|
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
|
That's exactly the problem. Pocahontas needs to be retired as a Princess franchise, and Disney should issue an apology for taking so long to do it. What's "unfair" is the fact that young Native women are constantly exposed to and internalize the image and messaging surrounding Disney's perpetuation of their pan Indian fantasy, and the ways it emboldens the wider acceptance of and push for continued Indigenous appropriation in American society, from the Red Skins football team to the Halloween costumes we're expected to sit still for every year. Pocahontas is a symbol of the American attitude towards Native communities: they own our culture, they own our history, as just another extension of the appropriation of our land and a pointed dismissal of our lived experiences. We're magical tree whisperers who never miss an opportunity to show some lost white soul how to paint with the colors of the wind. We've just got nothing better to do with our time I guess.
There were Native Americans that helped with Pocahontas, too, who still criticized the movie once they saw the finished product. Besides, no one individual in a group can speak for the reaction of a whole group anyway. Some may not find the portrayal problematic; others will feel differently.
Members of the communities (or I should say the communities themselves) in question should always have the largest voice in setting the terms for exchange of their cultures, but the problem with both of your angles is that you're obviously using them to deter objections from PoC (like myself) who have similar, if not exact, backgrounds and experiences as those communities and lean into your own confirmation bias insofar as you want to see the movie in a certain light, and that means ignoring the actual dynamics at play here. Intercultural/demographic alliance is a really important element in minority-led movements towards liberation: while I can obviously only speak categorically for my own cultural knowledge base, I can draw on the shared experiences I have with others who live under similar circumstances and power dynamics, and I feel it's equally important to speak to that insight in order to draw attention to the common struggles we encounter. Which is exactly why I neither consider nor call out Moana as some kind of abject exercise in colonization art: I've read a spectrum of reviews of the film from Polynesian and Pacific Islander people ranging from positive to less enthused, and I give weight to all of them. But the depiction of and, more pointedly, the creative licensing of Maui is a common point of critique and concern in nearly all of them: not just how he is portrayed in the film (which has its supporters and detractors), but the potential issues that arise from outsourcing him to other projects and making him some kind of decorative statement (which already has basis in fact given that fiasco with the Maui skin costumes). Disney has an objectively bad track record and should have to work a lot harder to earn the trust of people who claim to care about issues of cultural sensitivity than making one movie which meets the exceedingly low bar of not being totally and obviously racist.
His depiction in the film may or may not rise to that level depending on who you hear it from, but the idea that Disney should unilaterally wield his image wherever and however they want should be a valid point of concern to anyone who's serious about the accountability that comes with drawing your narrative elements from a culture to which you don't belong. The fact that Clements and Musker had to go to people of that culture to get a grasp on what they were doing is evidence enough of their need to have guide rails for their storytelling and usage of those cultural elements: for me, that inspires some appreciation, but also a healthy dose of skepticism. It's certainly better than running off on their own and just plucking the stories of Maui out of a void and ignoring the voice of Pasifika communities altogether, but what happens when those guide rails are no longer in place? Does Disney have a greater stake in depicting Maui, or do the people of the Pacific Islands? I'm of the opinion that it's the latter and I'm weary of any depiction that isn't signed off on, so to speak.
I mean, again, if this is the low standard Disney has to clear to wash their record of and continued exercises in cultural appropriation, then the conversation is meaningless to begin with. This is like the least of what they should be doing so it's not exciting or impressive to me at all.
I don't think anybody who's serious about cultural empowerment would view questioning the intentions and accountability of a studio like Disney as "rude and insulting"; I've never said or been of the opinion that the Polynesian peoples involved in crafting this film were ill intended, myself and others are concerned about leaving it in the hands of a giant corporate enterprise that has routinely steamrolled Indigenous communities in their mad dash to market culture to a white audience who is largely meant to view it as novel and exotic rather than relevant and lived. If that space can be reclaimed to raise Indigenous voices, I'm all for it. I remain unconvinced by what amount to token gestures, however.
That can be difficult to do when you're a creative person with limited access to resources and you have to pick and choose your battles. Irene Bedard chose to voice Pocahontas and while I 1000% disagree with her decision and consider her a bit of a tool, I can at least understand her thought process at the time: an opportunity was presented to her and she could either take it, or turn it down and watch them maybe cast a white woman in the role or pull some other bullshit. Waititi probably had a similar decision to make, but you have to understand these people are not on a level playing field in these negotiations: Disney is a monolith in the entertainment industry, and it's hard to avoid getting involved with them somewhere along the line. Waititi might have thought he could do more good working within the circle than sitting on the sidelines, but that doesn't change the fundamental dynamics of the situation. There isn't a lot of good faith to be had with these things: I expect Disney would have gone forward with this film even if it failed to get any Polynesian talent on-board and then hid behind all the usual excuses it advances when people call out its (and Hollywood in general's) racist nonsense. So what do you do when your culture is essentially being held hostage? Watch it get shot in front of you or try to intervene and make a difference for the better?
Stop being indignant for five seconds and put that comment in the context of everything else I've said and you won't have so many rhetorical questions to sling at me.
Looking at it from the perspective of someone within the Native American community who believes Disney's Pocahontas is a smear on their culture, I don't think it's harsh at all? The voice actors would be seen as sell-outs if you hold that opinion.
