Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2022 [2022/09/08 12:44] – [III.How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources?] jmcclurken
+++ 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/11 00:21] (current) – [IV.How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers?] 192.65.245.80
@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 **This form of independence is shown in women in more modern times but not in 18th century women, who are typically more domestic and dependent.** https://www.grin.com/document/75519 - Zack Steinbaum
-Something I picked up on was the blended nature of settlements depicted especially at the beginning of the film. I know we touched on in class the fact that Native Americans had different options open to them on how they could adapt to colonists moving in, but the film seemed to portray the relationship between natives and colonists as some sort of peaceful coexistence where they all got along more or less, and it only got violent because of conflicts between the British and French (as in, had the British and French not been fighting over land, the colonists and Natives would never fight with each other but rather live in harmony forever).** Though I’m sure in some areas there were colonists and Natives who lived well together, I find it hard to believe that there were lots of settlements where this happened, since most colonists still held racist, stereotyped beliefs of Natives, and were actively pushing them out of their lands. Because the movie shifts the conflict to between the British and French, and then additionally has Magua as a main villain, I think it glosses over in places the fact that the colonists caused so many issues for the Native Americans.** Magua expresses the ways that the British wronged him, but is also the villain, so it doesn’t come across as a genuine criticism of the British colonists but rather an isolated incident that Magua is not justified to be upset about. — Sasha Poletes
+Something I picked up on was the blended nature of settlements depicted especially at the beginning of the film. I know we touched on in class the fact that Native Americans had different options open to them on how they could adapt to colonists moving in, but the film seemed to portray the relationship between natives and colonists as some sort of peaceful coexistence where they all got along more or less, and it only got violent because of conflicts between the British and French (as in, had the British and French not been fighting over land, the colonists and Natives would never fight with each other but rather live in harmony forever).** Though I’m sure in some areas there were colonists and Natives who lived well together, I find it hard to believe that there were lots of settlements where this happened, since most colonists still held racist, stereotyped beliefs of Natives, and were actively pushing them out of their lands. Because the movie shifts the conflict to between the British and French, and then additionally has Magua as a main villain, I think it glosses over in places the fact that the colonists caused so many issues for the Native Americans.** **Magua expresses the ways that the British wronged him, but is also the villain, so it doesn’t come across as a genuine criticism of the British colonists but rather an isolated incident that Magua is not justified to be upset abou**t. — Sasha Poletes
+The film's overall interpretations seem to deviate from historical sources, though this might not truly be the filmmaker's fault. After all, this film is based on an earlier film that was based on a novel that might or might not have been entirely true due to the inherent bias of the author who was a colonist. There is also the fact that this film was made mainly as a performance piece and to entertain, but to necessarily educate. The Native Americans take on a large and mainly villainous role, while the British are not shown in the film nearly as much and are seen to have a rather small role which is historically inaccurate. The deviation from scholarly sources is due to the newer scholarly sources that we have. Older sources do paint the Native Americans in a "savage" and brutal light, but the overall sources that we have now, suggest a different narrative. -Annika Sypher
 ====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======
-As a primary source for the time it was made, this movie displays many stereotypes about Native Americans, especially with the makeup, costuming, and behavioral choices - I noticed that a good amount of Native Americans, especially the Hurons, were always shirtless to display tattoos, while Nathaniel was always fully clothed and depicted more as a white man with more dignity, despite the fact that his character was raised as a Mohican since he was 2 or 3. Obviously there was some research done and some Native actors hired, but not enough to avoid playing into the stereotypes. This probably makes sense as the book that it was based on basically created the stereotype, but the hunting scenes and the seemingly arbitrary switch between English and Native languages in conversations between the Mohicans felt a little off and clearly displayed the stereotypes that the filmmakers felt would sell the best. -- Jane Michael
+**As a primary source for the time it was made, this movie displays many stereotypes about Native Americans, especially with the makeup, costuming, and behavioral choices - I noticed that a good amount of Native Americans, especially the Hurons, were always shirtless to display tattoos, while Nathaniel was always fully clothed and depicted more as a white man with more dignity, despite the fact that his character was raised as a Mohican since he was 2 or 3.** **Obviously there was some research done and some Native actors hired, but not enough to avoid playing into the stereotypes. This probably makes sense as the book that it was based on basically created the stereotype, but the hunting scenes and the seemingly arbitrary switch between English and Native languages in conversations between the Mohicans felt a little off and clearly displayed the stereotypes that the filmmakers felt would sell the best**. -- Jane Michael
-It’s hard to view the film itself as a primary source since it is an adaptation of a book. Likely there were changes made from the original text, but I presume that similar themes are in both works. The fact that Cooper’s novel is still treasured and adapted for the screen as recently as the 1990s is a testament to how we still view the history of this country. Particularly, we can look at the story as a wider representation of how we view Native Americans in the scope of U.S. history. There are three main native characters in this film; two are implied, by virtue of having speaking roles, to be “good” ones. The third character, Magua, is unambiguously evil in the events of the film. Besides that, all other native roles in the film are given to roving bands of attackers and kidnappers who are never really given motivation for their actions. In one scene, the Hurons are shown burning someone at the stake. Magua is the only one given a reason for his treachery, that being cruelty inflicted upon him by the whites. He is portrayed as ignorant and violent, unlike the good Chingachgook and Uncas, who help the white people to the point of sacrifice. The film indulges in a kind of “noble savage” trope that we also see in Pocahontas (1995), which I am inclined to believe is a problem more with the source material than the film itself. However, the film does end up engaging in these stereotypes, so I think it’s fair to say that it has had some role in spreading this false information about American history. - Maris Tiller
-This movie works well as a primary source about the time it was made, as it displays very basic stereotypes about Native Americans. One that I picked up on early and that continued throughout was the hostility/violent nature of the Native Americans. This is a very harmful stereotype that goes into the use of “savages” to refer to Native Americans. This basically infers that a core part of their being is killing and being destructive, while in reality most Native Americans were doing what they needed to do to survive. This stereotype is extremely harmful but also very prevalent, so in this portrayal of Native Americans, it gives a good insight into what people at the time thought of Native Americans and the way that they would’ve/do act. -Margaret Jones
-This film would be a solid primary source about the time it was made, as it still contains the stereotypical and offensive tropes of Native Americans. In 1992, the leap to making content accurate and non-stereotypical had not happened, and these unrealistic portrayals of minorities was still common. If someone was to write about the films of the 90’s and their stereotypes, I think that this would be the perfect film to include, along with last week’s Pocahontas. Any film that portrays the Natives as the villains is guilty of promoting unreliable history, especially when the Natives are portrayed so violent that they will literally cut out the heart of an enemy. I took a look at a list of the “Top 50 most racist movies” made by Complex and found that almost all of them are from the late 80’s or 90’s (https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/05/the-50-most-racist-movies/). While The Last of the Mohicans did not happen to be on it, the list does say a lot about this movie and where the film industry was at the time it was made. -Burke Steifman
-On Burke's note, I agree that this movie has a brutal portrayal of Native Americans. it is evident that a lot of care went into this film, even if it’s very dramatized. The dress seemed accurate, and the movie actually won an Academy Award for sound design as it seemed like realistic musket noises and everything. However, it was still guilty of promoting a "savage" portrayal of Native Americans as the enemy, and deciding to demonize the Native Americans that sided against the British instead of giving any insight or sympathy to those on the other side of the conflict. Similarly to what has already been said by Jane, Nathaniel still has a sense of separation as he is more modestly dressed. I just wonder why the Mann has chosen to create a new adaptation of a movie that has been adapted since 1920 instead of choosing a more innovative, respectful approach rather than an already problematic story. I have tried to do research but have not been able to find anything
+**//It’s hard to view the film itself as a primary source since it is an adaptation of a book. Likely there were changes made from the original text, but I presume that similar themes are in both works.//** The fact that Cooper’s novel is still treasured and adapted for the screen as recently as the 1990s is a testament to how we still view the history of this country**. Particularly, we can look at the story as a wider representation of how we view Native Americans in the scope of U.S. history. There are three main native characters in this film; two are implied, by virtue of having speaking roles, to be “good” ones. The third character, Magua, is unambiguously evil in the events of the film. Besides that, all other native roles in the film are given to roving bands of attackers and kidnappers who are never really given motivation for their actions.** In one scene, the Hurons are shown burning someone at the stake. Magua is the only one given a reason for his treachery, that being cruelty inflicted upon him by the whites. He is portrayed as ignorant and violent, unlike the good Chingachgook and Uncas, who help the white people to the point of sacrifice. **The film indulges in a kind of “noble savage” trope that we also see in Pocahontas (1995), which I am inclined to believe is a problem more with the source material than the film itself. However, the film does end up engaging in these stereotypes, so I think it’s fair to say that it has had some role in spreading this false information about American history.** - Maris Tiller
-====== V. The "So, what?" question	======
+**This movie works well as a primary source about the time it was made, as it displays very basic stereotypes about Native Americans**. One that I picked up on early and that continued throughout was the hostility/violent nature of the Native Americans. This is a very harmful stereotype that goes into the use of “savages” to refer to Native Americans. This basically infers that a core part of their being is killing and being destructive, while in reality most Native Americans were doing what they needed to do to survive. This stereotype is extremely harmful but also very prevalent, so in this portrayal of Native Americans, it gives a good insight into what people at the time thought of Native Americans and the way that they would’ve/do act. -Margaret Jones
+**This film would be a solid primary source about the time it was made, as it still contains the stereotypical and offensive tropes of Native Americans. In 1992, the leap to making content accurate and non-stereotypical had not happened, and these unrealistic portrayals of minorities was still common. If someone was to write about the films of the 90’s and their stereotypes, I think that this would be the perfect film to include, along with last week’s Pocahontas**. Any film that portrays the Natives as the villains is guilty of promoting unreliable history, especially when the Natives are portrayed so violent that they will literally cut out the heart of an enemy. I took a look at a list of the “Top 50 most racist movies” made by Complex and found that almost all of them are from the late 80’s or 90’s (https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/05/the-50-most-racist-movies/). While The Last of the Mohicans did not happen to be on it, the list does say a lot about this movie and where the film industry was at the time it was made. -Burke Steifman
-So what:
+On Burke's note, I agree that this movie has a brutal portrayal of Native Americans. **it is evident that a lot of care went into this film, even if it’s very dramatized. The dress seemed accurate, and the movie actually won an Academy Award for sound design as it seemed like realistic musket noises and everything. However, it was still guilty of promoting a "savage" portrayal of Native Americans as the enemy, and deciding to demonize the Native Americans that sided against the British instead of giving any insight or sympathy to those on the other side of the conflict.** Similarly to what has already been said by Jane, Nathaniel still has a sense of separation as he is more modestly dressed. I just wonder why the Mann has chosen to create a new adaptation of a movie that has been adapted since 1920 instead of choosing a more innovative, respectful approach rather than an already problematic story. I have tried to do research but have not been able to find anything - Logan Kurtz
-All in all I think it was a much better movie than Pocahontas. It has its flaws, but truly a much better option if you really think about it. Stuff within the movie was dramatized for sure, but it wasn’t straight up lying like in the above-mentioned movie.
-If someone has interest in native life, I would encourage them to seek out this movie as it is way more authentic than the usual dramatic movies we’re used to watching as Americans. After viewing this movie, I would move them towards watching documentaries and getting more information from scholarly sources. This movie is more of an semi-accurate attention grabber.  -Michaela
+This movie shows us a lot about the time period it was made. Some of the best examples of that are the romanticism shown throughout the movie and the stereotypes displayed. As Jane mentioned, it is clear to see the different treatment and portrayal of the white and Native American characters. The Native American actors are mostly unclothed which some view as living a more savage lifestyle that goes hand-in-hand with the violent and “evil” nature they portray. The romantic interests also show what was romanticized at the time and who was viewed as beautiful and worthy of love. -Annika
+The movie works as a secondary source in providing an idea of what the world was like in America during this time in regards to the French, English, and Indians having disagreements , battles, etc. One thing that was specifically accurate was that the French had more allies than the British. Regardless, the film was based off of a fictional book and therefore, many of the characters were fictional and can not be taken as historically accurate.
-Ultimately, my thoughts on the film, and the protagonist Nathanial in particular, are mixed. On the one hand, it is perfectly historically accurate for a white man to have been raised by Native Americans and naturalized into their family and culture. Additionally, the character and story told in the film come from the novels of James Fenimore Cooper. It still rankles me, however, that in a story about a native man falling in love with an English woman, the native man must be played by a white actor. Of course, the argument can be made that this was the nature of the story in the original novel being adapted, that the residual racism inherent in the story is simply part of adapting a novel from the 1800s. To this I answer, why did we have to adapt this story then? The most interesting aspects of the film relate to real historical events, why not simply adapt those historical events per se, rather than relying on a racist story written in the 1800s. The relationship between Nathanial and Cora only begins when Cora discovers Nathaniel has a Christian name, (after which she realizes she wants to do good Christian things to him). (yes, I have a lot of feelings about the way that romance was developed and how it derailed the rest of the plot, but as that is not a historical criticism, I will let it be). This film was released in 1992, and its refusal to depict a biracial relationship speaks more to the time in which it was created rather than the historic time period it is supposed to depict, or the period in which the book was written. I do not know enough about the racial politics of the early 1990s to speak with any degree of authority on this matter, but this question on the matter of inter-racial relations did strike me as noteworthy. -Lucca Crowe.
+The first historical inaccuracy that I immediately thought about was that some of the colonists were already against Britain in their reactions and responses to the officers. From my understanding, the colonists would not have felt separate from Britain at this time. At least in the sense that they did not have any desire to break away or disobey them. Secondly, the main female character was more independent and strong than I believe would have happened in European culture at this time.
-I also do not know enough about the racial setting of the 1990s to speak with any authority but I did also find it interesting that, like Pocahontas, this movie featured inter-racial relationships. I feel like it was more of a deliberate choice in Pocahontas rather than in this movie, as Pocahontas changed the source material in order to fit in the relationship whereas this movie portrayed the text that was in the book. I feel like the idea to adapt this novel in did not just suit the 90s though, as the book has been made into film adaptations as early as 1920. -Logan Kurtz
+This film deviates from scholarly sources because it is more for entertainment than history. There are not many historically accurate details and there is exaggeration and drama at play. There is most likely also bias towards making the British seem kinder than they really were at this time.
-The death of Uncas felt like the same 'bury your ..." phenomenon even in modern films where the people of color and gay characters are always the first to be killed off in a tragedy filled story. It made absolutely no sense, historically and just in the regards of common sense, that after a single interaction with a random white woman he was willing to die to rescue her, especially as one of the last representatives of a dying culture - dying most likely because of HER people. It's not particularly important in the big picture, but with the emphasis that a lot of the stereotypes put on Native Americans and their relations and loyalty to their tribes and traditions, his death felt disrespectful as the 7 Years War WAS marked by many Native Tribes, especially those on the English side, arguing that it was not their fight. If the Mohicans, including Uncas, did not want to fight their battles, why was he so willing to follow his adopted white brother to save those random white women whom he knew would place him in the middle of the war? -- Jane Michael
-Similar to our discussion about Pocahontas, I feel like this movie portrayed the Native Americans, on both sides of the war, as the “wild savage” stereotypes. Especially in the fighting scenes, the film depicted the Mohawks and other warriors in a very inhumane and unorganized way. While the British and French soldiers were uniform, clean, and organized. The way that some Native Americans would use the European guns as clubs during fight scenes, Nathaniel calling them “war parties,” and especially the scene where the farm home was destroyed and the family was murdered all depicted the Native American fighters in a much more brutual light than the British soldiers were.
+I believe that the film works as a primary source of the time it was created in the potential stereotypes of the Native Americans. I don’t believe this was done intentionally but at this time, the directors may not have known the entire accuracy about Native American culture.
---Olivia Foster
-This film as a secondary source I think is well as long as you don’t depend too much on it for a “first” account perspective like the characters. We know from class that the characters are mainly made up so the film offers historical events in a way where they can sell what there making.  The main thing I focused on or was in awe about was how the film shows a good distinction between how the native tribes would ally with both opposing sides, the French and the British and even the differences between the colonies and the soldiers who came straight from England (which they haven’t been there long). In the beginning of the movie, the viewer can see how as the soldiers are gathering individuals to fight for Englands cause, many of the men from the colonies are reluctant to do so for there own reasons of “how do I truly benefit”, to which the soldiers question the mens true loyalty to the crown. There is tension and a hierarachy established with British people themselves that in a way usually is overlooked when talking about conflict with other nations. Now the established alliances of the natives within both the British and the French was shown in a way where it was confusing. I know when I saw the first attack I was trying to figure out which side was doing what and why (which we learned later on). With that being said the fighting stances of the native Americans were depicted as wild and the fighting stances with the French and British were historically accurate. Overall this film was okay, I did enjoy one of the interactions the main character had with the female lead where she apologizes and states, “I misunderstood you,” to which the main character replied, “Well, that’s to be expected.” To me it just shows how different everyone was and that they for one don’t want to learn about them and second, if they did, they truly won’t know the cultures fully. - Paula Perez
+Overall, I enjoyed this film. Because the film directors never claimed for this to be historically accurate, I enjoyed it. While they brought Native American voice actors into it and portrayed their ideas of the French Indian War, I do not feel that it was meant to be seen as historically accurate but rather broaden peoples mindsets on a historical event and entertain people.
-The Last of the Mohicans, admittedly, was an enjoyable watch, with a good soundtrack and camerawork. The way that it takes on depicting the historical events is an interesting one: it is an interpretation of an interpretation of a historical event. Overall, I thought the film was well done. It does things well but also as a fictional story changes the story to keep the audience hooked. A lot of the film’s Native American characters are played by Native American actors. Chingachgook, Uncas, and Magua, the three main Native American characters in the story, are all played by Native American actors: Russell Means, Eric Schweig, and Wes Studi respectively. Means was an activist for Native Americans and was even a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM). Representation in this respect is done well. Despite this, Native Americans are seen as tragic background characters compared to the love story of Cora and Hawkeye that takes precedent in the film. Magua’s motivations are fueled by tragedy, resulting in his death. Chingachgook is left as the last Mohican, a sad representation of the community and family he has lost. Uncas died in pursuit of saving Alice because he had feelings for Alice? It was his adopted brother’s love interest’s sister? Uncas' death was the epitome of tragedy, a symbol of the Mohicans' chance of continuing dying with it. Hawkeye’s motivations changed as soon as he got involved with Cora, completely disregarding the safety of his adopted father and brother. He was blinded by his love for Cora. The main point I am trying to make is that Native American tragedy was used to prop up a white love story. - Taylor Coleman
+This link was helpful to me: Is Last of the Mohicans Historically Accurate?