| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2020 [2020/09/08 09:39] – [II.Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?] jmcclurken | 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2020 [2020/09/08 14:44] (current) – 141.156.184.184 |
|---|
| The movie works as a secondary source in that it does capture some of the broad strokes and complexities of the French and Indian War, specifically around the battle of Fort William Henry. **It provides a visual, though I'm certain not entirely accurate, of frontier life and also the warfare of the period through showing the siege of the Fort. While it still seems to make a clear villain in that of Moncalm and Magua, the movie does make some attempt at displaying the motivations and perspectives of multiple sides throughout the event.** It very clearly supports the perspective of the American colonists and **in the film lays the foundations for what will eventually be the American Revolution through the distrust and frustration of the New York colonists in the militia who want to protect their families but are prevented through threat of force**. It definitely **makes an effort to portray the difference in the Native American groups and their relations with the various European parties, but seems to paint the majority of them as the violent followers of Magua and other warring parties for the French, whereas the only "noble" or "honorable" Native Americans are basically led by Hawkeye (or Nathaniel) - a white captive raised by the Mohicans.** It is by no means a comprehensive or stand alone source, but paired with other historical sources, primary and secondary, can defintitely help to provide a better understanding of the conflict and what fighting may have looked like and to perhaps generate interest in further studying the war. As a standalone, **it presents a conflict in which the only noble or moral side really seems to be the American colonists who are just protecting their families and are caught in a conflict that is not their own (despite that it is partially their doing in the first place in the actual history) while the British forced them to sacrifice their families for the crown, the Native Americans just want blood and vengeance, and the French manipulate and backstab throughout.** Thus on its own, the film creates a very biased view of the conflict but paired with adequate research and recognition of its inaccuracies it could help students to better visualize what the fighting may have looked like at this period. - Ashley Dimino | The movie works as a secondary source in that it does capture some of the broad strokes and complexities of the French and Indian War, specifically around the battle of Fort William Henry. **It provides a visual, though I'm certain not entirely accurate, of frontier life and also the warfare of the period through showing the siege of the Fort. While it still seems to make a clear villain in that of Moncalm and Magua, the movie does make some attempt at displaying the motivations and perspectives of multiple sides throughout the event.** It very clearly supports the perspective of the American colonists and **in the film lays the foundations for what will eventually be the American Revolution through the distrust and frustration of the New York colonists in the militia who want to protect their families but are prevented through threat of force**. It definitely **makes an effort to portray the difference in the Native American groups and their relations with the various European parties, but seems to paint the majority of them as the violent followers of Magua and other warring parties for the French, whereas the only "noble" or "honorable" Native Americans are basically led by Hawkeye (or Nathaniel) - a white captive raised by the Mohicans.** It is by no means a comprehensive or stand alone source, but paired with other historical sources, primary and secondary, can defintitely help to provide a better understanding of the conflict and what fighting may have looked like and to perhaps generate interest in further studying the war. As a standalone, **it presents a conflict in which the only noble or moral side really seems to be the American colonists who are just protecting their families and are caught in a conflict that is not their own (despite that it is partially their doing in the first place in the actual history) while the British forced them to sacrifice their families for the crown, the Native Americans just want blood and vengeance, and the French manipulate and backstab throughout.** Thus on its own, the film creates a very biased view of the conflict but paired with adequate research and recognition of its inaccuracies it could help students to better visualize what the fighting may have looked like at this period. - Ashley Dimino |
| |
| **The film presents a fabricated story of romance with a historical backdrop showcasing the French and Indian war.** The film draws upon the historical record as it showcases the battle at fort Ticonderoga. The benevolent French terms for British surrender, the prevalent use of Indians by the French in Canada, and the Indian attack on the retreating British forces. The costumes utilized in the film seemed rather accurate for the period overall. The assault on British troops in the beginning of the film highlighted a major difference between the Indian guerrilla tactics and the British traditional fire lines. **The fading away of the Mohicans also seemed to be used to indicate the plight of the Indians as the Mohicans’ involvement in the conflict literally resulted in the son dying.** The film does a decent job showing the period even if its plot is far from based on any records. The use of the film as a secondary source would be inadvisable if one would seek to rely on any aspect of the film despite the visual elements and basic concept of the battle at Ticonderoga. The characters and events have been crafted to build a story that looks historical while not really being usable to better understand the past. –Robert Keitz | **The film presents a fabricated story of romance with a historical backdrop showcasing the French and Indian war.** The film draws upon the historical record as it showcases the battle at fort William and Henry. The benevolent French terms for British surrender, the prevalent use of Indians by the French in Canada, and the Indian attack on the retreating British forces. The costumes utilized in the film seemed rather accurate for the period overall. The assault on British troops in the beginning of the film highlighted a major difference between the Indian guerrilla tactics and the British traditional fire lines. **The fading away of the Mohicans also seemed to be used to indicate the plight of the Indians as the Mohicans’ involvement in the conflict literally resulted in the son dying.** The film does a decent job showing the period even if its plot is far from based on any records. The use of the film as a secondary source would be inadvisable if one would seek to rely on any aspect of the film despite the visual elements and basic concept of the battle at the fort. The characters and events have been crafted to build a story that looks historical while not really being usable to better understand the past. |
| | –Robert Keitz |
| |
| The Last of the Mohicans did a decent job of making a fictional story set to a historically accurate backdrop. ** There were obvious Hollywood moments, such as the (miraculously rapid) love story of Hawkeye and Cara,** but they were balanced by moments of accurate historical conflict. **The concept of British/French warfare was a bit exaggerated as during the first attack the British are seen lining up to fire into the woods. However, this did convey that they were in a foreign place completely unprepared in a creative light. ** The alliance between the Natives and England/France was overall accurate though the Huron were clearly portrayed as the “more savage” Natives and the few remaining Mohawk as best friends with white people. The biggest flaws were done in sacrifice to plot and audience as scenes such as the final Mohawk being Chingachgook who had just lost his only son. One scene that particularly interested me was when we saw the murder scene of the colonist’s family. It is noted that nothing was taken including clothing, which implied that it was not the act of Natives. I don’t believe this really comes up again apart from when Hawkeye tries to tell Munro that colonists are at risk, but it is interesting because it shows that the French could be disguising their ambushes on “innocent” (they are still invaders) colonists by making it appear to be that of Natives. -- Janis Shurtleff | The Last of the Mohicans did a decent job of making a fictional story set to a historically accurate backdrop. ** There were obvious Hollywood moments, such as the (miraculously rapid) love story of Hawkeye and Cara,** but they were balanced by moments of accurate historical conflict. **The concept of British/French warfare was a bit exaggerated as during the first attack the British are seen lining up to fire into the woods. However, this did convey that they were in a foreign place completely unprepared in a creative light. ** The alliance between the Natives and England/France was overall accurate though the Huron were clearly portrayed as the “more savage” Natives and the few remaining Mohawk as best friends with white people. The biggest flaws were done in sacrifice to plot and audience as scenes such as the final Mohawk being Chingachgook who had just lost his only son. One scene that particularly interested me was when we saw the murder scene of the colonist’s family. It is noted that nothing was taken including clothing, which implied that it was not the act of Natives. I don’t believe this really comes up again apart from when Hawkeye tries to tell Munro that colonists are at risk, but it is interesting because it shows that the French could be disguising their ambushes on “innocent” (they are still invaders) colonists by making it appear to be that of Natives. -- Janis Shurtleff |
| |
| | The Last of the Mohicans did a good job of depicting frontier life. Although not all of the characters were real people, the movie was based on a book and still did a good job of developing the characters that they used. In many movies depicting Native Americans, Native Americans end up being a trope, we don't get to see them fighting back, but we see them being docile and fine with their world collapsing around them. I think it was good to see a movie that focused on the fact that Native Americans cared about their land and fought for their interests, because so often in Hollywood they like to skip over that part of history. --Helen Dhue |
| |
| ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== | ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== |
| Steele, Ian K. "Suppressed Official British Report of the Siege and "Massacre" at Fort William Henry, 1757." Huntington Library Quarterly 55, no. 2 (1992): 339-52. - Wilson LeCount | Steele, Ian K. "Suppressed Official British Report of the Siege and "Massacre" at Fort William Henry, 1757." Huntington Library Quarterly 55, no. 2 (1992): 339-52. - Wilson LeCount |
| ====== III. How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ====== | ====== III. How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ====== |
| | The film deviates away from scholarly sources and from historical accuracy in general by adding several characters and events that did not exist at the time, including Colonel Monro's daughters and Nathaniel Bummpo. The manner in which Colonel Monro dies is also a deviation from scholarly sources, as according to most accounts the Colonel died in Albany following the massacre after the Siege of Fort William Henry, and was not killed by any Native named Magua or had his heart cut out. ---- AJ DeGeorge |
| | |
| |
| ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the 1990s or the filmmakers? ====== | ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the 1990s or the filmmakers? ====== |
| //The Last of the Mohicans// would work well as a primary source about the 1990s. The overall portrayal of Native Americans is something to compare across many film categories. The film depicts the main characters as "lone wolves" on the hunt for protecting their own well-being. The Mohicans don't side with anyone in particular, unless they feel that the actions are unneccesary. I think that this is an interesting depiction of Native Americans, as we saw similar strategies in the //Pocahontas// film. Using this as a primary source for filmmakers is a great way to analyze how Hollywood portrayed the "Superman" Native Americans in society, against the scalp-tearers of Magua.Overall, I think this film is a great primary source to see these differences as the years go by. --Tara Scroggins | //The Last of the Mohicans// would work well as a primary source about the 1990s. The overall portrayal of Native Americans is something to compare across many film categories. The film depicts the main characters as "lone wolves" on the hunt for protecting their own well-being. The Mohicans don't side with anyone in particular, unless they feel that the actions are unneccesary. I think that this is an interesting depiction of Native Americans, as we saw similar strategies in the //Pocahontas// film. Using this as a primary source for filmmakers is a great way to analyze how Hollywood portrayed the "Superman" Native Americans in society, against the scalp-tearers of Magua.Overall, I think this film is a great primary source to see these differences as the years go by. --Tara Scroggins |
| | |
| Well… this doesn't just apply to the 1990s, but we were talking about tropes earlier in class. I couldn’t help but notice a few that are peculiar to movies depicting early America. For instance, there's the arrogant, half-whited British guy stereotype, as if it’s not easy enough to make British imperialists the "bad guys." | **Well… this doesn't just apply to the 1990s, but we were talking about tropes earlier in class. I couldn’t help but notice a few that are peculiar to movies depicting early America. For instance, there's the arrogant, half-whited British guy stereotype, as if it’s not easy enough to make British imperialists the "bad guys.**" There is also a lot of **stereotypical "ragged frontiersmen" material culture among the extras: the old-timey-times boondocks men and women are portrayed in filthy, ill-fitting, ragged clothes apparently to make them seem more "rough-and-tumble,"** despite the fact that numerous historians have noted that various manufactured goods, especially textiles, were quite accessible even on the fringes of the British empire. But it seems that filmmakers can't wrap their minds around "backcountry" folks dressed largely the same as other Europeans of the time, with occasional stylistic exceptions. It just wouldn't fit the image of Daniel Bones and Davie Crockets living entirely off the land as they scratch an existence out of the wild and isolated forest. Again, the film is a good example of historical tropes perpetrated by filmmakers, novelists, storytellers, etc. in recent decades. |
| | |
| There is also a lot of stereotypical "ragged frontiersmen" material culture among the extras: the old-timey-times boondocks men and women are portrayed in filthy, ill-fitting, ragged clothes apparently to make them seem more "rough-and-tumble," despite the fact that numerous historians have noted that various manufactured goods, especially textiles, were quite accessible even on the fringes of the British empire. But it seems that filmmakers can't wrap their minds around "backcountry" folks dressed largely the same as other Europeans of the time, with occasional stylistic exceptions. It just wouldn't fit the image of Daniel Bones and Davie Crockets living entirely off the land as they scratch an existence out of the wild and isolated forest. Again, the film is a good example of historical tropes perpetrated by filmmakers, novelists, storytellers, etc. in recent decades. | |
| |
| Sources: | Sources: |
| //Buying Into the World of Goods// by Ann Smart Martin | //Buying Into the World of Goods// by Ann Smart Martin |
| |
| //The Texture of Contact: European and Indian Settler Communities on the Frontiers of Iroquoia, 1667–1783// by David L. Preston | **//The Texture of Contact: European and Indian Settler Communities on the Frontiers of Iroquoia, 1667–1783// by David L. Preston** |
| | |
| Similar to Pocahontas, this film indicates a shifting perspective as Native Americans are portrayed in a more positive light. They are not depicted as they have been in the past in terribly racist ways. The main support for this is that in the movie, The protagonist and the side that you are rooting for is a group of Native Americans. The viewer is roped into wanting the Mohicans to achieve their goals. Also, the Natives are not a side piece in the movie. They are not simply characters who are on the side to advance the plot. They are the main characters. They drive the main storyline. The way in which the Natives appear in the film demonstrates a less racist and more correct historical account. The time period it was released indicates an account of history that gives a glimpse of how influential the Natives were instead of simply depicting them as they have been in the past. -Daniel Walker | |
| |
| --Ethan K. | --Ethan K. |
| |
| I think the film works somewhat well as a primary source about 1990s film making, especially with films depicting Native Americans. For the most part, it portrays the natives as the protagonists (not including Magua), and it is not the first film in the 1990s to do so. While eurocentrism is more prevalent in the 1995 animated //Pocahontas// film, there is still the portrayal of the arrogant British soldier/colonist in //The Last of the Mohicans//. Furthermore, the film pushes a relationship between a white individual and one who is or was raised by Native Americans. Films like //Pocahontas// and //Dances with Wolves// do this as well, and I think the reason behind this focal point on the relationship between these characters is a way to get people in the seats; it is a way to draw people in to watch the movie. -- Jordan Petty | |
| |
| I read an article from a Washington Post film critic from 1992 where they spoke about two movies that came before the Last of the Mohicans: //Dances with Wolves// (1990) and //Black Robe// (1991.) These two films look at Native Americans from two separate extremes, one taking the super friendly, helpful, almost child-like stereotype. The other, the bloodthirsty, willing to fight anything that moves stereotype. At the time, //the Last of the Mohicans// was considered a happy medium between the two, for showing that not all Native American tribes operated in the same way but had different cultures and experiences. (Although that is definitely NOT the main point of the film.) In particular, the article points out that Chingachgook, Nathaniel’s father, was played by Native American movement leader Russell Means, which was considered a very big deal. Despite how awesome that is, the main poster for the film is still Daniel Day-Lewis with his long flowing hair in a golden glow. The last of the Mohican tribe: the white man. From the poster alone, this movie isn’t necessarily trying to sell historical accuracy, they’re trying to sell a romance through a historical avenue. Which it did very successfully, considering the film made $75.5 million at the box office, and won an academy award for sound. | **Similar to Pocahontas, this film indicates a shifting perspective as Native Americans are portrayed in a more positive light. They are not depicted as they have been in the past in terribly racist ways. The main support for this is that in the movie, The protagonist and the side that you are rooting for is a group of Native Americans. The viewer is roped into wanting the Mohicans to achieve their goals. Also, the Natives are not a side piece in the movie. They are not simply characters who are on the side to advance the plot. They are the main characters. They drive the main storyline. The way in which the Natives appear in the film demonstrates a less racist and more correct historical account. The time period it was released indicates an account of history that gives a glimpse of how influential the Natives were instead of simply depicting them as they have been in the past.** -Daniel Walker |
| | |
| | |
| | I think the film works somewhat well as a primary source about 1990s film making, especially with films depicting Native Americans. **For the most part, it portrays the natives as the protagonists (not including Magua), and it is not the first film in the 1990s to do so.** While eurocentrism is more prevalent in the 1995 animated //Pocahontas// film, there is still the portrayal of the arrogant British soldier/colonist in //The Last of the Mohicans//. Furthermore, the film pushes a relationship between a white individual and one who is or was raised by Native Americans. Films like //Pocahontas// and //Dances with Wolves// do this as well, and I think the reason behind this focal point on the relationship between these characters is a way to get people in the seats; it is a way to draw people in to watch the movie. -- Jordan Petty |
| | |
| | **I read an article from a Washington Post film critic from 1992 where they spoke about two movies that came before the Last of the Mohicans: //Dances with Wolves// (1990) and //Black Robe// (1991.) These two films look at Native Americans from two separate extremes, one taking the super friendly, helpful, almost child-like stereotype. The other, the bloodthirsty, willing to fight anything that moves stereotype. At the time, //the Last of the Mohicans// was considered a happy medium between the two, for showing that not all Native American tribes operated in the same way but had different cultures and experiences. (Although that is definitely NOT the main point of the film.) In particular, the article points out that Chingachgook, Nathaniel’s father, was played by Native American movement leader Russell Means, which was considered a very big deal.** Despite how awesome that is, the main poster for the film is **still Daniel Day-Lewis with his long flowing hair in a golden glow. The last of the Mohican tribe: the white man. From the poster alone, this movie isn’t necessarily trying to sell historical accuracy, they’re trying to sell a romance through a historical avenue. W**hich it did very successfully, considering the film made $75.5 million at the box office, and won an academy award for sound. |
| |
| Source: ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ by Rita Kempley. Washington Post Staff Writer. September 25, 1992. | Source: ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ by Rita Kempley. Washington Post Staff Writer. September 25, 1992. |
| --Cat Kinde | --Cat Kinde |
| |
| Of course, the unnecessary romance (and sex scene? I couldn’t tell what was going on? It was so dark?) is typical of Hollywood. The thought that no one would want to watch a historical film if there was no romance is the same one that Disney faced at this time, and with plenty of other movies around the time. Shakespeare in Love (1998), Mulan (1998), and Titanic (1997) do the exact same thing. However, I do give the directors and producers credit for having all of the native characters played by native actors. -Madison Roberts | **Of course, the unnecessary romance (and sex scene? I couldn’t tell what was going on? It was so dark?) is typical of Hollywood. The thought that no one would want to watch a historical film if there was no romance is the same one that Disney faced at this time, and with plenty of other movies around the time. Shakespeare in Love (1998), Mulan (1998), and Titanic (1997) do the exact same thing. However, I do give the directors and producers credit for having all of the native characters played by native actors.** -Madison Roberts |
| |
| Just like Pocahontas this movie is heavily romanticized, and almost predictably so. Once Cora was first introduced you knew immediately she would be his main love interest. While doing a little background research I found an article from 1992, about a historian reacting to the movie. In the beginning of the article there was an interesting line about how the depiction of Native Americans in movies has been changing. It stated, "Hollywood no longer makes Indian characters utter such hokum as “me smokee peace pipe.” American Indians are now cast in Indian roles, and the white man is not necessarily the good guy.". This line is kind of interesting because it isn't entirely wrong but the main good guy in this movie was still a white guy who was raised by Native Americans. This movie and another 1990s movie "Dances with Wolves"(1990) almost sort of fetishized(if thats the right word) the white man who becomes assimilated with the Native Americans. | Just like Pocahontas this movie is heavily romanticized, and almost predictably so. Once Cora was first introduced you knew immediately she would be his main love interest. While doing a little background research I found an article from 1992, about a historian reacting to the movie. I**n the beginning of the article there was an interesting line about how the depiction of Native Americans in movies has been changing. It stated, "Hollywood no longer makes Indian characters utter such hokum as “me smokee peace pipe.” American Indians are now cast in Indian roles, and the white man is not necessarily the good guy.". This line is kind of interesting because it isn't entirely wrong but the main good guy in this movie was still a white guy who was raised by Native Americans. This movie and another 1990s movie "Dances with Wolves"(1990) almost sort of fetishized(if thats the right word) the white man who becomes assimilated with the Native Americans.** |
| |
| Reference: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-10-ca-753-story.html | Reference: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-10-ca-753-story.html |
| |
| I think this film could work as a primary source for the 1990s and the film making being done at the time. The acting and technology is comparable with other movies from the 90s as well as the subject matter and the way that it was handled. The movie tracks well with other movies of similar genre such as Dances with Wolves and even Pocahontas (even though that was Disney), which were made in the 90s as well. The Native American attitudes and actions are similar to that of other movies, as well as the relationship between the white men and the indians. Another staple of the 90s movies is the love interest, you know immediately who the couple is going to be and they have a minor disagreement at their very first meeting, after that they have an immediate connection which usually leans to a sudden intense sex (or almost sex) scene that is lit in a way to only allow silhouettes of movement to be seen. These are some very telling attributes of 90s movies, especially historical or historical fiction films and this movie displays most if not all of these and others so it can definitely be cited as a primary source for 90s movies. - Kimberly Sak | I think this film could work as a primary source for the 1990s and the film making being done at the time. The acting and technology is comparable with other movies from the 90s as well as the subject matter and the way that it was handled. The movie tracks well with other movies of similar genre such as Dances with Wolves and even Pocahontas (even though that was Disney), which were made in the 90s as well. The Native American attitudes and actions are similar to that of other movies, as well as the relationship between the white men and the indians. **Another staple of the 90s movies is the love interest, you know immediately who the couple is going to be and they have a minor disagreement at their very first meeting, after that they have an immediate connection which usually leans to a sudden intense sex (or almost sex) scene that is lit in a way to only allow silhouettes of movement to be seen. These are some very telling attributes of 90s movies, especially historical or historical fiction films and this movie displays most if not all of these and others so it can definitely be cited as a primary source for 90s movies.** - Kimberly Sak |
| |
| I think that this movie would be a good source about the 1990s and filmmaking. I think that it explains how the filmmakers portrayed certain portions of history. It could also be a good source to explain how Native Americans were portrayed through film, as well as the British, and war. The film also shows that way that many filmmakers tend to take historical events and add an element of romance into the film. -- Mariah Morton | I think that this movie would be a good source about the 1990s and filmmaking. I think that it explains how the filmmakers portrayed certain portions of history. It could also be a good source to explain how Native Americans were portrayed through film, as well as the British, and war. The film also shows that way that many filmmakers tend to take historical events and add an element of romance into the film. -- Mariah Morton |
| |
| I think this movie serves as a primary source of the 1990’s in the way it treats Native Americans. There is the white savior complex which sort of continues to be portrayed here through Daniel Day Lewis’ character. But the fact that most of the Native American characters were actually played by Native Americans and portrayed them as these complex individuals who weren’t just savages, shows the changing of culture during the late 1900’s. I feel like this movie also acts like a primary source for the filmmaker, because looking into it the director and writer of this film, Michael Mann, is known for making crime drama movies. Looking more into his works, Mann tends to have characters who are usually criminals or cops, and every character, good or bad, is shown as complex and as someone who has their own code of values that they follow. This is reflected in this film with how every side, deeply believes in their cause and the reasoning behind their own actions. -Purnaja Podduturi | I think this movie serves as a primary source of the 1990’s in the way it treats Native Americans. **There is the white savior complex which sort of continues to be portrayed here through Daniel Day Lewis’ character. But the fact that most of the Native American characters were actually played by Native Americans and portrayed them as these complex individuals who weren’t just savages, shows the changing of culture during the late 1900’s.** I feel like this movie also acts like a primary source for the filmmaker, **because looking into it the director and writer of this film, Michael Mann, is known for making crime drama movies. Looking more into his works, Mann tends to have characters who are usually criminals or cops, and every character, good or bad, is shown as complex and as someone who has their own code of values that they follow. This is reflected in this film with how every side, deeply believes in their cause and the reasoning behind their own actions**. -Purnaja Podduturi |
| | |
| | This film would make an excellent source for a study in film making, the nineties and casting. **By the nineties Hollywood was being to get drilled for their history of whitewashing. I believe there was real intention to make the casting of this film authentic, as Native Americans were finally getting the roles of Native Americans (how progressive). However, the storylines of the white characters versus those of the Natives was grossly contrasted.** I have not read the book or seen other adaptions of it, so I suppose I will give some leeway in that there was already a story written that needed to be followed. Yet this storyline was made for a particular audience and therefore is full of Hollywood tropes and flaws. The concept of two white people falling in love and ultimately surviving to presumably be together is completely insensitive to the backdrop of Natives, and colonists, being brutally killed. There is also a sense of “otherness” as the Natives are seen as “savages” and the whites as misguided foreigners. **The scene of Magua literally ripping out Munro’s heart was not necessary in anything other than making his character “really scary”.** I do think this film would be interesting to compare with the earlier adaptions to see how far Hollywood had evolved, but it still has some of the old flaws. -- Janis Shurtleff |
| |
| This film would make an excellent source for a study in film making, the nineties and casting. By the nineties Hollywood was being to get drilled for their history of whitewashing. I believe there was real intention to make the casting of this film authentic, as Native Americans were finally getting the roles of Native Americans (how progressive). However, the storylines of the white characters versus those of the Natives was grossly contrasted. I have not read the book or seen other adaptions of it, so I suppose I will give some leeway in that there was already a story written that needed to be followed. Yet this storyline was made for a particular audience and therefore is full of Hollywood tropes and flaws. The concept of two white people falling in love and ultimately surviving to presumably be together is completely insensitive to the backdrop of Natives, and colonists, being brutally killed. There is also a sense of “otherness” as the Natives are seen as “savages” and the whites as misguided foreigners. The scene of Magua literally ripping out Munro’s heart was not necessary in anything other than making his character “really scary”. I do think this film would be interesting to compare with the earlier adaptions to see how far Hollywood had evolved, but it still has some of the old flaws. -- Janis Shurtleff | I thought this film handled history better than Pocahontas, though it still had its flaws. I think what was good about "The Last of the Mohicans" was that it gave Native Americans more autonomy than many other films, often films reflect the stereotype that Native Americans let settlers just come in and take their land, but in this movie, we got to see the fight and we got to see Native Americans looking out for their own interests. Although I know the movie is based on a book, I did find it interesting that Hollywood decided to show the Native perspective mainly through a white guy, which I don't think would go over well today. --Helen Dhue |
| |
| ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== |
| |
| This isn't exactly a "so what?" question, more of a random comment I didn't know where to put. I noticed that Chingachgook was played by Russell Means who also voiced Chief Powhatan in Pocahontas. Along with him in the movies there was the actor Wes Studi who portrayed Magua and also had a prominent role in the movie "Dances with Wolves"(1990). Taking into consideration that both of these actors have played multiple roles of Native Americans from multiple different tribes that are apart from their own ancestry. Is there ever any push back from Native American actors on playing roles in which they have to be a part of a tribe that may have been historically an enemy to their ancestors? - Dan Dilks | **This isn't exactly a "so what?" question, more of a random comment I didn't know where to put. I noticed that Chingachgook was played by Russell Means who also voiced Chief Powhatan in Pocahontas. Along with him in the movies there was the actor Wes Studi who portrayed Magua and also had a prominent role in the movie "Dances with Wolves"(1990). Taking into consideration that both of these actors have played multiple roles of Native Americans from multiple different tribes that are apart from their own ancestry. Is there ever any push back from Native American actors on playing roles in which they have to be a part of a tribe that may have been historically an enemy to their ancestors?** - Dan Dilks |
| |
| This movie is important because it portrays Native Americans as a humanized, powerful people. Oftentimes in past depictions of Native Americans, they are portrayed as victims who can do nothing to help themselves. The YouTube video I linked says it best when they say Natives are often “helpless victims” in cinema. The difference is, in this movie, they are not. They are able to overpower British forces with muskets and ambushes. They use their intellect and strength to win their fights. Natives are not portrayed as helpless through their ability to help themselves in the movie. This depiction is important because too often are people’s views of Natives negatively influenced by media. In this case, viewers can see how powerful they were. -Daniel Walker | This movie is important because it portrays Native Americans as a humanized, powerful people. Oftentimes in past depictions of Native Americans, they are portrayed as victims who can do nothing to help themselves. The YouTube video I linked says it best when they say Natives are often “helpless victims” in cinema. The difference is, in this movie, they are not. They are able to overpower British forces with muskets and ambushes. They use their intellect and strength to win their fights. **Natives are not portrayed as helpless through their ability to help themselves in the movie. This depiction is important because too often are people’s views of Natives negatively influenced by media. In this case, viewers can see how powerful they were.** -Daniel Walker |
| reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNp5ynjZmfk | reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNp5ynjZmfk |
| |
| The analysis of this movie is important because it characterizes the view of the historical event in the year it came out, 1992, as well as the social ideals of 1992 itself. Largely, we have to accept or realize that again, this film was a financial venture for producer Micheal Mann and main character Daniel Day-Lewis. This is largely displayed by the fact that despite Lewis’ character, Hawkeye, not actually being the last Mohican Native American but rather his adopted step-father, Hawkeye is on the front cover of the movie. Daniel Day-Lewis’s picture on the cover of the movie is meant to make it more appealing and therefore sell better. The inclusion of the romance story-line as described above, also displays that the 1990s were largely characterized by drama and romantic movie plots, yet another display of the monetary motivation for the creation of this movie. The movie was not geared towards being as historically accurate as possible, but rather to get the largest audience interested and intrigued enough to watch the movie. This movie also somewhat perpetuates the ideas and stereotypes that Native Americans were more “savage” then colonists of the time and the British were often arrogant and pompous, which in the eyes of many Americans those ideas appear to be historically accurate whether they are or not. This movie doesn’t serve to educate the public or challenge a narrative, instead it really only serves to make the producer and actors money based on a historical event that many Americans know little about. This movie also serves as an example of how the classic, lone, American hero with their own ideals character, originally created by James Fenimore Cooper in his book //The Last of the Mohicans//, is still perpetuated and retold today. | **The analysis of this movie is important because it characterizes the view of the historical event in the year it came out, 1992, as well as the social ideals of 1992 itself. Largely, we have to accept or realize that again, this film was a financial venture for producer Micheal Mann and main character Daniel Day-Lewis.** This is largely displayed by the fact that despite Lewis’ character, Hawkeye, not actually being the last Mohican Native American but rather his adopted step-father, Hawkeye is on the front cover of the movie. Daniel Day-Lewis’s picture on the cover of the movie is meant to make it more appealing and therefore sell better. The inclusion of the romance story-line as described above, also displays that the 1990s were largely characterized by drama and romantic movie plots, yet another display of the monetary motivation for the creation of this movie. The movie was not geared towards being as historically accurate as possible, but rather to get the largest audience interested and intrigued enough to watch the movie. This movie also somewhat perpetuates the ideas and stereotypes that Native Americans were more “savage” then colonists of the time and the British were often arrogant and pompous, which in the eyes of many Americans those ideas appear to be historically accurate whether they are or not. This movie doesn’t serve to educate the public or challenge a narrative, instead it really only serves to make the producer and actors money based on a historical event that many Americans know little about. T**his movie also serves as an example of how the classic, lone, American hero with their own ideals character, originally created by James Fenimore Cooper in his book //The Last of the Mohicans//, is still perpetuated and retold today.** |
| -Morgan Gilbert | -Morgan Gilbert |
| |
| I think this movie should be considered when looking at historical portrayals of Native Americans, as it does show a definite improvement from films past in portraying some of the complexities of diplomacy, relations, and fighting that the various groups had with the French, British, and amongst themselves. It does make an effort to show some various Native American cultures and how different cultures treated captives, and though one of the most prominent antagonists of the movie is an extremely violent Native American, Madua, seeking vengeance for his children killed at the hands of the British, the film is clear to show that no participant of the violence acted without motive of some form, not simply blind violence. All participants, Native American characters included, had complex motivations and decisions, with less of a two-dimensional story than many films prior gave them. It isn't a great movie, and it still gives a lot of bias and favor towards the Americans and ignores the debate over British claims that Montcalm encouraged his Indian forces to attack. However, the film does make an effort to provide more of a story and a voice for the Native American characters and that is something to consider in comparison to older films that portray Native American characters. - Ashley Dimino | I think this movie should be considered when looking at historical portrayals of Native Americans, as it does show a definite improvement from films past in portraying some of the complexities of diplomacy, relations, and fighting that the various groups had with the French, British, and amongst themselves. It does make an effort to show some various Native American cultures and how different cultures treated captives, and though one of the most prominent antagonists of the movie is an extremely violent Native American, Madua, seeking vengeance for his children killed at the hands of the British, the film is clear to show that no participant of the violence acted without motive of some form, not simply blind violence. All participants, Native American characters included, had complex motivations and decisions, with less of a two-dimensional story than many films prior gave them. It isn't a great movie, and it still gives a lot of bias and favor towards the Americans and ignores the debate over British claims that Montcalm encouraged his Indian forces to attack. However, the film does make an effort to provide more of a story and a voice for the Native American characters and that is something to consider in comparison to older films that portray Native American characters. - Ashley Dimino |
| |
| This movie and critique of it is important because it provides an eye-opening perspective on what was happening during the French and Indian War. The film isn’t completely accurate, with its white main character, romance between a Native American and white woman, and other historical inaccuracies that were ignored for entertainment. Despite this, the movie gives some important insight into the interpersonal relationships between the colonists, British officers, and the Native Americans. These relationships were simplified to be able to be understood in a two-hour movie, but they displayed complexities in each character and side. It shows more nuances in the relationships among each side than other movies with Native Americans, which allows for a less harmful portrayal. -Purnaja Podduturi | **This movie and critique of it is important because it provides an eye-opening perspective on what was happening during the French and Indian War. The film isn’t completely accurate, with its white main character, romance between a Native American and white woman, and other historical inaccuracies that were ignored for entertainment. Despite this, the movie gives some important insight into the interpersonal relationships between the colonists, British officers, and the Native Americans.** These relationships were simplified to be able to be understood in a two-hour movie, but they displayed complexities in each character and side. It shows more nuances in the relationships among each side than other movies with Native Americans, which allows for a less harmful portrayal. -Purnaja Podduturi |
| |
| The “so, what” question can refer to why the movie was important. In my opinion, this movie is important because there aren't many films in the French and Indian War. In fact, most films based on this time period are about the American Revolution. Also, this movie is important because it is based on a book that was published in 1826 and a movie that was made in 1936. The significance comes in looking at the different ways in which a story rooted in history can be told. Also, this movie is important because it provides a decent amount of historical context into this period, even though there's romance involved. Also, as Ethan pointed out above, the movie provides a visual into military tactics that were used at the siege of Fort William Henry. -Megan Williams | The “so, what” question can refer to why the movie was important.** In my opinion, this movie is important because there aren't many films in the French and Indian War. In fact, most films based on this time period are about the American Revolution. Also, this movie is important because it is based on a book that was published in 1826 and a movie that was made in 1936. The significance comes in looking at the different ways in which a story rooted in history can be told. Also, this movie is important because it provides a decent amount of historical context into this period, even though there's romance involved. Also, as Ethan pointed out above, the movie provides a visual into military tactics that were used at the siege of Fort William Henry.** -Megan Williams |
| |
| The French and Indian war or Seven Years war, as it is better known to be a part of, is a rather understudied war despite its importance in American history. The conflict was conducted in Europe, North America, the Caribbean, and India. The costs of the war drained the British treasury, as most wars do, and forced them to seek new means of revenue. Individuals, such as George Washington, were able to acquire military experience serving under the British which would later aid in the Revolutionary war. Interest in the French and Indian war does not have a popular interest in American history, as such the decision to make a film surrounding this period of our history is rather important because it does both showcase and stir up interest into the French and Indian war. Additionally, the portrayal of the Indians within the film was rather accurate with their existence on both sides of the war, as aggressors, saviors, and a people fading away because of the European conflict. –Robert Keitz | **The French and Indian war or Seven Years war, as it is better known to be a part of, is a rather understudied war despite its importance in American history.** The conflict was conducted in Europe, North America, the Caribbean, and India. The costs of the war drained the British treasury, as most wars do, and forced them to seek new means of revenue. Individuals, such as George Washington, were able to acquire military experience serving under the British which would later aid in the Revolutionary war. Interest in the French and Indian war does not have a popular interest in American history, as such the decision to make a film surrounding this period of our history is rather important because it does both showcase and stir up interest into the French and Indian war. Additionally, the portrayal of the Indians within the film was rather accurate with their existence on both sides of the war, as aggressors, saviors, and a people fading away because of the European conflict. –Robert Keitz |
| |
