The Representation of Name, Love, and Land

By Louis Yako, with comments by Ed Gallagher, Carina Meleca, and William "Tommy" McNulty

[1] This scene is highly connected to the previous one when it comes to the ways we could interpret its events. In the previous scene, Mary is assigned to coach Pocahontas and prepare her for the new world she is about to enter. It is rather ironic that she is given an orientation about the new world on her own land and even more ironic that she receives this orientation from the newcomers, who are totally strangers and intend to create life on what is a “ new world” for them.

[2] I found three ideas very interesting and important to be addressed by any scholar working on this scene: first, the idea of name. In the previous scene (1:23:10), Mary, along with another new male colonist, knocks on Pocahontas’s door, introduces herself, and is about to use Pocahontas's name. The man, without letting Pocahontas utter a word, interrupts, saying "she says that's not her name anymore . . . she hasn't got a name." Mary states that she shall be given one. Of course, later, after baptism, we learn that she is named Rebecca; however, these moments in this scene are significant and make us wonder why Pocahontas did not tell her real name. When we watch the entire movie, we will also realize that her name “Pocahontas” is never mentioned, not even a single time. We only see her grave towards the end of the film with her new name, Rebecca, engraved on the tomb-stone. This makes us wonder why we never hear her Indian name throughout the film.

[3] One way to look at this is that this film intends to highlight as well as criticize the mythical nature of the treatment of Pocahontas’s story by introducing a nameless character, in order to draw people’s attention to the damage that all the previous versions (both cinematic and literary) have caused to the meaning and power of history. Pocahontas’s namelessness could be an acknowledgment on the filmmaker's part about the inaccuracy of the facts he introduces in his story. In fact, I would like to take it as far as saying that he is, in avoiding the mention of her Indian name, avoiding any responsibility of possible misrepresentations of the entire story, especially when it comes to Indian matters. (comment by Ed Gallagher) (comment by William "Tommy" McNulty)

[4] Second, the New World is called “Eden,” and, through the descriptions of Newport, we learn that, for the newcomers, it is seen as an outlet or a refuge from the old world and its atrocities, where all forms of inhumane acts are being committed (1:24:10). The captain describes the colony as a “fresh” example for humanity. It is a place where they can be creative and start anew; however, this is another ironic statement when we realize that the newcomers are actually invaders who will wipe out the Indians and rape their land. (comment by Ed Gallagher) The captain goes as far as claiming that “God has given us a promised land.” It is a claim similar to the land that God promised the Israeli people, and God’s will was not fulfilled till 1948 because he was waiting for the west to industrialize, develop, and take it by force! It seems that God, in this film, is more generous to the Christians than the Jews who are “his chosen people.”

[5] This claim brings to our attention many questions about what are the factors that make a certain land belong to certain people. It seems that even living on a land for thousands of years is no longer enough to determine this matter. Towards the end of the scene, the Englishmen burn the Indian village and leave us even more confused about what really differentiates these supposedly new people from other Europeans (1:31:02).

[6] Last but not least, this scene, like many films and literary works, highlights the relationship between Pocahontas, or I should say “Rebecca,” and Smith. She appears to be more attached to Smith than he could ever be. She says, “I belong to you” (1:26:43) and is shown to be so miserable that she is wiping ash all over her face when she learns that he is dead (1:30:16).

[7] Smith had told one of his men to wait for two months and then tell Pocahontas that he is dead. I was wondering about the significance of this amount of time. Why two months and not more or less than that? The love relationship that is shown between Pocahontas and Smith, to me, is very refutable and questionable at the same time. There is no doubt that the relationship between them is sexual. Why did not she become pregnant? Why did she become pregnant right after her marriage with Rolfe?

[8] Once she learns about Smith's death, Pocahontas says, “He killed the god in me,” and, as broad as this statement may sound, I think one way to interpret it is to say that, by falling in love with Smith, she sacrificed her entire life and identity (1:30:54). In fact, it is clear in this film that she has sacrificed her own people for her love. In doing so, she has rejected her Indian values, her father, and the god in which her people believe. It is this god that protects them from any evil, yet she rejected it. Pocahontas, by uttering these words, seems to be regretting to have chosen Smith over her god, because, in doing so, she killed her god. (comment by Carina Meleca) The scene ends with Powhatan praying amid the ashes of his once great village, praying to a god who is dead or never existed in this first place (1:32:30).

Comments

Ed Gallagher 1/15/08

That is a very interesting point about the use (non-use!) of the name “Pocahontas.” And I wonder if the "black out" in the rescue scene might tie in to your rationale here (25:46). That black out seems to short-circuit our normal way of thinking about one of the most well known episodes in all American culture. It stops us, makes us think anew, calls attention to how we normally think about that scene (for our minds run ahead, I think, filling in the darkness).

Ed Gallagher 1/15/08

To add to your point, I think the irony is compounded by several factors: Smith prowling on the margin of the audience, the audience itself randomly dispersed and individualized (definitely not a community), the camera turning around to show grim shots within the fort, Newport's high-toned words drifting into silence in mid-sentence. It seems that Malick brutally frames Newport's elevated rhetoric in several ways for the ironic effect you talk about.

William "Tommy" McNulty 4/1/10

To be honest, Louis, I was willing to buy into the first half of this argument. It does seems as though the director intended on avoiding using the name “Pocahontas” as a mechanism to guard himself from the inaccuracies of his own film. This seems to be a very logical way of having an artistic decision cover your own trail in many ways, yet I think it is rather bold to argue that by avoiding mentioning the name we are able to write off any misrepresentations of “Indian matters.” This story has obviously been told and retold throughout American history, oftentimes with broad adjustments to create a greater mass appeal, but avoiding mentioning Pocahontas’s name does not create the idea that we aren’t actually watching a film about that particular Indian. The viewer knows completely that this is fictionalization about John Rolfe and Pocahontas. By merely avoiding her name we don’t suddenly accept this film as a totally fabricated story. If we were to see misrepresentation of Indian culture or matters within the film, the fact that we never hear “Pocahontas” uttered doesn’t cover these faults.

Carina Meleca 4/3/10

This analysis only holds true out of the context of the rest of the film. If we take into account Pocahontas’s behavior before Smith’s departure as well as Rebecca’s behavior after Smith’s death, I think making the blanket statement that she regrets her affair with Smith would be altered. Consider the fact that, though clearly attempting to create an amiable relationship between the natives and the colonists, Pocahontas is nonetheless devastated when her father shuns her after violent animosity arises between the groups. It is not as if she has chosen to abandon her people for Smith, but rather that her people have abandoned her because of Smith. Pocahontas realizes her the loss of her cultural identity immediately, and yet she does not blame her lover. According to Louis’s logic, Pocahontas’s realization of her cultural rejection would have caused a consequent projection of anger and remorse in her relationship with Smith; instead, she simply looks for a supportive partner in this vulnerable time.

Also considering Rebecca’s behavior post Smith mortem, it’s safe to argue that, if anything, her statement about Smith killing the god in her was out of anger and grief. In the reality of the film, Rebecca assimilated to colonist culture extremely well. Even her husband several years down the line suspects that Rebecca still loves Smith. If Rebecca truly blamed Smith for her dismissal of a cultural identity and hated him as passionately as Louis suggests, why would she make the effort to tell her legal husband that her heart is married to Smith? It’s quite easy to analyze a cultural war between Smith and Pocahontas, but I think some instances (like the one in this particular scene) call for the viewer to disregard their racial disparities and view them simply as a woman mourning the loss of her lover and using anger as a vessel to portray such emotions.