Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments [2016/09/15 10:29] – [6 The So, what? question] 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 62: / Line 63: @@
 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 ======
@@ Line 102: / Line 106: @@
 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//
 ====== 6 The "So, what?" question ======
@@ Line 110: / Line 117: @@
 **'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//
@@ Line 119: / Line 126: @@
 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//
-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 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//
-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//