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.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. -- Dr. McClurken

====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======
I used to work as a historical interpreter at an 18th century fort site (Fort Michilimackinac [MISH-I-la-mack-in-aw].) It was built by the French in the early 18th century, and taken over by Great Britain near the end of the Seven Years' War. I mention this because those of us who worked there frequently found one part of //The Last of the Mahicans// to be an extraordinarily useful secondary source for interpreting history to visitors, namely the film's portrayal of the siege of Fort William Henry.

**While //many// details of the military material culture/ the minutia of the battle itself were incorrect, the film provides a widely-viewed portrayal of siege warfare that gets a lot right: the use of mortar rounds, (some of) the technology/ tactics of entrenchments/ earthworks as the French edge closer and closer to the enemy, and even the general sense of the near constant noise, the chaos, and the claustrophobia inherent in a siege.**

It's difficult for even an adept military historian to get a feel for what a siege is like by simply reading about it, and //The Last of the Mohicans//, for all its numerous faults, **at least provides a half-way-decent audio-visual depiction of siege warfare that can be a great jumping-off point for getting a better, more personal idea of colonial warfare.** (This, of course, they promptly tarnish by an abysmal portrayal of the "honors of war" exchange between Munro and Montcalm, but that belongs in another section, I guess.)

And here is a lovely meme/ t-shirt from my colleagues at another fort, Fort Ticonderoga A.K.A. Fort Carillon [care-i-YON], which is mentioned in the film.
{{:329:question:keep-montcalm-tee_cropped_enk.jpg?400|}}

Sources: 
Various manuscripts in the archives of Mackinac State Historic Parks from when I worked there
 
Fred Anderson's //The War that Made America// and his //Crucible of War.
//

Fort Ticonderoga's Website, https://www.fortticonderoga.org/

-Ethan K.

//The Last of the Mohicans// can be used as a secondary source in regards to the historical knowledge of the French and Indian War. **This movie was overall historically accurate in the portrayal of the events that happened at the Siege in 1757, the costumes and props that were used, and the depiction of life for everyone during that time period.** The characters and plot of the movie are very much fictional and highly romanticized. Another part in the film that was accurate, was the terms of surrender for the British troops in which they were allowed to leave in peace from Fort William without interference from the French. -Lauren Simpson

This film works well as a secondary source in portraying the themes of the time period.  **The movie demonstrates the reality that Natives allied with both the British and the French as a way to destroy their Native allies and to help their own agendas.**  The Native American, Magua, demonstrates the exact fear that Pontiac had in the source we had to read for this week.  Pontiac was fearful of the Natives relying on the colonists and the impact that colonists had on their way of life and beliefs.  Magua had been infected by the greed and desire that the colonists had for wealth, land, and power.  Additionally, **another connection to Pontiac is Magua’s desire to send the colonists back to Europe, the whole reason for Pontiac’s war**. 
-Daniel Walker

While I do not think this movie is a good overall source due to its fictional account of actual historical events, the movie does offer a lot of relevant information concerning the time and conflict that was happening at the time. If there is one thing I must praise The Last of the Mohicans for, it's its attention to detail. There were many things I found to be historically relevant that rather impressed me. **For instance, the attention to detail in the clothing and props was a nice touch. Looking at the actors and the way they portrayed life in the middle of a 18th Century war made it believable that these people were there experiencing the conflict like people actually would have during the French and Indian War.** There were many minute details that caught my attention as well. For one, I liked the mention of the fur trade. **From the very beginning, when Chingachgook, Uncas, and Hawkeye are visiting the Camerons. They discuss the fur trade, speaking of how they do not wish to ally with either the British nor the French because the trade is profitable with both. This was something I found interesting, because the fur trade is an obvious point of contention between Native American tribes and the European colonists during this time period. As is was stated in the //Onandogas & Cayugas// reading, "If you do not [protect us], we shall lose all out Hunting and Beavers."** Furthermore, the **movie made an accurate representation of how the tables had turned in favor of the colonists, with the Native Americans becoming a minority in their own country. T**hat same reading makes a point about how the Native Americans had given the colonists land when they were naught but small people, and that now they have since grown to outnumber their Native neighbors and yet do not treat them with the same respect. This can be wholly observed through the conflict the Huron Magua has with Colonel Munro, whom he holds a grudge for being responsible for ruining his life. I found it interesting how Magua not only had a tense relationship with the British, but with the Marquis de Montcalm, who he was allied with. It truly showed what a tense and conflicted period in time this was, with many underlying issues that would continue to come to light before and well after the American Revolution. -- Lyndsey Clark

The film is certainly realistic when it comes to setting, as the uniforms, languages, weapons etc. and the actions of many characters can be considered historically accurate. Its portrayal of British and French customs and military tactics, as well as the Native participation in the Seven Years War are all portrayed excellently. **It portrays how the British are naïve and arrogant and do not understand the Native people, as they were so willing to trust Magua by assuming he was Mohawk rather than Huron. It also takes on colonial politics, and the differences between the colonials and the English troops and how they interact differently with the Natives.** 
However, the film certainly takes liberties when it comes to its main characters and changes historical events slightly to create a more compelling story. Some typical Hollywood stereotypes are there, the romantic sub-plot and heroic sacrifice at the end, the sympathetic villain with an understandable motive, and a very dramatic, brutal and fictionalized death of George Monro, (in real life he survived the massacre and died in Albany.) This film is certainly a story for the general public, and I would not call this a perfectly sound secondary source, however compared to Pocahontas I would say it is way more accurate and is a very well researched and well made film. 
I think this film can be viewed as a good primary source to at least teach the general public about American historical events that they have never heard of.----AJ DeGeorge

I think that as a secondary source, the movie works well for the most part. It at the very least does a better job with historical accuracy than other films. A lot of the events that take in the movie did actually take place, some of the characters were real individuals, and other aspects such as setting, clothing, language, and tools are accurate.** I think this film works as any other historical film in that it introduces the viewer to a topic one would need to study further, and it can be useful to a researcher when grouped with other secondary sources.** -- Jordan Petty

**This is definitely a better historical representation of the relationship between the natives and colonists than Pocahontas.** You see the divide between the natives over what European “father” they support, as well as their loyalty to them. The issue the colonists living on the frontier face, being told to fight for their country by abandoning their families and homes, and their reaction to it, will eventually snowball into the Revolutionary War. Again, this is a production of Hollywood and can’t be taken entirely at face value, but I think it can still apply as a secondary source. The costumes, languages and setting are all accurate to the time period. -Madison Roberts

The Last of the Mohicans is a great secondary source about the French and Indian War, which occurred during the Seven Years War. In my opinion, the movie gets many concepts correct. For example, **Natty Bumppo (Hawkeye) is accurately described as a white man who was adopted and raised by a Native family. Also, the movie shows how Natives were used as guides and how both French and British colonists relied on Natives to communicate news.** **Another thing that I found interesting was that the Natives were portrayed as having "agency” during this period. Meaning that they had their own motives and aren’t weak or as uncultured as other secondary sources portray Natives.** In fact, in this movie Natives are portrayed as participants in the conflict. And finally, another thing this movie does is show American grievances that the Colonists had with the British Crown. For example, the British control over the Colonial frontier militia and how if the Colonists didn’t follow the British army they would be charged with sedition. A**nother example that shows the grievances is the fact that the Frontier Colonists were pushed west because it was the only land they could afford.**

Additionally, **The Last of the Mohicans is a great secondary source for James Fenimore Cooper’s novel with the same name published in 1826. When Cooper published his writing in the nineteenth century it is characterized as being a part of the Early American Republic when the Americas were trying to establish a “culture.” The movie provides insight into Cooper’s book because it follows Cooper’s storyline.** Additionally, the movie shows how Cooper is an example of an author who worked to establish the concept of an American hero through Natty Bumppo. (Source-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNp5ynjZmfk)
-Megan Williams

The movie the Last of the Mohicans, could be used as a secondary source. Like Pocahontas, there are some aspects of this movie that are historically correct, but there are some that are very wrong. This movie could be used as a “starting point.” As a way to introduce the Mohican people, and the way of life during the time. -Kaylee Williams

**The movie serves as a somewhat valuable secondary source of the Fall of Fort William Henry in that it overall synthesizes the events of the French victory in the siege of the British held fort. British Lieutenant-Colonel George Munro and French General  Louis-Joseph de Montcalm were both real people, and while the interpretation of the British surrender to the French is obviously traumatized, the overall storyline of the British surrender, their retreat, and the French allied Native American attack on them is based on fact.** However the romance between the adopted, half-white son of what becomes that last Mohican man and the oldest daughter of Scotsman Munro is not based on fact, but rather just a modified storyline to make the movie more interesting. **Visually in terms of costumes and physical setting, as well as the mention of fur trade and relationship between the French and British and the different Native American tribes, the movie is fairly historically accurate. However, //this adds to the general audiences’ perception of the film’s overall historical accuracy when in reality it is not the total truth//.**-Morgan Gilbert

I think that this movie could serve as a good secondary source for the French and Indian War. **If the viewer were to watch the movie as a story of what life was like at the time**, not as historical fact. However, there were some things that were true, such as the attack on the fort, the relationships between the natives and french, the natives and the British, and the colonists and the British. I think the film would be a good secondary source for the battles but viewers would have to go in understanding that the main story line is fiction, the entire movie is not fiction, but it is not all historical truth either. -Kimberly Sak

**I think that this movie could work as a secondary source, if the person using it understood that there are some things that are fictional within the film.** There were also many pieces of information that were accurate, and could be used. Like others have mentioned it would also be a good source for information about the way life was during that period, and the way people interacted with each other. -- Mariah Morton

Compared to many other historical movies I think Last of The Mohicans is actually a fairly decent secondary source.** We can argue about the inaccuracies of the clothing or the military drill all day, but the film does a great job of capturing the feel of the time period.** Even the addition of fictional characters didn't seem necessarily out of place because of they didn't really alter the history of the story, they were only included to tell an interesting story framed around a historical event. T****he exception to this would be the conversation between Magua and Montcalm about the coming massacre of British prisoners. The scene where Montcalm suggests that Magua should ambush the retreating British column to prevent them from fighting another day does alter the historical accuracy of the film.**** All accounts show that Montcalm tried his best to prevent a situation like that from happening, even attempting to escort the British column to Fort Edward under the cover of darkness. Other than that, the depiction of the siege of Fort William Henry is consistent with the account left by Louis Antoine de Bougainville, the Marquis de Montcalm's aide-de-camp. Another thing I think the film did well was the complex attitudes and motivations of all the characters and factions at play. The film's portrayal of the reluctant colonists, the naive or arrogant british command, the differing attitudes natives had towards Europeans and encroachment, as well as the willingness of the French to actively work with the natives was all pretty much in line with the real story. Even the portrayal of the "petit guerre" and the varying treatment native war parties gave to combatants vs prisoners was also shown in a way not many other historic films have ever done.
sources:

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.

Bougainville, L. D., &amp; Hamilton, E. P. (1964). Adventures in the wilderness: The American journals of Louis Antoine de Bougainville, 1756-1760. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. - Wilson LeCount

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 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? ======

Some historical inaccuracies that occurred in the film were that the characters for the most part in the film were fictional even though they may have been based on real historical figures such as General Webb and Colonel Munro. The representation of Native Americans in the film showed both the demographics of Indians who detested the Europeans for taking over the land and the ones who sided with them as well. There is also the notion of a romantic relationship being the main focal point as well in the plot. Based on data throughout history, it is very unlikely that a Native American would develop a romantic relationship with the daughter of a British commander. -Lauren Simpson

Of course, with any historically themed movie, there will be details and facts that have been altered, changed, or left out completely by the movie producers. **For example, the movie Last of the Mohicans does a pretty decent job of portraying the era, but there is the romantic aspect between the characters of the movie that make the accuracy questionable.** As well as some of the relationships between the British and the Native Americans as a whole, yes there is fighting, but there is also a sense of friendship or partnership that does not seem to be the whole truth. -Kaylee Williams

While it is a decent film, historical significance and accuracy did not appear to be the main focus of the film. U**ltimately what I saw was a fictional romance that was dramatized by setting the story in a historical conflict.** As we previously discussed, this movie was a remake of an older movie, which was based off a fictional novel from 1827, which takes place during the French and Indian War. There was bound to have been some things that got lost in the grapevine. **One of the things that took my interest was how the movie portrayed Magua to be the sole instigator of the massacre of soldiers and civilians from Fort William Henry. However, Magua is a fictional character, so this could not have been so.** According to the Fort William Henry museum website, Montcalm, who was a very real historical figure, tried to explain to his Native American allies the terms of the British surrender. However, there was quite a bit lost in translation because many of his allies belonged to many different nations. Moreover, the Native Americans were promised recompense for fighting with the French, so Montcalm's actions made it seem as if the French were not holding up to their end of the bargain. After plundering the fort for themselves, the Native tracked the retreating British flanks on their way to Fort Edward and killed, kidnapped, plundered, and generally harassed them. According to Liston and Baker's article "Reconstructing the Massacre at Fort William Henry, New York", there were even reported instances where the victims were decapitated and slashed in such ways that indicated the Natives did so with the intention of taking trophies. Unlike the movie suggests, the French did not get the fort in the end. In the wake of Montcalm's disastrous promises to his Native allies, many French soldiers deserted and Fort William Henry was burned by Montcalm due to him no longer having the men to man the fort nor the ability to pursue the British to Fort Edward.

Sources:
“History Of Fort William Henry, Now A Kid-Friendly Attraction In Lake George NY.” Fort William Henry Museum and Restoration. Accessed September 7, 2020. https://www.fwhmuseum.com/history/.

Liston, Maria A, and Baker, Brenda J. "Reconstructing the Massacre at Fort William Henry, New York." //International Journal of Osteoarchaeology// 6, no. 1 (1996): 28-41.
-- Lyndsey Clark

Despite the attentions to detail that the film takes, **much of the film is fictional, such as most of the characters. There was no "Hawkeye" or even a person that remotely resembled him in real life; Munro was not known for having daughters.** Some of the violence is actually toned down a bit from the actual events that took place, such as the scene with the Hurons attacking the British in the open field (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-10-ca-753-story.html). **A main focal point of the movie was the relationship between Hawkeye and and Cora Munro, and this is where most of the accuracy is sacrificed.** The relationship itself is questionable, being that Cora was the daughter of a distinguished British general and Hawkeye, although white, was raised among Delaware Indians (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-10-ca-753-story.html). -- Jordan Petty

//The Last of the Mohicans// is a useful source for context on the French and Indian War in America. Though this film is generally historically accurate by the means of some events and lifestyles, there are a few inaccuracies. Lieutenant-Colonel Munro is a real person, though his death is inaccurate in the film. He is shown to have died during the massacre by the Native Americans, though he actually survived this famous ambush. He actually died only a few months later. Another issue with the film is the entire love scenario. In reality, Cora and Alice are fictional characters in all, and the relationship between Cora and Nathaniel was very unlikely even if they did exist. There were class issues during the 1700s, so Cora was unlikely to have wanted to be involved with someone like Nathaniel due to his status in society. All in all, however, the movie takes some freedom in developing storylines and ideas, though it is certainly based around historical events. -Tara Scroggins

I do think the film seems to make the relationship between Native Americans and Europeans chummier than they may have been, but **the film does peripherally touch on some historical events that we talked about in class. (Like the Albany Pact and the battle at Fort William Henry.)However, I would not have known about those events before our class on Tuesday, and I doubt most Americans would have known about those either**. Additionally, none of the characters in this film are real people. As we talked about in class, this movie is based on a series of novels, which was turned into a movie in 1936, and then this 1992 movie was made. Besides the historical time period (the Seven Years War,) this movie is as far from historical as possible. However, I think it is important to note that this film isn’t necessarily trying to make a historical claim. The filmmakers were trying to make a romance-drama film, that happened to be set in the past. Very different from making an actual, historical based film. However, whether or not they were trying to make a historical claim, one is still made. **I wonder how many people still left the theater in 1992, assuming the Last of the Mohicans was based on a true story, or how many did follow up research on the film after watching it. I would imagine very few, if any, people actually did that.**--Cat Kinde

**One of the big errors in the film is how Montcalm not only supports Magua in the massacre of British prisoners, but he even suggests it.** While we don't have any real evidence to say whether Montcalm directly supported this or not we do have evidence to suggest he tried his hardest to prevent the ambush. The movie fails to point out that Montcalm's native allies were composed of around 1,800 warriors from 33 different tribes, some coming all the way from the Mississippi river valley and the Lake Superior area. The reality of the situation was that Montcalm had a very difficult time coordinating the actions of these warriors to the point where he believed their actions were almost uncontrollable. Once the siege had ended and the native warriors were essentially denied war trophies, they set off under their own determination to get what they came for. Sources say that everyone involved knew native warriors would pull some sort of stunt, and Montcalm even attempted to arrange for a French escort of the British prisoners to Fort Edward, under the cover of darkness, to prevent such an ambush. **The 7 Years War in the colonies was definitely a confusing and nuanced conflict, this scene may have just been added to simplify things by creating a clear good vs bad story line, but it's one of the few scenes that does a disservice to the history of the conflict.**

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? ======
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.

====== 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
 
**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.

Sources: 
//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**

--Ethan K.

**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.

--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

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

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 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

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	======

**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
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. 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

I think the consideration of this movie when talking about historical films is important because it not only is a historically based movie but it is not based on a true historical story. This film makes it easier to look for the small historical accuracies and inaccuracies such as clothing, battles, relationships, actions, or artistic license, because you don't have to worry so much about whether aspects of the main character or main story lines are accurate, problems that come up with movies like Pocahontas or other movies that claim to be true stories. -Kimberly Sak

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

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

Edit summary

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