A historical perspective on Disney's latest film "brother bear"
This past weekend I saw the movie Brother Bear, it's a new Disney movie and rated G. I have some trouble with the historical accuracy of the film and will be discussing that at great length. Sure it's a children's movie, but does that mean it's ok to disregard historical accuracy? Perhaps the fact that it's designed for children makes it even more important to keep it historically correct, after all children take things very literally. Why shouldn't they be shown facts? There were many historical inconsistencies that bothered me throughout the film. My main thoughts while watching this were 1) where is this 2) when is this 3) how much of this is accurate.
So lets start with where. That's not a hard one to figure out, my evidence: the wildlife, the weather, the people, and their culture. The moose in the film have extremely Canadian accents, so perhaps it's Canada.
There was an Orca in the ocean, they are well known for being Alaskan animals. So possibly it's Alaska, for sure it's very northern. There were countless icebergs, that supports the idea of the far north. The people seem to be based on Inuits (native to the general area of Alaska), and they used kayaks, which are not found south of Canada. (The Spokane Indians used canoes.) Therefore I believe I'm correct in stating that, this all took place in either Alaska or Canada, after all they are connected.
That brings me to when, which is much more difficult to place. Possibly because the fine folks at Disney didn't actually know, or care which time period they were animating. The main problems as I see it are: the climate, the wildlife, and development of the land.