It’s no secret that the film was loosely inspired by true events, or that it wasn’t exactly historically accurate, but you may be surprised by the extent to which artistic liberties were taken. Exactly how much was different, and why does it matter?

Colonial History 101

By the seventeenth century, much of North America was still undisturbed by outsiders. Unfortunately, all good things come to an end. A group of English colonialists under the Virginia Company of London landed in current-day Virginia in 1607 to form Jamestown, England’s first permanent settlement in North America. The first expedition to the settlement included Captain John Smith, a soldier who later became one of Jamestown’s first colonial governors. The settlement was off to a rocky start with insufficient supplies and rough seas, but their fate turned around with tobacco. In 1608, the English merchant John Rolfe landed in Jamestown. He introduced the Orinoco strain of tobacco from Trinidad to Virginia, which became a profitable cash crop.

Pocahontas

The main thing which the Disney film got right is the fact that Pocahontas was the beloved daughter of the paramount chief of Powhatan, a network of tribes in current-day Virginia. Beyond that, the facts get very muddy. First of all, ‘Pocahontas’ was only a popular nickname, her two official names were Amonute and Motoaka.

John Smith

The love story between Pocahontas and John Smith was a purely Disney invention, created in the hopes that a Romeo-and-Juliet-esque storyline would capture audiences. That being said, it’s probably for the best that there was no real romance. In the movie, they met as adults. In reality, Pocahontas was only ten or eleven and John Smith was in his late twenties.

The dramatic scene in which she rescued Smith from execution is impossible to confirm. All accounts of it originated from Smith himself, and it is likely to be a gross exaggeration. Nonetheless, Pocahontas did become a mediator between the English and the Powhatans, helping to smooth relations as the two groups began to exchange goods. In her mid-teens, Pocahontas married Kocoum, a fellow Native American, likely of the Patawomeck tribe. In the film, she was evading a forced marriage to Kocoum, which is an incredibly unfair depiction of their marriage. Kocoum died only a few years later, allegedly around the time of Pocahontas’s kidnapping.

Yes, kidnapping.

John Rolfe

In 1613, Pocahontas was kidnapped and held for ransom by the colonialists to force negotiations with the Powhatan chief amid the then-strained relations over resources. The plan worked. Afterwards, Pocahontas remained close to the English, eventually converting to Christianity and learning their ways. During this time, she met and married the also widowed John Rolfe. By most accounts, they genuinely fell in love. They had one son, Thomas, and stayed in Virginia for two years before travelling to England.

The Virginia Company of London funded this trip to promote trade and settlement in the New World. Pocahontas was presented as a “noble savage” to prove to the English that even Native Americans could be moral, educated and groomed. Disingenuously marketed to the English as a “princess”, she was introduced to polite London society. She fell ill on the voyage back to Virginia in 1617 and died on arrival, aged only 20 or 21.

Implications

It can’t be denied that Pocahontas was a fun film, and fun films sometimes require tweaking of the facts. However, its makers must have known the effect of creating a huge-budget production that was so far from reality. Many people still view Pocahontas as a one-dimensional character in a love story, but she was so much more than that. She was equally a political mediator and a political pawn. She died far too young, with her legacy shrouded by the biased accounts of people who took advantage of her.

Artistic liberty should, perhaps, have its limits. One can view this as just a children’s film about a woman who died over 400 years ago. Alternatively, one can recognise that this is one of thousands of stories that feed into the colonialist-hero trope which has slowly but surely watered down the harsh realities of what the British imposed upon North America.

To tell a story is to shape reality. What reality are you creating?

Also Read: Time’s Up for ‘Steamboat Willie’: A Shift in American Copyright

The post Straying From The Truth: The Historical Facts Disney’s ‘Pocahontas’ Overshadowed appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

So, why all the drama over a mouse? It’s best to start with the real meat of the matter; copyright.

Copyright and Public Domain

Copyright is a legal protection for original works of authorship expressed in a tangible medium. Tangible media include books, films, plays, music scores, photographs, the list goes on. The purpose of copyright is exclusivity; the author has exclusive rights to claim work as their own and profit from it, unless they choose to forfeit that right or license it to someone else.

Works that have no copyright are considered to be in the public domain. In simple words, they belong to the public and are free for all to use. Once a copyright expires the work enters public domain, because no copyright lasts forever. However, a lot of corporations fought tooth and nail to make it last as long as possible.

The Copyright Fight Behind Steamboat Willie

Steamboat Willie is a seven-minute cartoon that changed the course of film history. One of the first-ever appearances of the beloved character Mickey Mouse, it gained huge popularity upon its release in 1928. Walt Disney’s synchronization of sound with movement was a huge innovation at the time. This little black-and-white film kicked off the Disney empire. Since Steamboat Willie is the basis for the legal rights over the first version of Mickey Mouse, a character that has made Disney an infinite amount of money, its release into the public domain didn’t happen without a fight.

Due to heavy lobbying of corporations (Disney being one of the loudest) the legal lifespan of a corporate-owned copyright has been amended several times. Most recently, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act) extended copyright terms for works of authorship in the United States from 75 to 95 years after publication.

That being said, not every version of Mickey Mouse is free to use—only the version made in 1928. The Mickey and Minnie you know from Fantasia or Mickey Mouse Club House are still off-limits. And there are still countless trademarks associated with the brand, so don’t go starting a Mickey-themed business just yet. Regardless, be prepared for a lot of Mickey-inspired remakes this year. And while Disney was reluctant to let Mickey go, this development is a win for the public domain.

Why We Need Public Domain

The main purpose of the public domain is the preservation of culture and the promotion of creative freedom. Countless films have been lost to the passage of time because copyright prevented historians from reproducing copies for preservation. This domain keeps both factual history and the emotional relevance of fiction intact. Think about your favourite childhood movie. Cinderella? A Little Mermaid? One of the dozen iterations of Sherlock Holmes? Hell, even Frozen? All are based on works in the public domain.

Even Steamboat Willie drew inspiration from the 1928 Keaton film Steamboat Bill, Jr, which was in turn inspired by a 1911 recording of Steamboat Bill, a song released in 1910. Nothing is new under the sun. Copyright and public domain circle each other a delicate balance; every author should have the right to their work, but art, as a whole, eventually reverts its ownership to humanity.

Also Read: 7 Interesting Patents Owned By Disney

The post Time’s Up for ‘Steamboat Willie’: A Shift in American Copyright appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What Did the Writers Win in the Agreement?

This was a negotiation with a particularly hostile partner (ahem, AMTP), but the WGA made sure they didn’t leave the table with nothing. Let’s look at some of the main pain points;

Most MBA minimums have gone up by 5% and will increase by another 4% in 2024 and another 3.5% in 2025. There is now also an increased health and pension contribution rate and brand new regulations on AI. Studios can no longer pass off AI-generated work as copyrighted literary material since it will not be considered source material under the MBA. If the writer and their company are in agreement, the writer can choose to use AI assistance, but the company can’t require the writer to do so, and the resulting work can’t undermine the writer’s credit. Foreign streaming residuals are going to have a 76% increase over 3 years, which is a huge bump up from the pennies writers were being given before. Plus, residuals are finally going to be calculated for streaming services as well.

I could spend this entire piece talking about the MBA, but I’ll stop here for both our sakes. You can read the full agreement or its summary on their site.

Other Strikes

The Writers’ Strike has started a pretty beautiful butterfly effect throughout the film industry. The sheer courage and willpower of so many creatives banding together has inspired other film industry professionals to demand better terms. Most notably the Screen Actors Guild—American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) started striking soon after the WGA, which ground the industry to a halt. SAG-AFRTRA also won better terms, many of which reflected the same concerns as the WGA. These include higher minimums, streaming bonuses and restrictions on the use of AI. Most Hollywood productions may have stopped for months, but it was worth it.

What Next?

Some unfortunate direct consequences of the strike include thousands of workers losing their jobs and the majority of big-budget American film productions stagnating. But needless to say; far more screenwriters will soon have something resembling decent working conditions. And in the long term, the writers’ strike has opened up an era of worker solidarity that Hollywood hasn’t seen in decades. Creatives are beginning to demand what they deserve from their labour, and it’ll be a lot harder for millionaire film executives to profit off the backs of writers who are barely scraping by.

And what do we, the general public, get out of it? Well; a writer who can afford to live is inherently a better writer, and better writers make better movies. If we want good art, we as a society need to continue to push for fair working conditions across all industries. And art aside, it’s just the decent thing to do.

Also Read: WGA Strike and the Future of Television

The post WGA Got The Deal: Now What? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Wait, What’s the WGA?

The Writer’s Guild of America (WGA) is used to refer to the joint operations of two affiliated labour unions founded in 1954; Writer’s Guild of America, East (WGAE) and Writer’s Guild of America West (WGAW). These two labour unions represent writers in television, film, radio and online media in America. They have headquarters in New York City and Los Angeles respectively, each administering its respective side of the United States. Although they are separate entities, they share certain functions like hosting The Writers Guild of America Awards, negotiating contracts and launching strikes.

So Why Are They Striking?

There is a common misconception that everyone in the film industry is rolling in money. It’s understandable, considering that Hollywood is often depicted as the land of glitz and glamour with films and TV shows raking in billions.

The thing is, not much of that actually goes to writers.

Of course, there are a select few screenwriters out there making big bucks but many of the brains behind your favourite shows are living paycheque to paycheque. This hasn’t always been the case, though. Writers simply aren’t being paid as much as they are used to.

One of the main reasons is the disappearance of residuals in the era of streaming. Residuals are a percentage of the profit received when media a person works on is syndicated, re-run or re-released. For decades, residuals have been an important part of a writer’s long-term income. However, the laws that governed residuals applied to traditional TV, not streaming. With most TV shows moving to streaming and studios grinding the minimum payments down to the ground, writers are making close to nothing. Writer Valentina Garza recently shared a tweet in which she received a residual cheque of only three cents (yes, three cents!) for her work on the hit show Jane The Virgin.

Another sticking point is the emergence of mini-rooms as opposed to fully-staffed writers’ rooms. Basically, many studios are hiring almost half the number of writers they used to on a short-term basis to bang out the structure of TV shows. Fewer and fewer writers are retained on long-term payrolls, and it’s making screenwriting as an industry shift from a full-time career to almost exclusively gig work.

Bottom line; the average Hollywood screenwriter can win an Emmy but still not know when next month’s rent is coming from. All of this is going on as studio execs are making increasingly obscene salaries. The strike is a direct result of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) aka the union of America’s biggest movie studios, refusing to meet WGA’s reasonable conditions during negotiations.

What Does the Future Hold?

We can already see the immediate effects of the strike. Several productions have completely shut down as writers lay down their pens. This isn’t the first time a strike has interrupted Hollywood productions; the 2007 strike had Conan O’Brien spinning his wedding ring on The Tonight Show to fill airtime. A great deal of the Californian economy also relies on these shows to keep running.

But the short-term losses have potential for positive results for both writers and viewers. Not only will it give writers some semblance of financial stability to writers, but it will also probably lead to better TV. With fully-staffed writers’ rooms and regulations to curb use of AI to write scripts, we could see a drastic improvement in the quality of the TV shows produced. We’re all tired of dozens of Netflix shows that are cancelled after one season and look like they were written in the dark.

Want to Help?

Follow the hashtag #WGAStrong or join the picketing.

Also Read: Equal Writes: Why We Need More Female Writers

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post WGA Strike and the Future of Television appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

To answer this first we will briefly look at the genre’s history and what made it popular. We will then look at the modern western landscape and analyse the possible reasons for the genre’s resurgence.

The Old West

While popular in the silent era after 1939’s Stagecoach westerns became something more. The genre of heroic gunslingers, like John Wayne, and the lawless wilderness became a film fixture for decades. But westerns were also popular because their iconography is part of America’s identity. And early westerns presented America as a mythologized place of civilization, possibility, and freedom (mostly for white men). Which comforted audiences.

However, the genre’s ubiquity and ability to be made cheaply provided a great vehicle for critiquing American culture. For example, The Ox-Bow Incident used genre conventions to criticise capital punishment. Self-conscious genre critiques really took hold with the 1960s and 70s Revisionist and Spaghetti Westerns. Directors like Sergio Leone and Sam Peckinpah made the heroic cowboy figure more morally ambiguous. They subverted older stars’ images and created new anti-heroic stars like Clint Eastwood. And they spotlighted America’s ugly history of violence, mirroring American violence in Vietnam. The genre’s image of promoting “American values” during this tumultuous time coupled with competition from big-budget blockbusters led to decreasing appeal. With the genre mostly dying after Heaven’s Gate flopped.

When westerns sparsely re-emerged in the 90s and 2000s it retained star power. With stars like Clint Eastwood and Kevin Costner leading Unforgiven and Dances with Wolves. But elements of deconstruction became central. Whether critiquing the idolization of murderous figures (Unforgiven), the genocide of Native American peoples (Dances with Wolves), or showing the futility of western heroics in a post 9/11 world (No Country for Old Men). Modern westerns (both contemporary and period pieces) no longer projected the US’s mythic image. They explored modern issues and were atoning for the past.

The New Frontier

Modern westerns still attract big stars e.g. Leonardo DiCaprio and Denzel Washington. And those stars’ films rank among the genre’s highest grossers (Django Unchained and Magnificent Seven (2016)). That said other star vehicles have failed spectacularly (The Lone Ranger (2013)). So if returns are unpredictable and star power does not guarantee success why make a western? The answer seemingly lies in their ability to comment on America through its own iconography.

For example, Power of the Dog reframes the western as a place of toxic masculinity and misogyny. Something which reflects the concerns of many in the age of the #MeToo movement. Neo-western The Rider uses the cowboy image to focus on the loss of opportunity in America, which no doubt hits home after events like the housing crash. And The Harder They Fall sought to reclaim the stories of old west figures of colour. A much-needed move after the push for more stories from people of colour that came during the BLM movement.

But along with providing commentary, westerns now give space for diverse new voices. Cheaper productions have allowed a number of independent creatives to have a voice. Where once primarily focused on the white male view (though Spaghetti westerns gave international viewpoints) women are now giving their perspective on genre stories (Meek’s Cutoff, The Rider and Crossing the Line). International talent also continues to be involved (Power of The Dog). Additionally, big westerns are now led by more diverse casts (The Magnificent Seven (2016), The Hateful Eight). And creators of colour are realising their western visions on big scales (The Harder They Fall). Westerns are now a genre showcasing a diverse perspective on America and helping people to reclaim their stories.

A Fistful of Westerns

The western is not what it was, but it is now populated by more diverse voices showing new perspectives on the American experience. The previously exclusionary genre now provides space for evaluation, reflection, and progress which is not bound by budget or financial success. It’s finally a space where all can be seen.

Also Read: Review: The Harder They Fall

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The New Frontier of the Western appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.