly a whimpering willow and Mulan was kicking butt and taking names. Today, most of us don't want to see a weak woman who needs a man to save her; that's just not our idealization of women anymore. So, is it fair for Disney to be attacked for making movies that reflected the perceived role of women at the time they were made? Would it even be a problem if Disney movies weren't so enduringly popular? How much do Disney movies even affect our view of women's roles? And to be a little more on topic, how much do Disney movies affect our view of historical events? -- Taylor Brann | ||
| + | |||
| + | Can anyone tell me the rhyme or reason behind the extra "e" added to some words in the Smith account? Now, I know English has evolved over time, but I'm curious who decided what words would have the "e" and what words wouldn't have it. Heck, sometimes Smith gave a word an extra "e" and later he'd leave the "e" off the same word! -- Taylor Brann | ||
