In 1995, Pocahontas was supposed to be the Disney studio’s next Big Thing. During production The Lion King was mostly expected to be an also-ran, while Pocahontas was considered to be the true successor to the phenomenal Beauty and the Beast. It was an ambitious story with a sincere treatment that, in the build up to its release, many considered to be a contender for another Best Picture nomination. Unfortunately, audiences didn’t feel the same way. While it was by no means a failure, either creatively or financially, it didn’t live up to the high standards set by its predecessors.
On paper, it would appear the Pocahontas had everything it needed to be a great film. A strong female lead, likeable comic sidekicks, an ill-fated romance, and action and adventure. The animation is again first rate, as is the music. Why it failed to capture audiences hearts they way its peers did is something of a mystery, but likely comes down to two factors. The first is the conclusion. The film is based, somewhat loosely, on historical figures. By choosing to remain true to history and not have Pocahontas and John Smith wide up together the film breaks from what audiences had come to expect of a Disney film: a tidy, happy ending. This led to some dissatisfied movie goers and some bad word of mouth for the film. The second, and bigger, problem, though, has to do with Pocahontas herself. Throughout the film she is portrayed as so stoic and serious that she is difficult for the viewer to connect with. There are some attempts made to humanize her, but they are too few and far between. Without Pocahontas to bring the audience into the film, they are kept at arms length and the entire ordeal becomes somewhat antiseptic, never allowing the viewer to truly feel for any of the characters.
While I loved some of the secondary characters as a child, particularly Meeko and Percy, I never really enjoyed the film itself. Revisiting it, it became a little more apparent why that is. Though it excels on a technical level and can easily be admired for its ambition, it never allows the audience to feel for its lead. This write up has likely made it sound far worse than it actually is. The film is still well worth watching, and both kids and adults will find something to keep themselves entertained. It just never quite reaches the level of excellence that it strives for.
Up next: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
No comments:
Post a Comment