![[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
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.