I've found this thread very engaging, and appreciate all the interesting points that have been made so far. However, there are a few points I don't think have been adequately addressed:


"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.