![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
I'm finding it tricky to determine my exact reaction to the movie. I love fluffy, fun and silly (bonus if has absurd moments which POTC 2 has) summer blockbusters, and that's what the movie is. I love them because I can just sit back, munch on popcorn, giggle and have a relaxing couple of hours. I can turn off my brain (which is good because it helps me ignore problems with plot, bad writing, etc.) and just have a good time. Over the years I've accepted that Hollywood generally is not the place to look for wonderful representations of anyone regardless of sex, race, sexuality, background etc.
However I'm really distressed by the representation of the aboriginal Caribbean residents, the Calinago or Caribs. I recall enough from history class to know that the Calinago were not cannibals. Now I totally get that POTC 2 is a silly movie that isn't in any way claiming to accurately portray anyone. And certainly it's not like the British and the East India Trading company are portrayed in a good light.
But I was sort of flailing around about my reaction because I still feel really uncomfortable about the movie (despite having fun during all the non-cannibal scenes), so I did some research to see what other reactions are. I was particularly interested to see how the descendants of the Caliango responded to the movie. It turns out that the President of the National Garifuna Council of Belize sent a letter in 2005 to The Walt Disney Company calling them to task for the erroneous representations and noting how damaging they are. I found a link to that letter here. I find this part to be of particular note:
Our Calinago ancestors were a warrior race who migrated to the lesser islands of the Caribbean from the Amazon region of South America and, as with any warrior race, they engaged in ritualistic practices to encourage fearlessness among warriors. They fought to the death to defend their islands against invaders in the colonial era which followed the arrival of Columbus to our shores, an unfortunate event that changed for the worst the natural evolution and development of indigenous societies of the world in the period that followed.
The myth about cannibalism was started because the Calinago were not intimidated by the European invaders and waged war in the defense of their territory and way of life.
I understand that the movie is a very over-the-top silly experience (and I love that sort of thing!), but I do think there's a way the filmmakers could have represented the Calinago without resorting to - and perpetuating - very harmful myths. For example, the pirates could have thought the Calinago were cannibals, but we - the audience - could have known differently and laughed with the Calinago at the stupidity of the pirates. Subtitles would could have accomplished this (and I noted that there were no subtitles when the Calinago spoke, making them essentially voiceless in the movie).
This issue really dampened what is otherwise an enjoyable movie. Johnny Depp is the highlight of the movie as usual. Orlando Bloom was fun to watch and has a great back (see I'm capable of appreciating the surface stuff!). I like women dressed up as men, so even enjoyed Keira Knightley (it's interesting that the filmmakers definitely tried to make her more appealing to modern women, yet did not take the same care with the Calinago). Norrington also rocked. And I loved the three-way fight!!! I also had fun with all the slashy subtext.
I guess I can't fully turn off my brain during a fun movie. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
On a different subject, I'm very very very very excited because a week tomorrow is when I arrive at
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
savoytruffle's for a pre-Writercon visit. And then it's Writercon!!!!!!!! *dances*ETA: The celebrations for Italy winning the World Cup are still going strong here. I imagine that it must be insane in Italy!
- Music:Neko Case's Fox Confessor Brings the Flood
- Mood:
distressed
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Comments
It's wierd, because it seems that they tried to reflect historical reality in that they portrayed pirates of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, but could only handle the diversity in a typical Disney way - all the accents belong to the villians or clowns, etc. It's frustruating, because I want to be able to just sit back and admire Johnny Depp, and instead there's all this unsettling crap, which, as you point out, is not very suprising, but disappointing nonetheless.
I loved the Swamp Witch, though. Ahh, the ambivalence . . .
I loved the Swamp Witch, though. Ahh, the ambivalence . . . Yeah, I loved her too. And I hear you about the ambivalence. I'd been so excited about the third one because of Chow-Yun Fat and I'm now I'm feeling trepidacious .
I don't think that's a bad thing at all. It's too bad, however, that the filmmakers didn't turn their brains *on* when they were making the damn thing. But in an awful way it's fascinating to me that such a portrayal can be 'okay' in this day and age (sorry, this is my anthropology schooling rearing its head). What does it say about our currently 'accepted' views of the Other (and the supposedly enlightened views of Hollywood)?
For example, the pirates could have thought the Calinago were cannibals, but we - the audience - could have known differently and laughed with the Calinago at the stupidity of the pirates.
That's what I would have expected to see. That would have been a clever treatment. Oh, but it would have been too *confusing* for the masses. /sarcasm
Yes! I sometimes wonder if all the time and energy that special effects requires means that filmmakers stop thinking about the other aspects of movies.
What does it say about our currently 'accepted' views of the Other (and the supposedly enlightened views of Hollywood)?
What's fascinating - and disturbing - is how little discussion I've seen about this. I did some reading of various reviews, and salon.com was one of the few places to mention the issue (The cannibals (a group of war-painted, vociferously un-p.c. savages, who rush at us, for better or worse, straight out of old Hollywood)) but in the context of a section on "wonderful visuals". There does just seem to be an acceptance that this is how the Calinago should be represented.
Oh, but it would have been too *confusing* for the masses. /sarcasm
heeee! Sometimes I feel people aren't given enough credit, but then I look at a movie like this - which is good in many ways - and am convinced that people (ie. the filmmakers) are given too much credit.
My main question would be how these tribes are identified in the film. How do we know the filmmakers are portraying the Calingo specifically? Why can't they just be generic island tribe that are cannibals?
As you say, the British and the East India Trading Company aren't portrayed as particularly nice people. Jack Sparrow is out for himself. And when push comes to shove, Elizabeth will do whatever it is to save herself as well. One of the themes of the film is how people can be corrupted.
This of course doesn't excuse racism. And you're right when you say that Hollywood is not the place to look for accurate or flattering portrayals of race or sex or sexuality.
Of course I only have my white male perspective to see this film from. There are certainly other race cliches that do stand out to me, but I am woefully ignorant of the tribes of the Caribbean sea.
Given that the film is also a period piece, it's harder for me to fully accept there's any damage being done by a film whose first job is to entertain, not educate. Also given that the film is basically an homage to all pirate movies that have come before, it's hard to bypass featuring cannibals... just as you can't go past sea monsters and Davey Jones and cursed treasure and damsels in distress.
Why can't they just be generic island tribe that are cannibals?
That would probably work better if the movie wasn't specifically located in the Caribbean. Because we know where we are - versus some nebulous part of the ocean - then it does suggest that it is the Calinago people. And none of the peoples in the Caribbean were cannibals (and in fact calling the Calingos cannibals is tied to the slave trade). Obviously this is not a film that's striving for historical accuracy but they are clearly trying to be somewhat true to history (ie. with the British and the East India Trading Company). Obviously there are more mystical elements that suggest a parallel universe but still the location very much evokes the Calingos (especially since they are not associated with any of the mystical elements).
As you say, the British and the East India Trading Company aren't portrayed as particularly nice people.
I do think it's a different thing when portraying people who were oppressors versus those who were/are oppressed.
One of the themes of the film is how people can be corrupted.
Ah yes, that is a good point. As you note, very few people are acting honourably in the film.
When I was reflecting on my reaction to the film (especially since I'm a white North American), I decided to see how descendants of the Caliango reacted. Their reaction suggests to me that this is still an issue that - although this is a period piece - should not be ignored today.
Good point about it being a homage. Of course, that doesn't mean that most viewers will get the homage (especially younger viewers), and I think there's a way to pay homage without perpetuating old stereotypes. They clearly make an effort for the female lead to reflect our current ideas about women because she is not just a damsel in distress but a very active character (she even fights with swords!).
But of course, as we've both noted, this is Hollywood. The movie is ultimately being produced to make money. I guess it makes me feel better to think about this and discuss the issues that bothered me. *g*
Okay, that is a good point - and an obvious one that I missed. Clearly forgetting the name of the film. :-)
I do think that giving this film more power than it deserves in regard to race relations is dangerous, though. I know films have the power to transform and to educate. I happen to think art in general and film in particular actually helped people to start identifying with people of colour in the middle of last century.
I guess the pirate films of the time were racist, though. I would have just hoped that the audience in this day and age would be given more credit. Can you imagine anyone who left "Dead Man's Chest" actually thinking any of it was accurate?
I do think it's a different thing when portraying people who were oppressors versus those who were/are oppressed.
I definitely agree with this in most cases. I tend to think that people would come out of this film thinking that the British were more accurately portrayed simply because they are more "realistic"... whereas the pirates clearly are more mystical and the cannibal characters can't be taken seriously. Again, I don't think people will take any of this as historically accurate - but it's even more unlikely they'll take the highly slapstic cannibal characters as true-to-life.
They clearly make an effort for the female lead to reflect our current ideas about women because she is not just a damsel in distress but a very active character (she even fights with swords!).
Not until very late in the film does she really subvert the cliche, though. Fighting with swords or dressing as a man is a very old trope in this kind of story. Not until she chains Jack to the Black Pearl does she truly become active.
I am having a hard time intellectualising this film because it's bloated and convoluted and there's only one character that is very well drawn, that of Jack Sparrow. I think I'd have more problems with the film if it were trying for realism.
Oh yeah, definitely a good point! As well as about the movie having other issues so it's hard to take it too seriously (and, of course, it's not meant to be a serious movie). I do also think that not talking about things can also be problematic (even if it's about something silly). I found the portrayals of the cannibals so distressing that it's certainly helpful for me to write about it and think about. I'm not planning on launching a campaign or anything, it's just interesting for me to reflect on.
Can you imagine anyone who left "Dead Man's Chest" actually thinking any of it was accurate?
hee! Although I do wonder about some people occasionally ... I was saying to
I do think that Elizabeth's character is very active throughout the movie. Very early on she takes the intiative and escapes, then confronts the evil British/East India Trading Company guy and gets his signature for something (I was very fuzzy on the details in that scene). And then she gets the ship she's stowed away on to go the direction she wants.
I think I'd have more problems with the film if it were trying for realism.
It's definitely something that bothers me (writing about it has helped), but I totally get your point. *g*
Writing about stuff always helps me, too. In fact, writing reviews about stuff lets me clarify my thoughts.
I do see your point, though. This film shouldn't get a free pass just because it's a silly comedy. I have a hard time taking it seriously, but I understand there would be people and communities who do take the depiction of their people as cannibals more seriously.
Long term, though, I find it much more objectionable that a film like "Alexander" downplays the homosexual content or a film like "Gladiator" pretends to be history, when it isn't on many levels.
"I don't think lack of subtitles makes the "natives" voiceless, rather it puts us in the main characters' shoes - of not knowing what's going on."
These two options are not mutually exclusive. In fact, you seem to be saying that the film deliberately makes the natives "voiceless" in order to put the audience in the main characters' shoes - that it's OK to portray a group of people like that because it serves a good purpose. I think that there are better ways of doing that - like writing engaging characters that people want to identify with, rather than making it impossible to identify with anyone else.
"Why can't they just be generic island tribe that are cannibals?"
There are no island tribes of cannibals. It is very doubtful as to whether there ever has been, in all of documented human history, a tribe of cannibals - either on islands or otherwise. There is plenty of evidence for starvation cannibalism (even white people do that) and possibly some evidence of ritual cannibalism (ritually consuming some part of an elder or saint - or an ennemy) but no good evidence that people ever engaged in cannibalism just for food or for fun. How the hell would such a society function anyway?
"Given that the film is also a period piece, it's harder for me to fully accept there's any damage being done by a film whose first job is to entertain, not educate."
If the film were actually a period piece, it should be more historically accurate (like "Sense and Sensibility") But I don't see why a film that is meant to entertain can't avoid being offensive or providing bad information. I understand that "minstrel shows" were very entertaining (for white folks, anyway) although they didn't provide very good information about black people. Of course, Spike Lee did manage to use that in a clever way in "Bamboozled" - so I guess even that kind of entertainment is not irredeemable, if cleverly utilized.
"Can you imagine anyone who left "Dead Man's Chest" actually thinking any of it was accurate?"
I can imagine that many people left the theatre thinking there really were pirates with swords and muskets and sailing ships in a place called the Carribean with ports and islands and natives living on the islands, and that some of those people living on those islands may have been "savage cannibal tribes."
"the cannibal characters can't be taken seriously. Again, I don't think people will take any of this as historically accurate - but it's even more unlikely they'll take the highly slapstic cannibal characters as true-to-life."
There is a difference between believing characters can't be taken seriously or aren't "true-to-life" portrayals and believing such characters are entirely fictitious. People may not believe the portrayal of a pirate or cowboy or swashbuckling mustketeer is historically accurate - but they are more likely to believe that there is an historically accurate version of what real pirates or cowboys or musketeers were like. The problem isn't that the characters are ridiculous or silly - it's the implication that there are probably non-ridiculous real-life versions of cannibals to be found somewhere in the Carribean.
"Not until she chains Jack to the Black Pearl does she truly become active."
That is my least favorite part about the movie. It is not until she chains Jack to the Black Pearl that she truly becomes immoral.
I do agree that films like "Gladiator" are just as historically problematic and probably more misleading - although I'm not sure that they are as offensive as portraying Carribean islanders as clownish cannibals.
I think if it weren't for the problematic depiction of cannibalism, this wouldn't be an issue. There are many films where English speakers are pitted against others speaking in foreign languages - and we (the English-speaking audience) is in the same position as the characters. Just as I don't know every language, I don't expect movie characters do so either. Sometimes what the foreign-language speakers are saying is important (ie. misunderstandings are a rich source of humour), sometimes it's about setting a mood. This set a comic mood in POTC2.
like writing engaging characters that people want to identify with, rather than making it impossible to identify with anyone else.
This is a very good point. On reflection, much of this film gets away with being bloated, excessive and long because we are there to see Johnny Depp (and some of the audience for Orlando and Keira). Everything else is jeopardy and window-dressing. It's a major problem with Summer Blockbusters, you're right.
There are no island tribes of cannibals.
And for the second time in this thread... *headdesk* I mean, the mere notion is ridiculous :-)
Your knowledge of cannibalism outdoes mine, so I concede where the depiction is troubling.
If the film were actually a period piece,
My only point here was this distances it from a modern reality. Just as the fantastical aspects also go a long way to saving the film from any burden of accuracy, IMHO. Comedy also saves it, in some respects. But you certainly make a good point about minstrel shows.
To be honest, the film takes so long to get going, the cannibal island part of the film is definitely the weakest. Perhaps because it plays on a stereotype we've long been fed by Hollywood - as you say elsewhere, of the missionary in a pot.
It is not until she chains Jack to the Black Pearl that she truly becomes immoral.
Which is one of the themes of the movie. And immorality in a character doesn't diminish my enjoyment of them.
I do agree that films like "Gladiator" are just as historically problematic and probably more misleading - although I'm not sure that they are as offensive as portraying Carribean islanders as clownish cannibals.
I suppose you're right. I'm not offended by Gladiator so much as frustrated by the idea that the filmmakers plead historical accuracy when so much of it was fictionalised. Or faked. Or completely made up.
I think my main sticking point here is my own ignorance (which this thread had cleared up) and my belief that people mostly won't take this film seriously. It might be a foolish hope.
It's not.
*is not really here*
*hugs you before you disappear*
Once you pointed it out, I thought about the natives shown in Pirates and realized they didn't have to be portrayed as cannibals at all -- there could have been just as much jeopardy if they'd just been planning to use Jack in a ritual sacrifice. For that matter, most of the cannibal scenes were totally unnecessary to the plot, at all. That leaves me wondering, in these days of politically correct thinking, if there wasn't one person at the studio who didn't stop to think about how this might look to more sensitive viewers, or how it might effect the young and impressionable. Mindless entertainment is fine, but in this case I have to reverse my normal "live and let live" attitude and say they could have avoided the objectionable parts.
(The two possible exceptions come from New Guinea, which is anecdotal, and from the Anasazi in the southwest U.S., which is the only case with some physical evidence. There are reasons to be cautious in labelling any people as "cannibals" though, even if there's some evidence that such a thing might have occured at a certain period. Generally, accusations of cannibalism are used to justify mercilessly attacking and killing a group of people by dehumanizing them. Such accusations are like the propaganda of the First World War that depicted German soldiers as throwing babies out of windows.)
I find that the mythological nature of the "cannibal culture" is not well known, and in a movie like this, which mixes fact (the Carribean is a real place, there were really pirates, the East India Trading Company was a real organization) and fiction (need I list the fiction?) people are easily confused about the reality of "cannibal" people. In point of fact, the whole "missionary in a pot" image is just as false as images of Alley Oop or Fred Flintstone riding dinosaurs (and originates from cartoons of the same era) but the image is not commonly perceived as false. Many people believe that cannibal cultures existed just as pirates and vikings and cowboys existed. I have argued with these people. I have photocopied articles for them. I have referred them to textbooks. But it is surprisingly hard to shake the idea that cannibals must have existed somewhere at some time.
I actually think it would be more helpful in this movie to have made it clear to the audience that there was a cultural misunderstanding going on, rather than to just turn a whole race into a group of unsympathetic villains (as George Lucas is wont to do.) I also think it would have been better to play up the (obvious?) parallel between Captain Jack and Captain Cook (who was supposedly mistaken as a god, or at least a great leader, by the Hawaiian people - which people also later killed him.) The danger of ritual sacrifice could have been sufficiently threatening without invoking the fable of cannibalism.
I don't think this would have complicated the plot, as the problem with the film was that everything was largely episodic, with only tangental connections to an over-arching story line that is not even resolved by the end of the movie.
That might help explain why the movie was so episodic -- maybe, as originally written, there wasn't much meat to this second act, so they threw in a bunch of unconnected scenes to keep the action moving. If so, they ended up overdoing it, since they could have lopped off more than half an hour and still had a movie. Maybe a better one, and maybe all the cannibal scenes could have gone.
I would have no problem at all with the cannibal stuff if everyone who went to the movie was taught, as I've taught my daughters, to understand the difference between history and Hollywood and to have a healthy grasp on realism and fantasy. I was able to enjoy the movie because I never for a second took any of it seriously. If I'm to believe in the cannibalism part, then why shouldn't I also believe in the kraken and the witchdoctor? If "Pirates" got me interested in history, I'd simply go to the nonfiction section of the library and start figuring out what part -- if any -- was real.
Sadly, not everyone is taught to be careful of where they get their information. I don't blame Hollywood for that but, just as I have to lock my doors because of other people, Hollywood needs to use a certain amount of caution -- whether that should be their job or not.
I know that the Kracken is myth and I'm cool with seeing it on the screen. I know that the portrayal of the native Caribs is inaccurate and constructed and it leaves queasy and feeling implicated in its racism.
I do not think it's okay to throw stereotypes around for entertainment, even if everyone is supposed to know they're false. How do you think these images and misrepresentations are perpetuated in the first place?
It's also less offensive if it's not meant to be offensive. Here's what I mean: Some of my family is Cherokee, and it doesn't bother me a bit that some sports teams have a Chief, or a Brave, as a symbol, because I know the people in those teams today don't mean to be racist. The KKK is always offensive, because they mean to be racist. Now, my feeling is that the people who made Pirates of the Caribbean aren't deliberately trying to be racist, so I'm not as offended. Worried that others may believe the stereotype, yes, but personally offended, no.
(At this point I have to argue against myself, because there was a time when singers in blackface were seen as unoffensive entertainment. Decades from now, the very thought of a team having the word "Brave" in its name might be just as offensive as using the "N" word has become now.)
You make a very good point. Maybe I'm thin skinned because I've seen too many times where the proverbial "race card" is played against people who were being not racist, but ignorant. I was concerned that this might happen to the movie makers, because I would hope that by now the people of Hollywood would have gotten past racial prejudice. I desperately hope I'm right on that one.
The other thing is that entertainment is full of all sorts of stereotypes, and one has to wonder what the cutoff point is. Still, Disney could have avoided the whole thing by taking a few minutes to think twice about inserting cannibalism into their movie. There's not one person involved who didn't stop for a second and consider this?
It would be a safe and simple world if we never inadvertantly hurt other people's feelings, but we do. The thing that separates the jerks from the decent schmucks, as I'm sure we all strive to be, is whether they think about the *actual* effects of their actions on other people and or whether they dwell on the nicer story that they had in their head when they started.
There *is* definitely a difference between being ignorant and being hateful, but ignorance only coasts so far. "That's not how I meant it at all!" is only half of the solution. The other half is "I am very sorry." If you just keep explaining things away by citing intentions, then you never actually give any value to the objections. You aren't taking the problem seriously. Also, by letting intentions negate actions, the only people who ever get called on their hang-ups about race are white supremicists, who aren't likely to change, anyway. How are we ever going to learn anything from each other if we act like we are incapable of doing anything bad, 'cause we never meant to?
By the same token, my point is not that the filmmakers are irredeemable racists, but that the portrayal they offered up is racist. This distiction is an important one, because it leaves open the possiblity of discussion and change. It also allows the viewer to distinguish between enjoyable parts of the film - Jack Sparrow running down the beach fey as all get out - and disturbing parts of the film - he's running because he's being pursued by cannibal stereotypes.
Do you get what I'm driving at?
So yes, being sorry is an important part, although it did occur to me our well intentioned offending person could insist that what he did or said *wasn't* offensive except to very thin skinned people, and so refuse to apologize. For instance, a woman called me once to say she was reporting me to the Prosecutor's Office for inciting cruelty to animals, because of something I'd written in a column. (I write a humor column. That's widely known, and yet for some reason people who lack a sense of humor keep reading it.)
I did not, nor will I ever, apologize to her, because she's one of those people who simply takes offense at the drop of a pirates hat, without taking anything in context. (Let me be clear that this is NOT the case with you.) And yet she'll go to her grave thinking I'm a terrible cat hater -- as if there could be such a thing. In a case like that, it becomes an "I'm right" -- "No, I'm right" situation in which a truly subjective listener probably won't understand what all the fuss is about.
I'm nit-picking; the cannibal question is nothing like the scenario I described because, whether it was meant to be or not, even thick skinned people would have to admit parts of "Pirates" were offensive. My problem is that I take 911 calls for a living, and after spending 8 hours with that crap (on a related note, all of us do *not* strive to be decent schmucks), the serious part of my mind shuts down, and refuses to take offense at anything. What it all boils down to is, just because I don't mind something doesn't make it all right. In that, we can agree.
But anyway, I had a similar problem with Dead Man's Chest. And the same problem with King Kong. One thing about it is that the killer-cannibal-fearsome natives is a really common thing in old adventure stories, and such natives mistaking the White Man/outsider for a god is an old trope too. Since the movie (and the first one also) does use so many adventure story cliches, none of which are meant to be taken seriously, my guess is that's why this kind of representation was deemed okay.
But what disturbs me is that much of the movie's humor is drawn from playing on those cliches--Jack Sparrow's mythic escape from the island on which he was abandoned in the first movie turned out actually to have the most mundane and actually pitiful explanations. Why they chose to do that elsewhere and not with the situation with the natives is what really bothered me. That and there was no reason for that whole portion; it had no bearing on the wonky, confused plot; if they'd've cut it they could've gotten in good character work and a cleaner story.
Just ugh!