Shooting for Her Own Hand: Two and a Half Minutes of Pixar’s Brave

Well I’ve heard about Brave but I didn’t know anything about it, so not all that excited. Seeing this its going to the number 2 spot of must see this year (after Avengers of course). I love her attitude and think she’s going to be a great princess for little kids(and adults) to see. 

Any doubts I had are long gone. This looks AMAZING!

Awesome awesome awesome!!!!  June get here soon!

Promising detail, the little scratch on her cheek as she focuses to shoot… could she be not another wind-up ninjette fantasy, but a bravely human, heroine princess?! I’m hopeful!

Holy cow that looks AWESOME. This is one of the few I’ll see at midnight. 

The father-daughter interactions are so cute!

Looking forward to is, but expecting to cringe a lot at the portrayal of Scotland…

She Robin’s his arrow in twine!!!!

cannae wait

Better than any other princess by 9000%.

I’m excited.

Oh Hells yes!! I shot for my own hand too, young lady! And it was worth it!

This movie has already disappointed me due to several reasons related with poor historical accuracy.

Contrary to belief, the kilt and the tartan pattern are not pictish or medieval scottish creations. Instead, they were invented around the 16th century, by highlander shepherds, if I recall correctly. This stereotype was wrongly propagated by Braveheart and has resided in the mass media ever since.

Another stereotype which is wrongly depicted as being part of medieval scottish history is the use of blue-toned bodypaint commonly identified as woad. First and foremost, that was a strictly Pictish costume that fell out of use in the early middle ages before scotland was a kingdom, and second, woad itself is not suitable as a body paint. Historical research is more inclined towards copper-based paints which would instead have a greenish tone.

Finally, and in a far less serious tone, Mythbusters have already proven it’s impossible to split an arrow in two using another arrow.

Please help to spread awareness regarding historical stereotypes and other innacuracies in mass media that contribute to diminuish our children’s cultural knowledge.

Squeeee! I’ve been waiting 35+ years for this movie!

Historical accuracy has never remotely been an item on Disney’s radar, so I’m not overly bothered by this instance of blatant anachronism.

As for the arrow-splitting not being possible, IT’S A GODDAMN FICTIONAL FILM. And a cartoon to boot.

 While historical accuracy is a favorite of mine, you also have to remember that a lot of cultures crossed from time to time and something that was originally from one group sometimes ended up a favorite of another. Doesn’t happen all the time but occasionally. The woad may simply have been so aesthetically and ritually pleasing that it got picked up by other tribes who saw it worked for the Picts. (as far as the color goes that is neato! I had no idea). There is no telling exactly when this is meant to take place but at the same time this is fantasy so you give a little here and there as it may have certain attributes of our cultures but does not entirely embrace any of them.

 It’s over 9000!

I’m very excited for this film! I’m a bit disappointed that the conflict catalyst *yet again* has to be that she’s a girl and girls aren’t allowed to do things. It’d be nice if, like How to Train Your Dragon, it was something that wasn’t gender based. I feel like we can all relate to not wanting to go by our parents’ expectations, but arranged marriage? Really? Still? It’s disappointing.

It does, however, look like a killer movie and that’s my only minor quibble. I’m quite excited overall.

Mmmmm…. deliciously intense.

Goodness, who popped your bagpipes today?

 I know, but should we really applaud the media companies for continuing to propagate historical misconceptions? What’s so wrong about properly investigating these things instead of jumping straight into painting every single cultural stereotype on your characters? We live in an era where all of this information is easily accessible to anyone, but unfortunately there seems to be a contrary attitude towards it from both the media companies and the audiences. It feels like like they didn’t even bother to go do some historical research, which quite serious when coming from a group of industry professionals. Some people don’t bother at all, under the excuse of “just being a cartoon” or “it’s for kids”, but I for one, like to believe we should be double responsible especially when doing stuff for kids.

As for the arrow thing, I kinda mentioned that as a joke in case you haven’t noticed.

 Actually, now that you mention it, I believe I got that wrong too! In fact I don’t think it was a pictish costume at all, now that I remember it. The only historical reference we have to briton tribes using body paints comes from Julius Caesar own campaign reports, when the Romans first invaded the island. He mentions some tribes had this costume, but he never actually travelled to the northern parts of the island. Here’s a site with some neat informations on the topic:

http://www.dunsgathan.net/essays/woad.htm

Badass bodice-ripping indeed!

 ”CARTOON , MOVIE, THEATRICAL LICENSE.”

 Okay Lighten up already Not every thing presented needs to be a Historical, Social documentary, like tale.  This is meant to be understanding and about a young woman journey, History is secondary.  Do you really think they had JInn, Talking Flatware, Singing Pelicans  and Fireflies that became Stars in the sky? 

Maybe if you went around looking for the joy in things and not seeings the unintentional social misstep you would be less inclined to put such a wet blanket on something meant to make children smile.

“but I for one, like to believe we should be double responsible especially when doing stuff for kids.”

I agree with you that kids deserve the best, but I don’t think fanciful cartoons are the way to educate them about history. The nice thing about cartoons is that they come with an established veneer of unreality. When children watch them, they can tell what they’re seeing doesn’t resemble the real world, so they can let their imagination roam free. That doesn’t mean such fantasies can’t be emotionally powerful or intellectually challenging, but if you demand that they be expected to portray the world realistically it sets an uncomfortable precedent. How will kids know which animated films to read as accurate, and which to read as totally made up? Lets say Brave did it your way, and gave kids a story about an ancient warrior princess in a thoroughly researched account of actual life in Medieval Scotland. When those kids watch Mulan, why wouldn’t they assume it’s just as faithful a depiction of ancient China? What about talking animal films? “Mom, are hyenas really bad guys and lions really good guys?” Sure, such questions come up anyway, but the answers are easier for kids to process when they are consistent.

Once they get older, and have a more sophisticated understanding of reality and fantasy, it’s okay to blur the lines more. But I’d much prefer that cartoons aimed at the youngest demographic be allowed to disregard reality (as long as it isn’t in actively harmful ways), while the burden of realism is placed on nonfiction works, which you can tell a kid are true. “It’s just a movie” sounds dismissive when you’re experienced enough to know the difference, but that really is an important distinction to make. Even adults can be too trusting of the version of real-life events presented in fiction (Braveheart, for instance, or A Beautiful Mind) but kids especially need to be provided with that dividing line, so they can be confident about what’s real and what isn’t.

WHAT DOES SHE SAY AT :41??

Wishes he was tossing cabers? um, what

Have to say I’m a little disapointed.
From the original trailer I was hoping for something that was a bit more serious and atmospheric. Something that played down visual humour and used Pixar’s CGI mastery for something more subtle than… well that.

It will still be an amazing film, I mean come on its Pixar, but it looks like it won’t be the grown up serious fantasy epic I was hoping for.

Well given the time of the setting (~12th century) marriage is pretty much the only thing a young princess will be involved in.

But yeah the whole defying marriage thing has been done half to death by now. Hopefully this is a just an establishing character scene and the big “kingdom thrown into chaos” scene is something a bit newer.

Also “shooting for my own hand” is totally the new name for masturbation. Totes.

 Yep that’s what she said.

Guess i am going to be sitting in a theater supporting my husbands eternal childhood as a fan of animation,science fiction & fantasy. Wink wink.

I’m definitely looking forward to the movie, but my first thought on opening the page and seeing the picture at the top was “they messed up the weave in the knotwork”. It’s a minor thing, but the bottom right corner should be under, not over.

Despite being in flagrant defiance of Mythbusters, this film just went onto my top-five must-see list.  Is it too much to hope that she doesn’t get married (or engaged) at all during the film?  Certainly choosing your own mate is preferable to someone betting your hand on a sporting event on your behalf, but I’d like to see a movie with a female protagonist where the plot isn’t all about her falling in love.

As a history graduate student, I agree that you have several valid points.

As a fan of history and entertainment, I will tell you that growing up, my three favorite movies were Mulan, Pocahontas, and Anastasia. None of which have a shred of historical accuracy. One of which has a talking dragon.

They fostered my love for other times, and in reading the story of Pocahontas in excitement before the movie came out, I was able to inform all of my elementary-school friends that in reality, she was ten years old, and she later married a planter named John Rolfe.

Today I can’t watch Anastasia because of the absolutely tragic facts of the Romanov murders. But am I glad that it was such a magical part of my childhood? Absolutely. Did it diminish my cultural knowledge, or stop me from graduating summa cum laude and completing my own research projects? Absolutely not.

Have a little faith in our children.

It is one of my major pet peeves that when a girl is a “rebel,” usually she’s only rebelling against gender norms and doing something that would be totally okay or even praiseworthy in a boy.

But the movie looks absolutely fantastic.

I too would love to see historical accuracy wherever possible, and I definitely think “fanciful cartoons” CAN be a good way to educate. anything that works can be a good way to educate. however, I’m pretty sure I’m going to love this movie regardless of inaccuracies. because feminism.

You tube it.

Scottish Competition in which they flip giant logs.

I appreciate all of this, but its a fantasy.

 Could you give an example of what you’d like to see a girl rebel against?

 Has Pixar ever produced a movie like that? I don’t know of any. Are there any other companies that do?

 It wouldn’t surprise me if that was one of the ‘creative differences’ that got Brenda Chapman demoted to co-director. I remember her saying in an interview she wanted a female character without any interest in marriage whatsoever.

Pessimistic supposition on my part. Even today, women in movies that are uninterested in marriage or intimate relationships or just men are rare finds.

 This is a bit like criticizing Disney’s “Robin Hood” for portraying foxes alongside rabbits and chickens without any sort of predator/prey relationship….while totally overlooking the fact that it’s a CARTOON designed for entertaining children (and adults). That…and totally overlooking the scene where they show Hiss the snake inside of a helium balloon (totally historically inaccurate) and blowing the balloon up bigger while inside the balloon! That’s impossible!

 http://lnk.co/IHOTL

“We live in an era where all of this information is easily accessible to anyone…”
In this debate, that statement cuts both ways.  The easier it is to access information; the less excuse there is for depending on a fantasy film for one’s education in history (or physics).

 No, thats why I want them to.

There are plenty of Japanese studios doing serious animated movies but they have never really been done in the west.

At this point Pixar is probably the best animation studio in the world and I would love to see what they could make if they didn’t have to keep their films marketable to children.

the money is in the kids movies though that’s the sad reality

The fact that they are interested in intimate relationships isn’t the real problem, most of the male characters in animated films are too, it’s that they end up doing making all these  choices because of the interests that weaken the characters.

I see what you did there.

That’s what I said… I was in awe of the animation, loving the whole thing, but I snapped out of my admiration to, of course, quote Men in TIghts. “He split Robin’s arrow in twain!”

To be honest, I understand you’re point, but we wouldn’t have movies about princesses shooting for their own hands (or anyone shooting for the hand of the princess) if we didn’t allow the imagination to drive these kinds of cartoons. It would have been shocking and strange for a woman to make any such action in the period that you’re talking about, so this idea would never have existed. If you want to teach your kids more about a realistic history, let them wet their appetite first on fun things like this, the turn the tv to the history channel or take them to the library as a fun research project. But don’t take the fun out of childhood because you’re concerned about inaccuracy. If it really bothers you that much, use the movie to start a conversation about historically accuracy and the development of stereotypes with your kids.