Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments [2016/09/15 10:34] – 70.174.189.165
+++ 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 103: / Line 107: @@
 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 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//
+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 ======