Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2018 [2018/09/18 09:49] – [The movie as a primary source of its time] jmcclurken
+++ 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2018 [2018/09/18 13:06] (current) – [Questions about interpretation] 76.78.227.37
@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 The movie got the landscape and background right, I mean in a oh that’s lovely to look at sort of way, the cinematography got a good bit of praise from reviewers...the historical accuracy of that...well they mainly filmed the movie in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, even though the story took place in upstate New York wilderness. Secret time, I couldn’t get into this movie, I watched it to the end and thought, welp that was a great historically inaccurate movie that was based off a novel that set the foundation for stereotypes that we are still dealing with today. I don’t know why I went into it so cynically. Maybe it’s my high dislike for Daniel Day-Lewis and his acting, I don’t know if he wronged me in a past life or what, but I’d prefer not to look at his face whenever possible. Perhaps I couldn’t get into it because of all the ridiculous wigs the British wore and therefore nothing they said or did seemed serious. I’m not entirely sure, my finger can’t be placed accurately. -Amiti Colson
+One thing I was pleasantly surprised by was the fact that nearly every major Native American role (with the obvious exception of Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal of Hawkeye) was played by an actor of Native American descent. Russell Means, the actor who played Chingachgook, also played Powhatan in //Pocahantas//, and was a prominent activist for Native American rights in his capacity as leader of the American Indian Movement.
+Source: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0575184/?ref_=nv_sr_1
+~Will Everett
 ====== Questions about interpretation ======
 **The movie, despite being about Native Americans and their adopted white counterpart, did not focus much on Native perspectives. The two men who traveled with Nathaniel had very few lines and were often left out of scenes, and the only Native with a significant impact on the story was Magua, who was evil and a "savage". I found it interesting that the "good natives" were dressed in more Western clothes and did not speak, while the "savages" wore traditional clothes, war paint, and spoke up for themselves. It seems like a way to emphasize that Native voices and cultures are not important. --Erin Shaw**
@@ Line 78: / Line 84: @@
 I found it interesting that the movie seemed to put so much emphasis on the idea of being American. Both the French and English were portrayed as harsh and tyrannical, fighting their European war on the American land of the colonists and Mohicans. The Huron tribe were made out to be monsters, murdering colonists. There were several points in the movie where characters questioned why they were expected to put their loyalty to the British crown's fight over their own families, and **by portraying the larger powers as not all that morally distinguishable from each other emphasized that to the audience I thin**k.--Sam Hartz
+The stereotype of 'Native American=good tracker' was alive and well in this film. The scene where Hawkeye, Chingachgook, and Uncas returned to the Cameron homestead, and were able to tell that those who burned the house were "one Iroquois and two Français" based solely upon one vague footprint in the dirt. However, since I have not read the original novel that this film is based on, I cannot say whether this is a fault which originates from the source material, or simply an addition to the film made to reinforce certain stereotypical characteristics of Native Americans. ~Will Everett
 ====== The movie as a primary source of its time ======