Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== Errors in fact ======
 The main characters of the film have no historical background & the women partaking in war has no evidence; in fact it's highly unlikely that they were. -- Lindsey Sowers

There is no evidence Munro had daughters, or that if he did, they were there during all the fighting. The colonists also seemed to have an "American identity", which would not have been present at this time. --Erin Shaw

1-	To add on to your point, the ‘American’ identity would not have been there, they were still British and thought of themselves as such; however, the concept of the colonist being different is an element of the 7 years war that makes it so influential later on for the American Revolution. I think this is an important aspect of the movie to tie into interpretation that while the movie overdoes the divide between the colonist and the red coats to play into the common idea of separate identities that a modern-day audience would be more likely to recognize and identify with, it hits at a larger idea.

2-	 How aware were the colonist of their cultural identities taking shape in the Americas when the 7 years war juxtaposed them with the native born British? And how much of that identity is overdone/ played in the movie verses real life sentiments. To what degree did the movie make an error and how much was just a stretch to get to the point that would develop in the years after the war? –Grace Corkran

Like Erin mentioned in her comment, early on in the movie one of the British generals says something along the lines of "aren't you an American?" Most of the colonists at the time would have identified themselves as "New Englanders" or from whatever settlement they came from. The colonists would have been already identifying themselves as something other than British since they were separate then England, but not all would have described themselves as "American." James Fenimore Cooper wrote this book after the American revolution where there was a newfound idea of American patriotism which shows through in this movie even though it was made in 1991. -- Ellora Larsen

There was an Uncas who was a chief of the Mohicans but he lived over one hundred years before the French and Indian War.  There was also no Magua character in history and Lt. Col Edmund Munro was the fictional representation of Lt.Col George Monro, who was not killed by Indians after surrender as depicted.  Lastly, Fort William Henry wasn’t the massive structure on a hill as depicted. -- Andrew Mullins

While the movie did get Colonel Munro's character almost correct, he did not die by having his heart cut out during the massacre. Instead, Monro survived the attack but months later, suddenly died. Another thing the movie got wrong was the fact that while Hawkeye was adopted to a Native family, he did not become Chingachgook's son. In the books, Hawkeye was more like Chingachgook's brother while Uncas was like his nephew. --Alyx Wilson

The film name “The Last of the Mohicans” being misleading as the Mohican tribe still exists today. During the war the Native Americans recruited to fight for the British and French consisted of many different tribes with different leaders, while the movie only focused the Huron and Mohican tribes. The real Colonel Munro also did not have any daughters. -Kyle Moore

The main conflict within the British army was the militia and the terms of the militia. The colonists reasoning for not joining the militia was because they did not see themselves as British and did not see themselves as an American identity. Later in the revolution there is talk about not following the Crown Law and this conflicts with colonists ideas at the time as no-one was talking about revolting or not standing with the British crown. There were seeds of revolution as if the director was hinting as this was the turning point for British and colonists relations, as well as it showed the British in a negative light.  --Jack Hagn

I think that the main errors in fact lie in the main characters being fictional characters. Since these main characters such as Nathaniel and the two daughters are fictional, much of the plot is not true. Mixing actual events and people with fictional characters and plots creates a gray area in this movie between truth and errors in fact. -- Carolyn Stough

The movie includes Munro’s daughters Cora and Alice who are seen taking part in the war which there is no evidence to prove that they were involved or even in America at this time. – Courtlyn Plunkett

In the opening of the film, it acknowledges that it is based off of Cooper’s novel. However, I believe they could have said inspired by or not even mentioned that filmmakers used Cooper’s novel as inspiration because they completely reworked it making it more of an action film. The last Mohican is Chingachgook not Hawkeye or Nathaniel as the theatrical poster lead me to believe and yet the movie centers around Nathaniel. I think filmmakers saw a box office hit in forbidden love between a Mohican and a Colonel’s daughter. Also it seemed they were really trying to make a romance bud between Unca and Alice. No to that. -Johana Colchado

====== Things the Movie got right ======
The props, such as the weaponry chosen was historically accurate as well as the costume/dress the people were wearing during this era. I would even go as far as to say the portrayal of life during this time period was very accurate. -- Lindsey Sowers

The movie had a few things vaguely right, like Nathaniel being adopted into a Native family and the fact that few Native groups aligned with the British. It also had several places that exist in real life, and General Munro was a real person. It also used the correct Native tribe names. --Erin Shaw

The movie correctly portrayed how war was fought by European nations during the 18th century. The British and French soldiers fought using linear tactics. Also, the parlay ceremony was something typical of the 18th century. For European armies, war was viewed as an honorable thing, highly rooted in rules of decency that each side was expected to follow. It also portrayed fighting tactics unique to Native American warriors. The European methods of fighting were very foreign to their native allies. -Maddie Shiflett

Going off of Maddie, while they correctly portrayed how the soldiers fought in war, they also used the correct European fashion and weaponry for the time period. --Maryanna Stribling

Nathaniel mentions he learned English from Reverend Wheelock's school, a place we learned in class that was a Protestant school for the sons of English colonists. However, the movie takes place in 1757 when Nathaniel is an adult, yet the real school was established in 1769, therefore, Nathaniel is a time traveler who was 10 years old in 1769 yet somehow a grown adult in 1757. -- Jessica Lynch

The battel for Fort William Henry did happen, Col Monro did surrender to French General Montcalm, and his men were allowed to keep their weapons under conditions of parole but that would have meant they had no ammunition.  Which would explain why when the Huron ambushed them later they would have been massacred.  As others have mentioned, the uniforms and dress, battle tactics, flags and weapons all appear to be very accurate.   Oh, and the French will always form alliances with and exploit those to whom it best serves their own ends.  (ref: the rest of recorded history.)  -- Andrew Mullins

Things the Movie got right were the Hurons alliance with the French during the war. As well as, the battle for Fort William Henry did occur and British commander Munro did surrender to French General Montcalm under the conditions they set. – Courtlyn Plunkett

I felt like the movie did a good job depicting the scenery and the characters. I am not an expert on colonial and British garb, but after looking up some depictions of 18th-century attire, I think the movie did well recreating the clothing. I also was interested in the set locations and looked up the recreation of Fort McHenry! The Wikipedia page claims that it cost an estimated one million dollars to build. To put that much money into a set and not make it mostly historically accurate would have been a travesty. I will include a link to a website dedicated 100% to the filming of the movie at Lake James in North Carolina. The pictures are interesting and show the process of building the set! -Lake Wiley
http://www.mohicanpress.com/mo06029.html

The setting looked very similar to upstate New York and that area for being filmed in North Carolina, The way the British Army fought was portrayed very well and the weapons used were period accurate. Especially the French mortars as they were accurately and the looked very period specific. The fact that some of the colonials did not fight and that the tribes were divided was shown in the movie but not as accurately as the reasons for the colonists not fighting were not accurate. The burning of people was a punishment but I am not sure if the movie got the right causation for the punishment. --Jack Hagn

The film did depict the tension between soldiers, Native Americans, and colonists appropriately. The British will commanding the colonists to sacrifice it all for the King but the colonists along the frontier are just barely surviving while all the Native American groups are being brought in to fight someones else’s war. They did seem to get the clothes for the Mohicans and Huron correct (I guess they only had enough in their budget to cast two tribes?) as well as the tools they used to hunt with and the weapons used in battle. - Johana Colchado

The movie got a lot of the facts surrounding the setting and bigger picture conflict right. However, most of the characters are fictional as is the romance and the resulting personal drama.--Sam Hartz

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
====== 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

Although the character of Magua is blood-thirsty, dishonest, and cruel, I think that casting him as the villain of the film does not consider his own point of view. To Magua, he is doing what he must to survive and to sustain his way of life. The Mohicans had their reasons for supporting the British and frontiersmen, just as Magua had his own reasons for supporting the French. In the end, Magua expresses that he wants to make new terms of trade with the French that are more beneficial to the Hurons. Magua did have a good reason for disliking the British; they did, after all, destroy his village. I think the plight of Magua is downplayed a lot. -Maddie Shiflett

I thought the movie painted a pretty good job at some of the problems faced by everyone at the time. Colonists wanting to protect their families, British soldiers wanting to protect their own interests, there was even dialogue of working the French and British against each other. As well as how individual agendas became problematic for peaceful relations. --William Roszell

It's hard to get proper answers as to why certain things are done the way they are when it comes to a film adaptation; the easy scapegoat in this situation is that "this is the way it was done in the source material." As it was previously stated in this portion of the comments, for a film called //The Last of the Mohicans//, the Mohicans really did take a backseat to the war between the French and the English. That's not to say Hawkeye didn't get his fair share of the limelight, but his father's line of him saying that he himself was the "last of the Mohicans" calls into question their lack of a more central role in this film. If the central focus of the story is the battle of Fort William Henry; the tension between the British and the Colonists, and the animosity of the Huron (specifically Magua) toward Europeans in general, then why are you trying to tell us this is about the Mohicans? --Robert Dallas

It was interesting to see the differences in depiction between Magua and Hawkeye's father and brother. Magua while speaking English tends to speak mainly in the third person while the Hawkeye's father, Chingachgook, speaks mainly in Mohawk and when he goes speak English it is very short and proper English. Even down to the way they dress. Chingachgook and Uncas dress more like the English settlers while the Hurons and Magua dress in a way that falls under the traditional stereotype of a way a Native American person is depicted. Is this just another way of separating the "good" native Americans from the enemy or was there research that backs up this choice in depiction?-- Ellora Larsen

I thought the last scene after Magua, Alice, and Uncas and dozens of incompetent Huron warriors are killed Chingachgook gives his speech honoring the “last Mohican” was a bit confusing.  Was he referring to himself as the last Mohican, or (as I thought) referring to his son Uncas, who would technically be ‘the last Mohican’ since he was younger and genealogically the last one?  OR was this a metaphorical reference to how the white man had killed off the Indians and he represented their ultimate fate that of the Last Of The (insert Indian tribe name here)?  Anyway, I think the movie takes liberties with Cooper’s novel, but since it is fiction anyway, it did clean up some of the mess that Cooper originally wrote.  -- Andrew Mullins

The choice to largely portray the "Americans" as the most sympathetic characters were interesting. I found that colonial militiamen and their families were far more sympathetic against the slightly tyrannical British officers. Although they would have viewed themselves as British citizens of a particular colony, the movie depicts them as beginning to dislike and resist British rule. Although we are on the British "side" during the movie, they veer into being borderline villains against the American colonists. Since this was an American-made movie for a largely American audience, was this a choice to give viewers something else to root for besides Cora and Nathaniel's romance? -Jessie Fitzgerald

I wonder how the love interest between Cora and Nathaniel would have actually been viewed to the colonists during the time period. Would it be okay because Nathaniel is white? Or frowned upon because he was apart of a Native American tribe? --Maryanna Stribling

The movie was entirely focused on the superiority of Western culture, with the Native Americans that rejected the Western culture being demonized. France and Britain are mostly showed in a positive manner, as they are the only ones to be able to negotiate a peaceful solution to their battles. In comparison, the Native Americans are only able to solve their issues with the death of Magua. The only negative light that is thrown onto Britain is how they will not value the colonists desire to return home to defend it. Furthering the Western push, the main character is white and is the “Native American” that does the negotiating to try to keep the peace. However, this interpretation doesn’t really show the ways that the Native Americans could have been justified in fighting the colonists, with the closest character to this being Magua.--Sky Horne

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 think.--Sam Hartz

====== The movie as a primary source of its time ======
In the original novel Cora is of mixed race, which is why Duncan will not marry her. Why did the filmmakers choose to change that aspect of her character, and what does that say about prominent values of the 90’s?  -Maddie Shiflett

Although I do agree with Maddie, Cora, in the movie was "westernized", I also think it was an empowering role that Madeliene Stowe (Cora) played. Cora was confident in herself and her decisions. She was smart and she was a strong female role. She did not want to marry Duncan and she stood by her decision the whole movie. Cora called Duncan out for being dishonest and always spoke her truth; whether that be with Duncan, her father, or Hawkeye. I think that spoke measures about the time the movie was filmed (90s). This movie was released during the beginning of the third wave of feminism, where women played roles that depicted the female character as being smart, strong, and independent!!!!!!!!--Caroline Collier

Brunell, Laura, and Elinor Burkett. "Feminism." Encyclopædia Britannica. July 06, 2018. Accessed September 17, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism/The-third-wave-of-feminism.

Yes! Cora’s character is great! She wants to be independent and essentially ‘friend-zones’ Heyward. This might be a stretch but that is kind of what the Colonies did to England (after some fighting of course). Therefore, maybe Cora and Hayward’s relationship was supposed to a reflection of the struggling relationship and impending breakup of the Colonies and England? Again, that is just an idea, I just really like hidden symbolism in movies. Of course, she does end up choosing her own mate, Nathanial because every Hollywood movie wants some romance. But choosing to include moments like surviving intense warfare, choosing her own ‘true love’, and yelling at and standing up to her father is a reflection of the girl power and feminist movement in the nineties. While her representation may not have been of most 18th century women, Cora’s character gives the movie more to work with her independent personality. -Lake Wiley

One thing that I think is interesting about this film that reflects the time in which it was made was that they had a movie featuring Native American culture, but the main characters were white. The English characters were traveling with Native American guides and the hero of the movie is one of the Mohicans, but he is a white man who was adopted into the culture. It has a Euro-centric focus that was not questioned in the time this film was made. – Carolyn Stough

A few people have brought up the point that this movie is more of a romantic/adventure type movie than a super historical film as well as the push for more minority and Native American story lines which I think are both important factors contributing to the making of this film. Especially because of the fictional characters, is this more for entertainment with a side of content rather than content that was made entertaining.

The movie puts forth two very different presentations of Native Americans. On the one hand, there are the Native Americans represented by Magua, who sided with the French. These Native Americans are extremely violent, with Magua even cutting out the heart of Munro, have war paint, and speak broken English. On the other side of the is the Mohicans, who dress in more European clothing, speak perfect English, and are the only Native Americans that try to find a diplomatic way to solve issues. This shows a desire during the 90s to demonstrate the Native Americans who accepted aspects of European culture as more civilized and antagonize those that didn’t and intended to establish their own nation that could compete with the European powers. --Sky Horne

I think Cora was a woman ahead of her time, after realizing what a catch Nathaniel was (I mean who wouldn’t after having a deep conversation while stargazing?) she brought Heyward’s ego  back down to earth by telling him what was what that she couldn’t marry a liar. It was empowering for her to say all of that to Heyward, especially in front of Colonel Munro. In regards to the representation of Native American groups during that time period, they severely lacked in that area. There were more than two tribes who were involved and I do think it had potential to be more historically accurate but it couldn't compete with the forbidden love moneymaker. -Johana Colchado

====== Comparing the reading to the movie ======
In Calloway's "First People's," an account from an imprisoned Susanna Johnson is described. She describes both the violence and compassion she witnessed from her captors, who took "pity" on her and "gave her gifts" when she gave birth. I think this dichotomy is reflected in the movie, as Native Americans are not only violent and vengeful for their loved ones (Magua), but also Native Americans were compassionate towards white settlers (Uncas). I am curious if Susanna's account is accurate, as it was written 42 years after her experience for an audience, and therefore she may have exaggerated the truth a bit?2 --Jessica Lynch

Reading Susanna Johnson's account of her enslavement by Native Americans wasn't that uncommon of the times much like depicted in the Last of Mohicans. Not everyone who was taken by Native Americans liked or converted to their way of life.  The letter from the Iroquois chief shows the difference in opinion on the Native American side as well. --William Roszell

One of the interesting aspects of the Captivity narrative apart from Susanna Johnson's account was the preface that came at the beginning of the chapter in which the account was utilized. The concept of "Indianization" stuck out to me as something of relative importance to the film. It is established early on by Hawkeye that he was taken in by his adoptive father when he was one or two years of age, and he grew up as part of the Mohican people. It was interesting to me to find out that natives were known for taking in younger children and raising them as their own. Much of film I've seen associated with Native Americans hardly touches on what may be done with white children (particularly because Hollywood (as far as I know) hasn't had much made in regards to white children and Native American relationships. Getting clarification from this reading that it was not necessarily uncommon added some validity and credibility to Daniel Day Lewis playing as an adoptive child to a Mohican warrior. The reading does state that Natives may have been less likely to take in an infant, but that's more of a personal nitpick. --Robert Dallas

In the 1684 record of the meeting between the Iroquois Chiefs and the Governors of New York and Virginia, the chiefs emphasize their sovereignty from the English while signifying that their loyalty is to whichever country they prefered over the other. In the film it is shown that the Native Americans had different alliances during the war, but considered themselves separate from those countries. The extent of their alliance being how well they were treated by the country. -Kyle Moore

====== The "So, what?" question ======
The ending of the movie is critical to understanding the bigger picture of this story. The final battle is between the Hurons and the Mohicans- not between the British and French. By switching the focus to the tribal conflict going on instead of the two nations that started the war, it emphasizes that this war had pitted the various tribes of the region against each other. The desperation to save their land and ways of life pushed them to see each other as the enemy. Nothing could be done to stop the Europeans from settling and taking away their land; now all that they could do was ensure that their own nation had the upper-hand. -Maddie Shiflett

The 7 years war changed the relationship between the Native Americans, English colonist, and non-English colonist by the year 1763. The causes of the war would be felt in waves for decades afterwards and the consequences are complex to study. When we understand the dynamic relationships, we can better understand how our nation got to the point in which they were to declare independence in 1776. 
****the scratch of a pen is a great book to look at the effects of the 7 years war!!!!*****
--Grace Corkran

The movie doesn't feel like a historical narrative. Similar to the source novel, it seems much more to be a romantic and adventure  period story with some allusion to actual historical events. Some of the names (Col. Munroe) and events (surrender of Fort William Henry) provide background but is essentially background, and its more of the quintessential American adventure story, like Cooper's original novel was the first of its kind. -Jessie Fitzgerald

This movie came out before //Dances With Wolves// and the push to tell more realistic Native American storylines. While the main focus does follow the settlers, it makes steps towards telling a realistic Native American story.  How has The //Last of the Mohicans// managed to maintain its significance for as long as it has and what about it really makes it a good way of realistically depicting Native Americans and the Native American history? -- Ellora Larsen

Much like the French and Indian/7 years war, this film has a very Euro-centric view of an event that took place in North America and had a significant amount of Native American warriors and deaths. This shows the perspective that this story is coming from and how the actual stories of the Natives who fought in this war and other European conflicts in this time have been ignored in favor of showing the white men as the heroes. – Carolyn Stough

Just like Ellora and Jessie said in the comments above, this movie is pretty much a romanticized period piece that has somehow stayed popular since its 1992 release but how? I had many people tell me it was due to the fact that the final battle of the movie was the most important/interesting part of the movie and that was what kept it a fan favorite. Some others even said the soundtrack was what made the movie. While this movie did have some historical aspects to it like the Siege on Fort William Henry that Natives sided with the French, and Natives fought other Natives, I don't exactly see the appeal. --Alyx Wilson

I feel that Erin and Sky made excellent points about how the movie differentiates between the “good” Indians who speak perfect English and wear western clothes and the “bad” Indians who wear more traditional clothes and refer to themselves in the third person. What I think was particularly interesting is how in the scene with the sachem Nathaniel (and, by extension, the movie) tries to equate Magua with all the natives who sided with their imperialist oppressors, making Nathaniel and the “good” Indians look better because they stood up to the British. See, they are standing up to their imperialist oppressors! But this tactic also gives audiences a bit of an out because when any given white American hears “Stand up to imperialist oppressors” their first thought is “That’s what we did to the British”. As a result, similar to Pocahontas with its fairytale ending, a movie that could have said something interesting about imperialism instead sits on the sidelines of the conflict chanting “USA!” --Justin Curtis

The whole beginning of the movie I kept thinking about M.A.S.H. because the main character of the film is Hawkeye. The main character of that television show that lasted 11 seasons was named after the character in Cooper's book, the only book Pierce's father had ever read in the series. That right there sort of shows the lasting effect this story had on America. Why would Richard Hooker choose to name the lead character of his storyline after that of Hawkeye? I feel like what we talked about in class really holds true in this movie and storyline. This story was the cookie cut out for action stories thereafter, it depicts the white man heroine, the resourceful, relatable frontier man, the needed Indians and helpless people, and the violent warfare, all the secret ingredients for an action film. (M.A.S.H. was an entirely separate story that I cherish and love.) -Amiti Colson

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International