Another response to El Dorado Ignores Genocide of Natives:

>> It seems awfully daring to make as strong a criticism as you did without seeing the finished product, doesn't it? <<

I like to live dangerously. Of course, I mainly quoted people who have seen the movie, and based my conclusions on theirs. And (as I said) I have seen the trailers, the summaries, and the reviews. That's enough information to mitigate the slight risk.

>> Now, I HAVE seen the film, and while it makes South American Indians look a little foolish, it does the same for the Spaniards, and everyone else involved. <<

My El Dorado page quoted two reviewers' reviews in full. Did you read them and not just my summaries? The movie stereotyped the few Indian characters and ignored the historical facts.

Making two groups of people look equally foolish isn't necessarily "fair," even if that's all the movie did. Indians have been stereotyped and slighted throughout history, while Spaniards haven't. If this is, say, the 20,000th insult to Indians and only the 200th to Spaniards, does that make the situations equivalent? I don't think so.

>> At least the Amerinds aren't all bloodthirsty and looking for human hearts to barbecue at every step; they are a primitive but good people <<

In reality the Natives weren't primitive, at least by several criteria. The stereotyping continues.

>> And the central point of the film is that the Hope and Crosby protagonists throw away all the riches they lusted after to protect these people from the invading Spaniards. <<

I think I covered that (nicely) with my line about the road paved with good intentions. Do you recall where that road leads?

The Hope and Crosby "road" movies were riddled with condescending portrayals of women and indigenous people. I wouldn't boast about emulating them if I were the makers of El Dorado.

The debate continues....
>> The thing is that I recognize my hot button, and I try to differentiate between my emotions and my critical reaction to something. <<

I differentiate between them too. I'd be glad to tell you which of my comments are primarily emotional and which are primarily rational. Most fall into the latter category.

>> I can acknowledge how disgusting the violence is while admiring the craft with which it's portrayed, and the depth with which the disgusting characters are portrayed. <<

I have no problem distinguishing technical artistry from other aspects of a movie (plot, characterization, theme). I often give movies good ratings despite their problematical portrayals. For instance, I gave Pocahontas an 8.5 and Pocahontas II a 7.5 of 10. That applies to books and other works, too.

>> Saying a film is no good because it promotes attitudes that offends you personally is not film criticism, it's politics. <<

I'd say it's film criticism from a particular perspective. No one says a critic has to concentrate on the acting, directing, or cinematography to the exclusion of areas such as theme or message. And I never claimed my "review" was pure or traditional film criticism, so this argument is irrelevant. A "political" critique of art, if that's what you want to call it, is as valid as any other.

>> If you don't mind an observation, you seem to be a political activist. I suppose that's a hobby <<

I suppose. I'm not making money on it yet. <g>

>> I personally think politics is as pointless and self-destructive as heroin addiction. <<

I don't know how else you expect to change the world, if you do. By avoiding politics? Good luck.

>> But if you're doing that, don't get into media criticism unless you can separate the work of art from the political attitudes you percieve. <<

I don't think I said much about the artistry of Road to El Dorado. I limited my remarks to its themes and messages, its stereotypes and distortions of history. You're the one who seems to be confusing the two.

That is, you seem to be saying it's not possible to criticize a movie unless you limit yourself to the traditional areas of acting, directing, and so forth. On the contrary: If I criticize the themes and messages, and judge the movie on that account, that criticism is valid and self-contained. Don't confuse that with criticism of the acting, directing, and so forth, which would require my seeing the movie.

>> I didn't read the reviews on your web page <<

And you're concerned about my not seeing the movie? Wow, talk about irony. <g>

>> as far as I can tell, this is the only thing you did concerning animation. <<

In the past couple of years, I've commented on a Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends episode featuring Thunderbird, Animaniacs, Histeria, the two Pocahontas movies, several other Disney movies, and Pokémon as well as El Dorado. I've also commented on many live-action movies, comics and comic strips, and other entertainment products. I'm not sure why it would matter if this was my first opinion or my hundredth, but I've posted extensively on minority stereotyping in the popular media.

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .