Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments [2016/09/15 10:09] – [2 Things the Movie got right] jmcclurken
+++ 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments [2016/09/15 11:55] (current) – [3 Questions about interpretation] dhawkins
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 While I cannot claim to be an expert in this field, I think the movie depicted the dynamics between the major players in the French & Indian War/ 7 Years War in a relatively accurate manner. The French and British generals respected one another’s military competence, or were they just being ‘civilized?’ The Native Americans worked with the Europeans but did not seem necessarily bound to their orders, hence bludgeoning one while helping to “scout,” thus beginning an ambush. The scene where the British were surrendering further depicted the relationship amongst the armies. *I enjoyed the dramatic hat bow from the French man.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/09/14 22:10//
+When watching //Last of the Mohicans// I did notice the film was refreshingly accurate and evenhanded, but I did find several inaccuracies. While they later try to get the Crown to let them go home and defend their own land, the colonists early on in the movie seem a little too eager to go and fight. After Nathaniel's family is killed and their house burned, Cora Munro says that she had seen war, but had "never seen war made against women and children." Given the wars that preceded the French and Indian War/Seven Years War in America and Europe, I have trouble believing every conflict she had seen was strictly limited to pitched battle. In the scene where the colonists desert from Fort William Henry, I found their dialogue (which sounds like something taken directly from "Common Sense") fairly anachronistic and in a way a strange form of patriotic fan-service. I am unsure whether colonists would have been talking in this way in the 1750s. I also found it strange that Montcalm all but gave Magua permission to break the terms of surrender and to attack the British on the road. There is no way to confirm or deny based on the historical record whether this exchange happened (especially because Magua is a fictional character), but  it certainly seems that either Cooper or the film was trying to cast Montcalm in an unfairly negative light.
+ --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/09/15 06:34//
 ====== 2 Things the Movie got right ======
@@ Line 48: / Line 49: @@
 ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ======
-In the film, characters like Megua were dehumanized and personified as cold hearted. Megua was a French spy and Ottawa. From the beginning of the film, he was set on revenge for his family’s murders. He describes to the French general that he wants to kill off the seed of white hair. Cora and Alice’s father, general of the British Army, served as Megua’s target. Megua’s language, referring to himself in third person further exemplified the stereotype of Native Americans as less intelligent. Megua is constantly flanked by his men who never speak, but are seen as cold hearted because of their treatment of Cora and Alice. Once Cora and Alice were captured, ropes were tied around their neck and they were corralled like cattle. However, the rope and the whole kidnapping ordeal was exaggerated. Although tribes did take captives, for the most part they were treated humanely and rarely threatened to put to death. Cora and Alice were sentenced to death by the leader of the tribe, although many settlers who became captives did not meet the same fate. Instead, many captives were adopted into families in the tribe. Megua’s dehumanization by referring to himself in third person and the exaggerated inhumane treatment toward Cora and Alice further allows the stereotype of the ‘bad’ Native American flourish and damage Native American populations further.  --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/09/14 08:51//
+I**n the film, characters like Megua were dehumanized and personified as cold hearted**. Megua was a French spy and Ottawa. From the beginning of the film, he was set on revenge for his family’s murders. He describes to the French general that he wants to kill off the seed of white hair. Cora and Alice’s father, general of the British Army, served as Megua’s target. **Megua’s language, referring to himself in third person further exemplified the stereotype of Native Americans as less intelligent**. Megua is constantly flanked by his men who never speak, but are seen as cold hearted because of their treatment of Cora and Alice. Once Cora and Alice were captured, ropes were tied around their neck and they were corralled like cattle. However, the rope and the whole kidnapping ordeal was exaggerated. Although tribes did take captives, for the most part they were treated humanely and rarely threatened to put to death. Cora and Alice were sentenced to death by the leader of the tribe, although many settlers who became captives did not meet the same fate. Instead, many captives were adopted into families in the tribe. **Megua’s dehumanization by referring to himself in third person and the exaggerated inhumane treatment toward Cora and Alice further allows the stereotype of the ‘bad’ Native American flourish and damage Native American populations further**.  --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/09/14 08:51//
-The “ransom negotiation” scene, where things are looking pretty dark for the Munro sisters --- would communicating through that on either and both sides have been that simple?! (#doubtful) Like, it was already confusing with the multiple languages going back and forth, the seemingly constant switch, and the epically heroic double crossing (which I totally did not expect from Duncan; he totally won me over in the end). But I question whether the natives who did not choose to ally themselves with European ventures but just adapt their traditions as best they could would have understood the languages and overall negotiation as easily and seamlessly as the film depicted.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/14 14:54//
+The “ransom negotiation” scene, where things are looking pretty dark for the Munro sisters --- w**ould communicating through that on either and both sides have been that simple?!** (#doubtful) Like, it was already confusing with the multiple languages going back and forth, the seemingly constant switch, and the epically heroic double crossing (which I totally did not expect from Duncan; he totally won me over in the end). But I question whether the natives who did not choose to ally themselves with European ventures but just adapt their traditions as best they could would have understood the languages and overall negotiation as easily and seamlessly as the film depicted.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/14 14:54//
-One thing that I thought the film could have mentioned was that European colonists would often get the Native Americans drunk in order for them to sign treaties favorable to the English.  This could provide some backstory to some of the tensions between the Native Americans and whites.  This being said, the movie could have been a gorilla banging rocks together for two hours and still have been a cinematic masterpiece because of the soundtrack.   --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/09/14 20:57//
+One thing that I thought the **film could have mentioned was that European colonists would often get the Native Americans drunk in order for them to sign treaties favorable to the English.**  This could provide some backstory to some of the tensions between the Native Americans and whites.  **This being said, the movie could have been a gorilla banging rocks together for two hours and still have been a cinematic masterpiece because of the soundtrack.**   --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/09/14 20:57//
-At the end of the film, I asked myself if it was accurate that Chingachgook would have been the actual last Mohican. I understand he probably meant it in more of a symbolic sense, that the white settlers were wiping out Native Americans through expansion and war. I have read before that there was a myth at the time spread by white writers that Native Americans were just "disappearing" for no real reason other than that whites were naturally more dominant and would come to conquer the entire area. I was unsure if the film meant for the viewers to interpret it as James Fenimore Cooper would have wanted, or if we were supposed to look past that myth and see that the Native Americans (like the Hurons at the end) actually did try to resist and hold on to their independence and morality well past the French and Indian War.
+**At the end of the film, I asked myself if it was accurate that Chingachgook would have been the actual last Mohican. I understand he probably meant it in more of a symbolic sense, that the white settlers were wiping out Native Americans through expansion and war**. I** have read before that there was a myth at the time spread by white writers that Native Americans were just "disappearing" for no real reason other than that whites were naturally more dominant and would come to conquer the entire area. I was unsure if the film meant for the viewers to interpret it as James Fenimore Cooper would have wanted, or if we were supposed to look past that myth and see that the Native Americans (like the Hurons at the end) actually did try to resist and hold on to their independence and morality well past the French and Indian War.**
  --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/09/14 23:29//
-I am just wondering, did anyone else feel like this movie was more of a Revolutionary War movie then a French and Indian War movie? It felt as if instead of being a movie about the French and various Indian tribes versus the British, Colonialist, with Mohican scouts, it was the French and one Indian tribe versus the English versus the Colonialist and some Mohicans fighting. The British are shown as bad and uncaring, and are shown as some sort of evil villain that wants to take over the world but the good guys have to work with to defeat a common enemy. This may be because of when the original story was written, but even then it still didn’t feel like it was in the right time. Also was anyone else really uncomfortable with the fact that the two white people survive, but the one possible white and Indian couple both die (also the fact that they were made to see like a couple after speaking maybe two words to each other)?  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/09/15 00:11//
+I am just wondering, **did anyone else feel like this movie was more of a Revolutionary War movie then a French and Indian War movie? It felt as if instead of being a movie about the French and various Indian tribes versus the British, Colonialist, with Mohican scouts, it was the French and one Indian tribe versus the English versus the Colonialist and some Mohicans fighting. The British are shown as bad and uncaring, and are shown as some sort of evil villain that wants to take over the world but the good guys have to work with to defeat a common enemy.** This may be because of when the original story was written, but even then it still didn’t feel like it was in the right time. **Also was anyone else really uncomfortable with the fact that the two white people survive, but the one possible white and Indian couple both die (also the fact that they were made to see like a couple after speaking maybe two words to each other)?**  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/09/15 00:11//
-After watching the film, I decided to look up the cast to investigate questions of interpretation. While last week we had decided that Disney made an earnest attempt to consult and include Native Americans in the production of Pocahontas, I wondered if the producers of The Last of the Mohicans had done the same. I was pleased to find out that Russell Means, a noteworthy Lakotan activist, played Chingachgook, the Mohican father to white-son Daniel Day-Lewis’ Nathaniel Hawkeye. Means was an influential member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and worked through decades for the political interests of indigenous peoples. I find Mean’s casting as a lead role to be wise for the film’s producers because it aids in more-authentic representation and personhood. --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/15 03:43//
+After watching the film, I decided to look up the cast to investigate questions of interpretation. While last week we had decided that Disney made an earnest attempt to consult and include Native Americans in the production of Pocahontas, I wondered if the producers of The Last of the Mohicans had done the same. I was pleased to find out that **Russell Means, a noteworthy Lakotan activist, played Chingachgook, the Mohican father to white-son Daniel Day-Lewis’ Nathaniel Hawkeye. Means was an influential member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and worked through decades for the political interests of indigenous peoples. I find Mean’s casting as a lead role to be wise for the film’s producers because it aids in more-authentic representation and personhood.** --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/15 03:43//
-From the reading, it felt as if the American Indians usually had certain loyalties to either the French or the British. In the film, Mogua betrays the British and leads them into an ambush. Has there ever been historical evidence that a tribe would try and lead a group of Europeans into a trap in that manner? It seemed more of a way to create a villain for the story then to hold the film to historical accuracies. How often would tribes need to switch their European loyalties?  The reading discussed that one group (probably more) had to join the British after the defeat of the French.   --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/09/15 03:48//
+From the reading, it felt as if the American Indians usually had certain loyalties to either the French or the British. In the film, Mogua betrays the British and leads them into an ambush. Has there ever been historical evidence that a tribe would try and lead a group of Europeans into a trap in that manner? It seemed more of a way to create a villain for the story then to hold the film to historical accuracies. **How often would tribes need to switch their European loyalties?**  The reading discussed that one group (probably more) had to join the British after the defeat of the French.   --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/09/15 03:48//
+My main issue with the interpretation, that no doubt has its roots in the books, is about the character of Nathaniel. Given the time that Cooper was writing and his intended audience, I was not surprised about Nathaniel's portrayal, and I think in some ways the film probably tried to tone down the blatant racism that Cooper injected into his work (based on my reading of parts of Cooper's //Deerslayer//), but in many ways I feel the film still perpetuated problems surrounding the character. Nathaniel in some ways feels more like a superhero than a human being. He fights nearly perfectly in battle, he always comes just in time to save the day. His ruggedness captures Cora's heart (but let's keep in mind she didn't fall in love with an ethnic Native American, but a white man adopted by a Native American family). In one scene, Nathaniel actually runs in slow motion, kills someone, and then grabs Cora and kisses her. In a lot of ways I saw him as kind of comically badass and yet acutely sensitive, with no overt bloodlust like some of the Native Americans and even royal officials. There were a lot of (preemptive?) echoes of a Tarzan and Jane type of relationship, which not only over-simplifies what would have been a complicated situation had it historically occurred, but like the books, perpetuates the idea that white, Anglo-Americans eventually became "more Indian than the Indians," to borrow a phrase from Irish history.
+ --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/09/15 06:47//
 ====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ======
-The film as a primary source was good at showing women’s values at the time. In the film, there is a strong female lead who does not care about getting married for the sake of it and would rather find a true love. She is also shown shooting guns, protecting her sister against the Indians, and standing up to her father. Women during that time period typically did not act that way because European society was patriarchal. Instead, it reflects the ideas of the late 20th century feminism who were equal to men in every way and independent. It definitely reflects the ideas and values that women held in the 1990’s and not in the 1700’s.  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/09/13 20:26//
+**The film as a primary source was good at showing women’s values at the time. In the film, there is a strong female lead who does not care about getting married for the sake of it and would rather find a true love. She is also shown shooting guns, protecting her sister against the Indians, and standing up to her father. Women during that time period typically did not act that way because European society was patriarchal. Instead, it reflects the ideas of the late 20th century feminism who were equal to men in every way and independent. It definitely reflects the ideas and values that women held in the 1990’s and not in the 1700’s.**  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/09/13 20:26//
-As Leah suggested, I do think this movie serves as a good primary source showing the development of female characters at the time. The film does have a female supporting character, Cora, however she is mostly defined as Hawkeye's love interest and the daughter of General Munro. She does as Leah points out reject Heyward's proposal however her moment of independence is overshadowed by her larger role as Hawkeye's love interest and the damsel in distress. Although the film feature a cast of female main characters, like Cora, they serve to be rescued rather than to be seen as powerful which shows American society's start to accept feminism conditionally and situational.  --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/09/14 08:52//
+As Leah suggested, I do think this movie serves as a good primary source showing the development of female characters at the time. T**he film does have a female supporting character, Cora, however she is mostly defined as Hawkeye's love interest and the daughter of General Munro**. She does as Leah points out reject Heyward's proposal however her moment of independence is overshadowed by her larger role as Hawkeye's love interest and the damsel in distress. Although the film feature a cast of female main characters, like Cora, they serve to be rescued rather than to be seen as powerful **which shows American society's start to accept feminism conditionally and situational**.  --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/09/14 08:52//
-If a single character could determine whether or not the entire movie was a primary source representative of the 90s, then Mohicans was a fairly decent one due to the character of Cora. Likely a combination of the writing and the acting, she encapsulated the tendencies of women of that time to forge their own path, maintain a level of independence, and have their knowledge valued in conversations, relations, and the workplace. She was very self-sufficient, always protecting her sister, and even shot the enemy native down for herself (may or may not have cheered at that part!). She would not let her father assume she didn’t know what she was talking about when she voiced a politically and emotionally charged point of view that was all her own.
+**If a single character could determine whether or not the entire movie was a primary source representative of the 90s, then Mohicans was a fairly decent one due to the character of Cora.** Likely a combination of the writing and the acting, she encapsulated the tendencies of women of that time to forge their own path, maintain a level of independence, and have their knowledge valued in conversations, relations, and the workplace. She was very self-sufficient, always protecting her sister, and even shot the enemy native down for herself (may or may not have cheered at that part!). She would not let her father assume she didn’t know what she was talking about when she voiced a politically and emotionally charged point of view that was all her own.
-To have these great characteristics that were so reminiscent of womanhood in the 90s, it kind of bummed me out that in the end, she was ultimately just there to be the love interest as usual ... I guess that theme in entertainment is never quite going to go away. Even so, this was still the quote of the movie for me: “The decision i have come to is that i’d rather make the gravest of mistakes than to surrender my own judgement” … PREACH!  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/14 14:56//
+To have these great characteristics that were so reminiscent of womanhood in the 90s, **it kind of bummed me out that in the end, she was ultimately just there to be the love interest as usual** ... I guess that theme in entertainment is never quite going to go away. Even so, this was still the quote of the movie for me: “The decision i have come to is that i’d rather make the gravest of mistakes than to surrender my own judgement” … PREACH!  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/14 14:56//
-I think The Last of the Mohicans did a better portrayal of Natives than Pocahontas. There was more realistic conflict between the tribes as well as aspects of the French and Indian War relations. The movie wasn’t dumbed down or romanticized (or at least not nearly as much as Pocahontas). I think it was fairly accurate in terms of clothing, weaponry and tribal and neighborly relations. Although I’m not sure what audiences would learn from this, the movie seems to be a decent primary source from 1992. I think it was also less offensive than //Pocahontas//, where Smith’s men refer to Natives as “injuns.”  --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/14 16:31//
+I think The Last of the Mohicans did a better portrayal of Natives than Pocahontas. There was more realistic conflict between the tribes as well as aspects of the French and Indian War relations. The movie wasn’t dumbed down or romanticized (or at least not nearly as much as Pocahontas). I think it was fairly accurate in terms of clothing, weaponry and tribal and neighborly relations. Although I’m not sure what audiences would learn from this, the movie seems to be a decent primary source from 1992. **I think it was also less offensive than //Pocahontas//, where Smith’s men refer to Natives as “injuns.”**  --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/14 16:31//
-	There were definitely a lot of factors that were a product of the 1990’s rather than the 1700’s.  In the beginning of the movie, Cora was alone in the town square and then approached by Heyward, with whom both she and her sister were on a first name basis with. I realize that in the film, he was currently at a different fort, and couldn’t be present, but the fact remains that the two were speaking of marriage without her father present, as we’ve discussed that was most definitely a requirement. However, as Emily pointed out, despite Cora being portrayed as a strong and independent female, it was only to a certain point.  She turned down Heyward, wanting to find love, and she apparently did so with a man she knew for two, maybe three days at that point?  She eventually did become little more than a plot device, someone to be rescued. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/14 16:36//
+There were definitely a lot of factors that were a product of the 1990’s rather than the 1700’s.  In the beginning of the movie, Cora was alone in the town square and then approached by Heyward, with whom both she and her sister were on a first name basis with. I realize that in the film, he was currently at a different fort, and couldn’t be present, but the fact remains that the two were speaking of marriage without her father present, as we’ve discussed that was most definitely a requirement. However, as Emily pointed out, despite Cora being portrayed as a strong and independent female, it was only to a certain point.  She turned down Heyward, wanting to find love, and she apparently did so with a man she knew for two, maybe three days at that point?  She eventually did become little more than a plot device, someone to be rescued. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/14 16:36//
-When looking at this film you can tell that it is definitely a great picture of when it was made. Looking at the female roles, as Leah pointed out, really show third wave feminism in its peak. See how the Native Americans are better portrayed, but not completely accurate, shows the strides of better representation of Natives in film and main stream media.  --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/09/14 18:02//
+**When looking at this film you can tell that it is definitely a great picture of when it was made. Looking at the female roles, as Leah pointed out, really show third wave feminism in its peak. See how the Native Americans are better portrayed, but not completely accurate, shows the strides of better representation of Natives in film and main stream media**.  --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/09/14 18:02//
 Like others have written before me, the strong female roles act as a primary source for the feminist movement and the film also relatively succeeded in bettering the portrayal of Native Americans. While, it isn't perfect, it is better than Pocahontas or some other movies that I have seen. This shows a better recognition of the wrong/offensive portrayals of past movies and a striving to be more acurate.-Callie Morgan
-As mentioned before, the women in Last of the Mohicans (mostly Cora) shared similar roles to those of Pocahontas (which was mostly Pocahontas). They are independent-minded, but their arguments get them nowhere and they are forced to turn to their men for support and actual progress in the film. We can look at this as a reflection of the 1990s using "strong female leads" as purely that, without them adding anything to the plot itself. Also similar to Pocahontas, the only potential (happy) interracial couple in this movie was torn apart, to the point where Alice just kills herself with grief and anger. That scene was painful to watch, especially as Uncas' death not only fuels her suicide but becomes the final tipping point for Chingachgook to get into the action and enact his revenge on Magua, perpetuating the whole revenge-driven anger and hate in the movie's Native American characters. So the 90's were doing their best by including these women and relationships, but they didn't succeed in sustaining any of it.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/14 22:29//
+As mentioned before, the women in Last of the Mohicans (mostly Cora) shared similar roles to those of Pocahontas (which was mostly Pocahontas). They are independent-minded, but their arguments get them nowhere and they are forced to turn to their men for support and actual progress in the film. We can look at this as a reflection of the 1990s using "strong female leads" as purely that, without them adding anything to the plot itself. **Also similar to Pocahontas, the only potential (happy) interracial couple in this movie was torn apart, to the point where Alice just kills herself with grief and anger**. That scene was painful to watch, especially **as Uncas' death not only fuels her suicide but becomes the final tipping point for Chingachgook to get into the action and enact his revenge on Magua, perpetuating the whole revenge-driven anger and hate in the movie's Native American characters.** So the 90's were doing their best by including these women and relationships, but **they didn't succeed in sustaining any of it**.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/14 22:29//
-The film seems to have ran with the idea that the British military was filled with backstabbing supremacists that could not for the life of them comprehend why any of the colonists would not readily drop everything to defend the crown. It seems a tad strawman in a sense due to how single faceted this portrayal was, depicting the British military as the villains through and through. Yes, the French were attacking British forts and raiding Mohawk homesteads, but it was war. The film seems to almost brush aside the implication that the French possibly burnt a family alive inside a cabin. The British are portrayed as petty and nationalistic in a way that actually would seem extremely detrimental to maintaining a proper military. Major Duncan outright lies about the raided camp they found just to get back at Nathaniel for Cora having the hots for him. Major Duncan is so prideful as to be prepared to defend a single fort to the last man despite knowing that it would ultimately be completely pointless. And while this is historically accurate, the fact that they are wearing very bright red uniforms and marching in near single file seems completely idiotic when they know for a fact that the Natives utilize guerrilla tactics. --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/09/15 00:43//
+**The film seems to have ran with the idea that the British military was filled with backstabbing supremacists that could not for the life of them comprehend why any of the colonists would not readily drop everything to defend the crown. It seems a tad strawman in a sense due to how single faceted this portrayal was, depicting the British military as the villains through and through**. Yes, the French were attacking British forts and raiding Mohawk homesteads, but it was war. The film seems to almost brush aside the implication that the French possibly burnt a family alive inside a cabin. The British are portrayed as petty and nationalistic in a way that actually would seem extremely detrimental to maintaining a proper military. Major Duncan outright lies about the raided camp they found just to get back at Nathaniel for Cora having the hots for him. Major Duncan is so prideful as to be prepared to defend a single fort to the last man despite knowing that it would ultimately be completely pointless. **And while this is historically accurate, the fact that they are wearing very bright red uniforms and marching in near single file seems completely idiotic when they know for a fact that the Natives utilize guerrilla tactics.** --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/09/15 00:43//
 ====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ======
-When you compare the Native Americans in this film to how they are shown in the "World Turned Upside Down" reading, you get some contrasts. In the reading, the Native Americans are very diplomatic and negotiate things with each other and with the colonists and Europeans. Although at times they were violent, diplomacy seems to have played a large part in their lives during the French and Indian War. In the film, especially early on, the Native Americans seem to be just marauding around in the woods looking for trouble. There is also the case of Magua, who is a violence-driven, almost in-human man whose sole drive is revenge.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/09/14 10:59//
+**When you compare the Native Americans in this film to how they are shown in the "World Turned Upside Down" reading, you get some contrasts. In the reading, the Native Americans are very diplomatic and negotiate things with each other and with the colonists and Europeans. Although at times they were violent, diplomacy seems to have played a large part in their lives during the French and Indian War. In the film, especially early on, the Native Americans seem to be just marauding around in the woods looking for trouble.** There is also the case of Magua, who is a violence-driven, almost in-human man whose sole drive is revenge.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/09/14 10:59//
-“Indians in the Northeastern woodlands took captives to assuage the grief of bereaved relatives and appease the spirits of deceased kinsfolk. War parties ” (First Peoples). This was illustrated by the unquenchable vengeance of Magua against the Munro family, the orchestrated attack that surrounded them and the Brits on all sides so he could scalp and remove the heart of “the grey hair”, the subsequent movement to capture the girls, and his desire to offer them up in an “eye for an eye” sort of fashion. “When the United States held treaties with Indian tribes in the nineteenth century … commissioners often dictated terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power” (World Turned Upside Down). This definitely came through in the movie, especially illustrated in the tensions between Duncan and Hawkeye, and the refusal of Colonel Munro and Duncan to listen to what he, Chingachgook, and Uncas had to say about the realities of war.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/14 14:56//
+“Indians in the Northeastern woodlands took captives to assuage the grief of bereaved relatives and appease the spirits of deceased kinsfolk. War parties ” (First Peoples). This was illustrated by the unquenchable vengeance of Magua against the Munro family, the orchestrated attack that surrounded them and the Brits on all sides so he could scalp and remove the heart of “the grey hair”, the subsequent movement to capture the girls, and his desire to offer them up in an “eye for an eye” sort of fashion. **“When the United States held treaties with Indian tribes in the nineteenth century … commissioners often dictated terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power” (World Turned Upside Down). This definitely came through in the movie, especially illustrated in the tensions between Duncan and Hawkeye, and the refusal of Colonel Munro and Duncan to listen to what he, Chingachgook, and Uncas had to say about the realities of war.**  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/14 14:56//
-Reading “World Turned Upside Down” gave me the impression that the Native Americans were very civil, diplomatic and willing to negotiate.  As for how the Native Americans were portrayed in this movie, it depended on whether they’re the hero or the villain.  Nathaniel is brave, calm, and poetic, while Magua was set on revenge and was cold and emotionless.  I am willing to admit that the same could be said of nearly every Hollywood film out there, however.  The hero is calm and collected, and the villain is cruel and sadistic. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/14 16:36//
+**Reading “World Turned Upside Down” gave me the impression that the Native Americans were very civil, diplomatic and willing to negotiate.  As for how the Native Americans were portrayed in this movie, it depended on whether they’re the hero or the villain.**  Nathaniel is brave, calm, and poetic, while Magua was set on revenge and was cold and emotionless.  I am willing to admit that the same could be said of nearly every Hollywood film out there, however.  The hero is calm and collected, and the villain is cruel and sadistic. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/14 16:36//
-Comparing the experience of Susana with that of the youngest Munro sister, you see that in the movie the effect that the short time as a captive has on the little sister, Alice. Towards the end of the movie, she has seen so much death and violence that she seems just numb. The viewer also sees that when Duncan dies, his face is painted, the article mentions the paint of the face of the captured but places them in an empty role in their society rather than being burned alive. --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/09/14 7:30//
+**Comparing the experience of Susana with that of the youngest Munro sister, you see that in the movie the effect that the short time as a captive has on the little sister, Alice. Towards the end of the movie, she has seen so much death and violence that she seems just numb. The viewer also sees that when Duncan dies, his face is painted, the article mentions the paint of the face of the captured but places them in an empty role in their society rather than being burned alive**. --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/09/14 7:30//
 I like what Neal wrote above. The readings we had this week really focused on the diplomacy of various Native American tribes during this time period. This isn't seen in the same light in this movie. While I know that diplomacy wasn't the only avenue used in reality, neither was violence. - Callie Morgan
-As mentioned in “A Captive with the Algonkis,” children were “especially susceptible to adoptive ‘Indianization.’” Hawk Eye portrays what Indianization looks like on an adult colonist. He dresses, speaks, practices, and believes in the ways of his adopted family. I do, however, wonder if the dynamic between the adoptive father and son would have been as genuine as the one depicted in the film. Once captured, some colonists may have adapted well and decided to remain, but were they treated as though they weren’t Europeans?  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/09/14 22:02//
+**As mentioned in “A Captive with the Algonkis,” children were “especially susceptible to adoptive ‘Indianization.’” Hawk Eye portrays what Indianization looks like on an adult colonist.** He dresses, speaks, practices, and believes in the ways of his adopted family. **I do, however, wonder if the dynamic between the adoptive father and son would have been as genuine as the one depicted in the film. Once captured, some colonists may have adapted well and decided to remain, but were they treated as though they weren’t Europeans?**  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/09/14 22:02//
+I think it is interesting how the movie relates the ways captives were treated as shown in “A Captive with the Abenakis” article. **While the movie did show how captives were either adopted into the culture or killed, it doesn’t really go into detail of this is the reason why. The movie portrays these practices as the good ones adopt and the bad ones kill, when both tribes of Indians would do both.** Both the Huron and the Mohicans used these practices as a ritual to get back lost relatives, and I think the movie did good for showing that, but bad for not giving the full picture.  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/09/15 00:57//
+In comparing the film to the readings, I was able to take away (mostly) some similarities that I perceived as relevant but are certainly open to interpretation. **Calloway’s captivity narrative projects a common theme that colonists who settle in the “wilderness” maintain a general perception of Indians (typically negative) and tend to live in fear of their indigenous neighbors, regardless of tribal differences or belief structures. Elements of this fear can be seen following the opening scene of the film when a remotely located family is alarmed at the arrival of unexpected company until realizing it was their Mohican friends.** Once our main character (Nathaniel) explains his back story as the (white) adopted son of Chingachook, we are reminded of this cultural concept of family that goes beyond biology. As a child he is given a different name and introduced to a different way of life until assimilation becomes precedent as it was for the children mentioned in Susanna Johnson’s narrative. --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/15 06:21//
-I think it is interesting how the movie relates the ways captives were treated as shown in “A Captive with the Abenakis” article. While the movie did show how captives were either adopted into the culture or killed, it doesn’t really go into detail of this is the reason why. The movie portrays these practices as the good ones adopt and the bad ones kill, when both tribes of Indians would do both. Both the Huron and the Mohicans used these practices as a ritual to get back lost relatives, and I think the movie did good for showing that, but bad for not giving the full picture.  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/09/15 00:57//
 ====== 6 The "So, what?" question ======
-The ‘so what’ question, I think plays a bigger role in this movie than in other historical movies because we are facing a time in history that, to me, is not usually depicted. When it comes to the ‘so what’ in this case, I feel like we should look at ‘so what this movie isn’t 100% accurate, at least we finally have a somewhat decent movie that depicts the French and Indian War’. I feel like this is wrong for us to think about it, but I am also guilty in thinking this as well. So what they added a love story, at least they got the surrender of the fort right. So when asking ‘so what’ I feel like we can make the argument for ‘at least they did…’ because let’s face it, most of us probably glanced over this era in our history in high school and Hollywood is a reflection of that.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/09/13 21:35//
+//**The ‘so what’ question, I think plays a bigger role in this movie than in other historical movies because we are facing a time in history that, to me, is not usually depicted.**// When it comes to the ‘so what’ in this case, I feel like we should look at ‘so what this movie isn’t 100% accurate, at least we finally have a somewhat decent movie that depicts the French and Indian War’. I feel like this is wrong for us to think about it, but I am also guilty in thinking this as well. So what they added a love story, at least they got the surrender of the fort right. **So when asking ‘so what’ I feel like we can make the argument for ‘at least they did…’ because let’s face it, most of us probably glanced over this era in our history in high school and Hollywood is a reflection of that.**  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/09/13 21:35//
-Although this movie is not completely accurate, which as far as I know the movie does not claim to be historically accurate, I feel enough important facets of the French and Indian War are accurately portrayed for it to be thought of as an important representation of the French and Indian War. European-Native American relations, landscape, how different soldiers fought, and the surrender are just some of the important things that make this movie historically significant. I believe this film can be forgiven for having a fabricated plotline.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/09/14 10:53//
+Although this movie is not completely accurate, which as far as I know the movie does not claim to be historically accurate, **I feel enough important facets of the French and Indian War are accurately portrayed for it to be thought of as an important representation of the French and Indian War. European-Native American relations, landscape, how different soldiers fought, and the surrender are just some of the important things that make this movie historically significant. I believe this film can be forgiven for having a fabricated plotline.**  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/09/14 10:53//
-'So What' Daniel Day Lewis can dodge, dip and duck bullets.'So What' the movie is driven by a love story (this is hollywood). The movie was made and serves as a window to peer into the overarching history and time period of the mid eighteenth century. Does the movie have embellished and over exaggerated cinematography? Yes, but that is also what made this film open to such a wide audience. For a movie based on a movie, based on a book, based on an event that the author was never a part of does fairly well in portraying the environment and correlation between a three sided story.  --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/09/14 13:27//
+**'So What' Daniel Day Lewis can dodge, dip and duck bullets.'So What' the movie is driven by a love story (this is hollywood). The movie was made and serves as a window to peer into the overarching history and time period of the mid eighteenth century. Does the movie have embellished and over exaggerated cinematography? Yes, but that is also what made this film open to such a wide audience. For a movie based on a movie, based on a book, based on an event that the author was never a part of does fairly well in portraying the environment and correlation between a three sided story.**  --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/09/14 13:27//
-In continuing what I alluded to in the fourth question and thinking of the movie from a film POV more than a “piece of history” POV, the personal and romantic relations in the film made me think of how women are still frequently used in the same way in the entertainment industry as a plot device that often revolves around the trope of “damsel in distress” and/or “forlorn lover”, until of course the man comes and is the only thing to give her hope. In that way it makes a point about the history of storytelling and its traditions, from today back to the 90s and even all the way back time where the book version was the most widely enjoyed story of the day. There is a constant interest in a story based on love, but we still have a long way to go to continue creating more and more diverse categories of roles for the women that make up such an important part of these stories.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/14 14:57//
+**In continuing what I alluded to in the fourth question and thinking of the movie from a film POV more than a “piece of history” POV, the personal and romantic relations in the film made me think of how women are still frequently used in the same way in the entertainment industry as a plot device that often revolves around the trope of “damsel in distress” and/or “forlorn lover”, until of course the man comes and is the only thing to give her hope. In that way it makes a point about the history of storytelling and its traditions, from today back to the 90s and even all the way back time where the book version was the most widely enjoyed story of the day.** There is a constant interest in a story based on love, but we still have a long way to go to continue creating more and more diverse categories of roles for the women that make up such an important part of these stories.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/14 14:57//
-The main thing that really stuck out to me in this movie is the sound track. The amazing music that was used in this film really made it have impact. The plot and characters have their issues, but I can’t help but think it would of been worse without the sound track. The movie won awards, but not as much as the sound track and score did. This then makes me beg the question, does a film need a great sound track to make it a hit?  --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/09/14 18:08//
+The main thing that really stuck out to me in this movie is the sound track. The amazing music that was used in this film really made it have impact. **The plot and characters have their issues, but I can’t help but think it would of been worse without the sound track**. The movie won awards, but not as much as the sound track and score did. This then makes me beg the question, **does a film need a great sound track to make it a hit?**  --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/09/14 18:08//
 I think, despite being based on a book and a film that were already very inaccurate to begin, this film, accuracy wise, is very par-for-the-course, especially for a 1990s film. But what I really admire is its authenticity. By having its characters living in the moment, film does not betray itself. Had anyone else filmed this, you would probably have Natty Bumppo and company giving us some speech how “the white man is wrong” and “it’s bad to kill the Indians and take their land.” This film will have none of that. They are people from 1757, not people from 1991 in 1757 --- //[[jgaddie@mail.umw.edu|Gaddie Jason W.S.]] 2016/09/14 07:24PM//
 I agree with Anna, the score for this movie is amazing. You have moments, like the ending, where there is absolutely no dialog, and the music sets the tone for the entire scene, the intense fight and painful deaths. The movie has a theme or a leitmotif that plays in almost every intense running scene or fight scene. I have seen this movie before and the music gets me the most. I think the intensity of the situations, the war, the battles between tribes is all boosted by music. but can we say this for all?  --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/09/14 7:34//
-So What? So what if this movie depicted the French and Indian War correctly. So what if it was a good movie overall and at times depicted the struggle between rich and poor when it was discussed that the poor had to move to the frontier. So what if it got a lot right. It still depicted Native Americans, for the most part, as the antagonist and blood thirsty savages. When the readings suggested that they were mostly diplomatic and only resorted to violence when the English did so first. I think this movie relied too heavily on the notion that Native Americans were just rampaging through the wilderness.
+**So What? So what if this movie depicted the French and Indian War correctly. So what if it was a good movie overall and at times depicted the struggle between rich and poor when it was discussed that the poor had to move to the frontier. So what if it got a lot right. It still depicted Native Americans, for the most part, as the antagonist and blood thirsty savages. When the readings suggested that they were mostly diplomatic and only resorted to violence when the English did so first. I think this movie relied too heavily on the notion that Native Americans were just rampaging through the wilderness. -**-- //[[nhouff@mail.umw.edu|Houff Nicholas T.]] 2016/09/14 021:30PM//
---- //[[nhouff@mail.umw.edu|Houff Nicholas T.]] 2016/09/14 021:30PM//
-Is it realistic to expect Hollywood to make a movie that portrays whites as bad?  Why or why not? Would doing so alienate a majority of the audience?  --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/09/14 21:02//
+**Is it realistic to expect Hollywood to make a movie that portrays whites as bad?**  Why or why not? Would doing so alienate a majority of the audience?  --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/09/14 21:02//
-The part of the movie that really killed me, that really struck me in my "so what" heart, was Chingachgook's final speech. He delivers the title line, that he is the "last of the Mohicans", which is tragic to say the least. But then he goes on to predict that it's essentially the white man's turn to run the lands in which his people once resided, except he puts it in a way that sounds like it's the white man's job to do so, not just an inevitability of the future. This speech rubbed me the wrong way for a lot of reasons, the biggest of which being that he just accepts this as truth upon his son's death. That's it. "Oops, oh well," Chingachgook shrugs while wandering into the distance. It's like his character is willfully smudging out his own culture and people because the white people are here and it's their turn. These sort of scenes solidify the misconception that Native Americans are just gone, that they stopped being a thing after the colonies turned into the United States, after the last of the West was fenced off. These scenes in film and in history books snuff a culture that is so important to the narrative of this continent, and I don't think it's something Hollywood should get a pass on because they weren't aiming for historical accuracy.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/14 22:30//
+The part of the movie that really killed me, that really struck me in my "so what" heart, was Chingachgook's final speech. He delivers the title line, that he is the "last of the Mohicans", which is tragic to say the least. But then he goes on to predict that it's essentially the white man's turn to run the lands in which his people once resided, except he puts it in a way that sounds like it's the white man's job to do so, not just an inevitability of the future. This speech rubbed me the wrong way for a lot of reasons, the biggest of which being that he just accepts this as truth upon his son's death. That's it. "Oops, oh well," Chingachgook shrugs while wandering into the distance. **It's like his character is willfully smudging out his own culture and people because the white people are here and it's their turn. These sort of scenes solidify the misconception that Native Americans are just gone, that they stopped being a thing after the colonies turned into the United States, after the last of the West was fenced off. These scenes in film and in history books snuff a culture that is so important to the narrative of this continent, and I don't think it's something Hollywood should get a pass on because they weren't aiming for historical accuracy.**  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/14 22:30//