The biggest error in fact would have to be the fact that Colonel Munro had daughters. Not only did he have daughters, but he had a daughter that was in love with another fiction character. However, this movie is based off a book in which these characters exists so in novel standards they got this right. In history standards, it is just plain wrong. I do have a question though and this can probably go under the questions about interpretation but I’ll put it here: when looking at the historical movie that is based off a book, should we try to interpret the novel base of the book or the actual historical side? I guess for this class we are focusing on the actual historical side, but overall, outside of the classroom setting, what should we look for? — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/09/13 21:34

In the film the characters often speak in anachronistic ways. For example the character Jack Winthrope character who says British rules are no longer govern the colonists when they are tyranny. In this way the colonists are already depicted as thinking in ways similar to colonists in the revolutionary war. While surely some colonists felt such sentiments against the British when they were treated so poorly during the war the language used seems a lot stronger then perhaps would have been used. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/09/14 14:27

Of course the movie had created mostly fictional characters, both for entertaining purposes and book-based purposes. Other than that, i think the movie was lacking in portraying the struggles Natives faced during this time in regards to assimilation into this new kind of society that was forming, and adaptation to unfamiliar (and sometimes unfriendly) cultural traditions, and most of all the debilitating disease, that the Europeans brought. The Natives may have had a bit more skill when it came to battle tactics and the spirit of war, but the movie completely nixed the fact that they were going through a whole other personal, mental, and emotional battle at the same time that was arguably much more brutal. The film also did not portray well that the Natives tried to maintain the peace more than they fought; to me, they just portrayed the natives as a whole as constantly savage all the time. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/14 14:53

I thought 1757 was the second year of the war because the war started in 1756. This means that the third year of the war would have to have been 1758? In the novel, there is no romance between Daniel Days character and Cora. Rather, Magua has the infatuation with her and pursues her for her hand in marriage. I believe that this movie is actually based on the screenplay for the 1936 version, which apparently was a huge influence on director Michael Mann, so this maybe why that change occurred. If a movie is based off of a screenplay, that based off a novel, does it loose any credibility or can one movie have more of the novel depicted that whats is originally based off of? — Natalie Sciadini 2016/09/14 3:03

While I cannot claim to be an expert in this field, I think the movie depicted the dynamics between the major players in the French & Indian War/ 7 Years War in a relatively accurate manner. The French and British generals respected one another’s military competence, or were they just being ‘civilized?’ The Native Americans worked with the Europeans but did not seem necessarily bound to their orders, hence bludgeoning one while helping to “scout,” thus beginning an ambush. The scene where the British were surrendering further depicted the relationship amongst the armies. *I enjoyed the dramatic hat bow from the French man. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/09/14 22:10

I think the movie did a great job depicting the way Native Americans and the Europeans fought. In the film the Native Americans were always hiding in the trees in order to catch the British by surprise and ambush them. However, the British would stand still and try to shoot them in the trees in their little lines. The film shows that even though the British think they are superior to everyone around them, the Native Americans obviously knew how to stargaze, while the British remained clueless. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/09/13 20:26

At first, I thought it was a glaring error the way Native American women were portrayed as solely mothers or only found in the domestic realm, and the way women overall were thought of by Native men, captured in this single quote from Magua: “You are women, slaves, dogs; I spit on you!” I was like, “but what about matrilineal, archal, and local traditions; what about women possessing the power?!”, very much in the mindset of Pocahontas. In class, however, I was reminded that the focus and mindset of power and jurisdiction were shifting and becoming male dominant, due to fur trade, hunting, trading, technology, and warfare replacing agriculture as the main means of economic upkeep in the tribe. Therefore, the movie nailed spot-on both the Anglo-Saxon and Native American views towards women, the latter which changed since the settlers first came over because Native Americans saw more of these attitudes from the Europeans over time. Magua exemplified the Native American side in his pretty disgusting quote towards Cora. And Duncan exemplified the Anglo-Saxon side when he seeks Cora’s hand in marriage but is all like “What’s love got to do with it?”: “You should let your father settle it.” Though the Native American men and the colonist men clashed over many things, one thing that meshed (at least in the movie but arguably in history as well) were their thoughts about women: that they were subordinate to men. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/14 14:54

For starters, casting Russell Means, let’s be real. The fact that this movie is rated 'R' allows for the accurate portly of violent fight scenes between the tribes and soldiers, the reality of the fight isn't glossed over. A lot of the generals did exists. — Natalie Sciadini 2016/09/14 3:03

Nathaniel was adopted into the Mohicans when his parents were killed. When I was in Professor Seller’s Native American history class, we had learned a bit about Natives adopting outsiders into their tribe. Some were very formal about. Some were very strict and essentially tried to turn the adoptee into the person they were replacing (such as a child who died). Although not a lot is said in the movie about Nathaniel’s adoption process, it was still an important part of Native American tribes and cultures. The producers could’ve made the movie a little more interesting if Nathanial had gone into more detail regarding his adoption into the tribe. — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/09/14 16:29

The way Magua appeared looked very similar to the sketch we looked at in class on Tuesday of a Mohawk warrior. I also appreciated how in the battle scenes, the Natives were using the trees and foliage to their advantage. The words that were said to the deer after it was shot in the first scene seemed fitting as well. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/09/14 16:36

I am proud, proud that Michael Mann showed restraint, and took steps not portray Native Americans in a stereotypical way (though likely inaccurate), like its cinematic predecessors. Mann himself has stated that the book was not very good, and that he used historical sources to fill out the film. http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/in-contention/posts/michael-mann-looks-back-on-the-last-of-the-mohicans-20-years-later. That being said, the Battle at Fort William Henry was amazing, and everything I imagined it would be from history. — Gaddie Jason W.S. 2016/09/14 07:24PM

The second reading, “A Captive with the Abenakis” explains how many English or white settlers were taken in and adopted to replace fallen warriors or deaths in the the tribe. In the movie, Nathaniel is taken and considered a son. Another thing the movie got right is the fact that the Native Americans ambushed and hid behind cover when shooting, while the English just stood there and got shot. We learned in class that this was how both sides thought of warfare.

— Houff Nicholas T. 2016/09/14 021:25PM

The most obvious correct event portrayed is the fight at Fort William. There are of course a fair amount of inaccuracies in the actual fighting for the fort however putting those aside the scenes involving the fort are fairly accurate. Especially in terms of violence and gore it stays to a high level of accuracy (a common trend in the film). The succeeding scenes of the flee from the fort to the massacre in the field also represent actual events in the grim manner in which they occurred. Realism in this film overwhelming occurs in relation to violence more then any other features. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/09/14 21:00

The film seemed pretty accurate in a few aspects. The film did a decent job with showing how the different Native American tribes negotiated and interacted with the French and English sides to try to shift the situation in their favor. I also got the impression that Nathaniel was in some ways a stand-in for the Mohicans and the Iroquois as a whole. He wanted to mostly stay out of the conflict but eventually sided with the English, as the Iroquois did in general. The Native Americans also fought from the trees and used their surroundings to their advantage, and the costuming seemed pretty accurate for the time and place throughout the film. — Carey Megan A. 2016/09/14 23:21

The filmmakers do appear to have done their homework on some details. The British enter combat in columns, which made them very easy targets for ambush by forces that could maneuver more easily. The diplomatic negotiations regarding surrender also seem correct as far as I can tell, while not perhaps correct in this particular instance, the terms of war during the time did call for a certain degree of respect and honor when calling for parley. Additionally, the rather lofty flourishes of the French seem somewhat accurate as the French were very well known for being somewhat flamboyant, even at a time when powdered wigs and ostentatious manors were considered fashionable. I will say that one thing I found particularly noteworthy that many, many other films set during this era fail to acknowledge: when they are hiding in the waterfall, they all note that their guns are useless because all of their powder is now wet, which was a very common issue at the time. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/09/15 00:41

In the movie, we learn that Nathaniel Hawkeye identifies with his adopted American Indian family over his European roots. In the readings we learned about the American Indian traditions of adoptions. While it could be a hard process to join the tribe, some people fully commit themselves to the tribe and never leave the tribe. In the talk between Hawkeye and Cora, when the two are discussing why they did not give the fallen villagers a proper burial, is where we learn about the natural differences between Native Americans and Europeans. The Natives looked to be savages to European but, in actuality the two cultures are simply different and the Europeans cannot grasp the purposes within this strange culture. — Robert Pratt 2016/09/15 03:33

In the film, characters like Megua were dehumanized and personified as cold hearted. Megua was a French spy and Ottawa. From the beginning of the film, he was set on revenge for his family’s murders. He describes to the French general that he wants to kill off the seed of white hair. Cora and Alice’s father, general of the British Army, served as Megua’s target. Megua’s language, referring to himself in third person further exemplified the stereotype of Native Americans as less intelligent. Megua is constantly flanked by his men who never speak, but are seen as cold hearted because of their treatment of Cora and Alice. Once Cora and Alice were captured, ropes were tied around their neck and they were corralled like cattle. However, the rope and the whole kidnapping ordeal was exaggerated. Although tribes did take captives, for the most part they were treated humanely and rarely threatened to put to death. Cora and Alice were sentenced to death by the leader of the tribe, although many settlers who became captives did not meet the same fate. Instead, many captives were adopted into families in the tribe. Megua’s dehumanization by referring to himself in third person and the exaggerated inhumane treatment toward Cora and Alice further allows the stereotype of the ‘bad’ Native American flourish and damage Native American populations further. — James, Emily B. 2016/09/14 08:51

The “ransom negotiation” scene, where things are looking pretty dark for the Munro sisters — would communicating through that on either and both sides have been that simple?! (#doubtful) Like, it was already confusing with the multiple languages going back and forth, the seemingly constant switch, and the epically heroic double crossing (which I totally did not expect from Duncan; he totally won me over in the end). But I question whether the natives who did not choose to ally themselves with European ventures but just adapt their traditions as best they could would have understood the languages and overall negotiation as easily and seamlessly as the film depicted. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/14 14:54

One thing that I thought the film could have mentioned was that European colonists would often get the Native Americans drunk in order for them to sign treaties favorable to the English. This could provide some backstory to some of the tensions between the Native Americans and whites. This being said, the movie could have been a gorilla banging rocks together for two hours and still have been a cinematic masterpiece because of the soundtrack. — Trout, Christian C. 2016/09/14 20:57

At the end of the film, I asked myself if it was accurate that Chingachgook would have been the actual last Mohican. I understand he probably meant it in more of a symbolic sense, that the white settlers were wiping out Native Americans through expansion and war. I have read before that there was a myth at the time spread by white writers that Native Americans were just “disappearing” for no real reason other than that whites were naturally more dominant and would come to conquer the entire area. I was unsure if the film meant for the viewers to interpret it as James Fenimore Cooper would have wanted, or if we were supposed to look past that myth and see that the Native Americans (like the Hurons at the end) actually did try to resist and hold on to their independence and morality well past the French and Indian War. — Carey Megan A. 2016/09/14 23:29

I am just wondering, did anyone else feel like this movie was more of a Revolutionary War movie then a French and Indian War movie? It felt as if instead of being a movie about the French and various Indian tribes versus the British, Colonialist, with Mohican scouts, it was the French and one Indian tribe versus the English versus the Colonialist and some Mohicans fighting. The British are shown as bad and uncaring, and are shown as some sort of evil villain that wants to take over the world but the good guys have to work with to defeat a common enemy. This may be because of when the original story was written, but even then it still didn’t feel like it was in the right time. Also was anyone else really uncomfortable with the fact that the two white people survive, but the one possible white and Indian couple both die (also the fact that they were made to see like a couple after speaking maybe two words to each other)? — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/09/15 00:11

After watching the film, I decided to look up the cast to investigate questions of interpretation. While last week we had decided that Disney made an earnest attempt to consult and include Native Americans in the production of Pocahontas, I wondered if the producers of The Last of the Mohicans had done the same. I was pleased to find out that Russell Means, a noteworthy Lakotan activist, played Chingachgook, the Mohican father to white-son Daniel Day-Lewis’ Nathaniel Hawkeye. Means was an influential member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and worked through decades for the political interests of indigenous peoples. I find Mean’s casting as a lead role to be wise for the film’s producers because it aids in more-authentic representation and personhood. — Milroy, Nancy E. 2016/09/15 03:43

The film as a primary source was good at showing women’s values at the time. In the film, there is a strong female lead who does not care about getting married for the sake of it and would rather find a true love. She is also shown shooting guns, protecting her sister against the Indians, and standing up to her father. Women during that time period typically did not act that way because European society was patriarchal. Instead, it reflects the ideas of the late 20th century feminism who were equal to men in every way and independent. It definitely reflects the ideas and values that women held in the 1990’s and not in the 1700’s. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/09/13 20:26

As Leah suggested, I do think this movie serves as a good primary source showing the development of female characters at the time. The film does have a female supporting character, Cora, however she is mostly defined as Hawkeye's love interest and the daughter of General Munro. She does as Leah points out reject Heyward's proposal however her moment of independence is overshadowed by her larger role as Hawkeye's love interest and the damsel in distress. Although the film feature a cast of female main characters, like Cora, they serve to be rescued rather than to be seen as powerful which shows American society's start to accept feminism conditionally and situational. — James, Emily B. 2016/09/14 08:52

If a single character could determine whether or not the entire movie was a primary source representative of the 90s, then Mohicans was a fairly decent one due to the character of Cora. Likely a combination of the writing and the acting, she encapsulated the tendencies of women of that time to forge their own path, maintain a level of independence, and have their knowledge valued in conversations, relations, and the workplace. She was very self-sufficient, always protecting her sister, and even shot the enemy native down for herself (may or may not have cheered at that part!). She would not let her father assume she didn’t know what she was talking about when she voiced a politically and emotionally charged point of view that was all her own. To have these great characteristics that were so reminiscent of womanhood in the 90s, it kind of bummed me out that in the end, she was ultimately just there to be the love interest as usual … I guess that theme in entertainment is never quite going to go away. Even so, this was still the quote of the movie for me: “The decision i have come to is that i’d rather make the gravest of mistakes than to surrender my own judgement” … PREACH! — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/14 14:56

I think The Last of the Mohicans did a better portrayal of Natives than Pocahontas. There was more realistic conflict between the tribes as well as aspects of the French and Indian War relations. The movie wasn’t dumbed down or romanticized (or at least not nearly as much as Pocahontas). I think it was fairly accurate in terms of clothing, weaponry and tribal and neighborly relations. Although I’m not sure what audiences would learn from this, the movie seems to be a decent primary source from 1992. I think it was also less offensive than Pocahontas, where Smith’s men refer to Natives as “injuns.” — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/09/14 16:31

There were definitely a lot of factors that were a product of the 1990’s rather than the 1700’s.  In the beginning of the movie, Cora was alone in the town square and then approached by Heyward, with whom both she and her sister were on a first name basis with. I realize that in the film, he was currently at a different fort, and couldn’t be present, but the fact remains that the two were speaking of marriage without her father present, as we’ve discussed that was most definitely a requirement. However, as Emily pointed out, despite Cora being portrayed as a strong and independent female, it was only to a certain point.  She turned down Heyward, wanting to find love, and she apparently did so with a man she knew for two, maybe three days at that point?  She eventually did become little more than a plot device, someone to be rescued. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/14 16:36//

When looking at this film you can tell that it is definitely a great picture of when it was made. Looking at the female roles, as Leah pointed out, really show third wave feminism in its peak. See how the Native Americans are better portrayed, but not completely accurate, shows the strides of better representation of Natives in film and main stream media. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/09/14 18:02

Like others have written before me, the strong female roles act as a primary source for the feminist movement and the film also relatively succeeded in bettering the portrayal of Native Americans. While, it isn't perfect, it is better than Pocahontas or some other movies that I have seen. This shows a better recognition of the wrong/offensive portrayals of past movies and a striving to be more acurate.-Callie Morgan

As mentioned before, the women in Last of the Mohicans (mostly Cora) shared similar roles to those of Pocahontas (which was mostly Pocahontas). They are independent-minded, but their arguments get them nowhere and they are forced to turn to their men for support and actual progress in the film. We can look at this as a reflection of the 1990s using “strong female leads” as purely that, without them adding anything to the plot itself. Also similar to Pocahontas, the only potential (happy) interracial couple in this movie was torn apart, to the point where Alice just kills herself with grief and anger. That scene was painful to watch, especially as Uncas' death not only fuels her suicide but becomes the final tipping point for Chingachgook to get into the action and enact his revenge on Magua, perpetuating the whole revenge-driven anger and hate in the movie's Native American characters. So the 90's were doing their best by including these women and relationships, but they didn't succeed in sustaining any of it. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/09/14 22:29

The film seems to have ran with the idea that the British military was filled with backstabbing supremacists that could not for the life of them comprehend why any of the colonists would not readily drop everything to defend the crown. It seems a tad strawman in a sense due to how single faceted this portrayal was, depicting the British military as the villains through and through. Yes, the French were attacking British forts and raiding Mohawk homesteads, but it was war. The film seems to almost brush aside the implication that the French possibly burnt a family alive inside a cabin. The British are portrayed as petty and nationalistic in a way that actually would seem extremely detrimental to maintaining a proper military. Major Duncan outright lies about the raided camp they found just to get back at Nathaniel for Cora having the hots for him. Major Duncan is so prideful as to be prepared to defend a single fort to the last man despite knowing that it would ultimately be completely pointless. And while this is historically accurate, the fact that they are wearing very bright red uniforms and marching in near single file seems completely idiotic when they know for a fact that the Natives utilize guerrilla tactics. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/09/15 00:43

When you compare the Native Americans in this film to how they are shown in the “World Turned Upside Down” reading, you get some contrasts. In the reading, the Native Americans are very diplomatic and negotiate things with each other and with the colonists and Europeans. Although at times they were violent, diplomacy seems to have played a large part in their lives during the French and Indian War. In the film, especially early on, the Native Americans seem to be just marauding around in the woods looking for trouble. There is also the case of Magua, who is a violence-driven, almost in-human man whose sole drive is revenge. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/09/14 10:59

“Indians in the Northeastern woodlands took captives to assuage the grief of bereaved relatives and appease the spirits of deceased kinsfolk. War parties ” (First Peoples). This was illustrated by the unquenchable vengeance of Magua against the Munro family, the orchestrated attack that surrounded them and the Brits on all sides so he could scalp and remove the heart of “the grey hair”, the subsequent movement to capture the girls, and his desire to offer them up in an “eye for an eye” sort of fashion. “When the United States held treaties with Indian tribes in the nineteenth century … commissioners often dictated terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power” (World Turned Upside Down). This definitely came through in the movie, especially illustrated in the tensions between Duncan and Hawkeye, and the refusal of Colonel Munro and Duncan to listen to what he, Chingachgook, and Uncas had to say about the realities of war. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/14 14:56

Reading “World Turned Upside Down” gave me the impression that the Native Americans were very civil, diplomatic and willing to negotiate. As for how the Native Americans were portrayed in this movie, it depended on whether they’re the hero or the villain. Nathaniel is brave, calm, and poetic, while Magua was set on revenge and was cold and emotionless. I am willing to admit that the same could be said of nearly every Hollywood film out there, however. The hero is calm and collected, and the villain is cruel and sadistic. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/09/14 16:36

Comparing the experience of Susana with that of the youngest Munro sister, you see that in the movie the effect that the short time as a captive has on the little sister, Alice. Towards the end of the movie, she has seen so much death and violence that she seems just numb. The viewer also sees that when Duncan dies, his face is painted, the article mentions the paint of the face of the captured but places them in an empty role in their society rather than being burned alive. — Natalie Sciadini 2016/09/14 7:30

I like what Neal wrote above. The readings we had this week really focused on the diplomacy of various Native American tribes during this time period. This isn't seen in the same light in this movie. While I know that diplomacy wasn't the only avenue used in reality, neither was violence. - Callie Morgan

As mentioned in “A Captive with the Algonkis,” children were “especially susceptible to adoptive ‘Indianization.’” Hawk Eye portrays what Indianization looks like on an adult colonist. He dresses, speaks, practices, and believes in the ways of his adopted family. I do, however, wonder if the dynamic between the adoptive father and son would have been as genuine as the one depicted in the film. Once captured, some colonists may have adapted well and decided to remain, but were they treated as though they weren’t Europeans? — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/09/14 22:02

I think it is interesting how the movie relates the ways captives were treated as shown in “A Captive with the Abenakis” article. While the movie did show how captives were either adopted into the culture or killed, it doesn’t really go into detail of this is the reason why. The movie portrays these practices as the good ones adopt and the bad ones kill, when both tribes of Indians would do both. Both the Huron and the Mohicans used these practices as a ritual to get back lost relatives, and I think the movie did good for showing that, but bad for not giving the full picture. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/09/15 00:57

The ‘so what’ question, I think plays a bigger role in this movie than in other historical movies because we are facing a time in history that, to me, is not usually depicted. When it comes to the ‘so what’ in this case, I feel like we should look at ‘so what this movie isn’t 100% accurate, at least we finally have a somewhat decent movie that depicts the French and Indian War’. I feel like this is wrong for us to think about it, but I am also guilty in thinking this as well. So what they added a love story, at least they got the surrender of the fort right. So when asking ‘so what’ I feel like we can make the argument for ‘at least they did…’ because let’s face it, most of us probably glanced over this era in our history in high school and Hollywood is a reflection of that. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/09/13 21:35

Although this movie is not completely accurate, which as far as I know the movie does not claim to be historically accurate, I feel enough important facets of the French and Indian War are accurately portrayed for it to be thought of as an important representation of the French and Indian War. European-Native American relations, landscape, how different soldiers fought, and the surrender are just some of the important things that make this movie historically significant. I believe this film can be forgiven for having a fabricated plotline. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/09/14 10:53

'So What' Daniel Day Lewis can dodge, dip and duck bullets.'So What' the movie is driven by a love story (this is hollywood). The movie was made and serves as a window to peer into the overarching history and time period of the mid eighteenth century. Does the movie have embellished and over exaggerated cinematography? Yes, but that is also what made this film open to such a wide audience. For a movie based on a movie, based on a book, based on an event that the author was never a part of does fairly well in portraying the environment and correlation between a three sided story. — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/09/14 13:27

In continuing what I alluded to in the fourth question and thinking of the movie from a film POV more than a “piece of history” POV, the personal and romantic relations in the film made me think of how women are still frequently used in the same way in the entertainment industry as a plot device that often revolves around the trope of “damsel in distress” and/or “forlorn lover”, until of course the man comes and is the only thing to give her hope. In that way it makes a point about the history of storytelling and its traditions, from today back to the 90s and even all the way back time where the book version was the most widely enjoyed story of the day. There is a constant interest in a story based on love, but we still have a long way to go to continue creating more and more diverse categories of roles for the women that make up such an important part of these stories. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/14 14:57

The main thing that really stuck out to me in this movie is the sound track. The amazing music that was used in this film really made it have impact. The plot and characters have their issues, but I can’t help but think it would of been worse without the sound track. The movie won awards, but not as much as the sound track and score did. This then makes me beg the question, does a film need a great sound track to make it a hit? — Brooks Anna R. 2016/09/14 18:08

I think, despite being based on a book and a film that were already very inaccurate to begin, this film, accuracy wise, is very par-for-the-course, especially for a 1990s film. But what I really admire is its authenticity. By having its characters living in the moment, film does not betray itself. Had anyone else filmed this, you would probably have Natty Bumppo and company giving us some speech how “the white man is wrong” and “it’s bad to kill the Indians and take their land.” This film will have none of that. They are people from 1757, not people from 1991 in 1757 — Gaddie Jason W.S. 2016/09/14 07:24PM

I agree with Anna, the score for this movie is amazing. You have moments, like the ending, where there is absolutely no dialog, and the music sets the tone for the entire scene, the intense fight and painful deaths. The movie has a theme or a leitmotif that plays in almost every intense running scene or fight scene. I have seen this movie before and the music gets me the most. I think the intensity of the situations, the war, the battles between tribes is all boosted by music. but can we say this for all? — Natalie Sciadini 2016/09/14 7:34

So What? So what if this movie depicted the French and Indian War correctly. So what if it was a good movie overall and at times depicted the struggle between rich and poor when it was discussed that the poor had to move to the frontier. So what if it got a lot right. It still depicted Native Americans, for the most part, as the antagonist and blood thirsty savages. When the readings suggested that they were mostly diplomatic and only resorted to violence when the English did so first. I think this movie relied too heavily on the notion that Native Americans were just rampaging through the wilderness.

— Houff Nicholas T. 2016/09/14 021:30PM

Is it realistic to expect Hollywood to make a movie that portrays whites as bad? Why or why not? Would doing so alienate a majority of the audience? — Trout, Christian C. 2016/09/14 21:02

The part of the movie that really killed me, that really struck me in my “so what” heart, was Chingachgook's final speech. He delivers the title line, that he is the “last of the Mohicans”, which is tragic to say the least. But then he goes on to predict that it's essentially the white man's turn to run the lands in which his people once resided, except he puts it in a way that sounds like it's the white man's job to do so, not just an inevitability of the future. This speech rubbed me the wrong way for a lot of reasons, the biggest of which being that he just accepts this as truth upon his son's death. That's it. “Oops, oh well,” Chingachgook shrugs while wandering into the distance. It's like his character is willfully smudging out his own culture and people because the white people are here and it's their turn. These sort of scenes solidify the misconception that Native Americans are just gone, that they stopped being a thing after the colonies turned into the United States, after the last of the West was fenced off. These scenes in film and in history books snuff a culture that is so important to the narrative of this continent, and I don't think it's something Hollywood should get a pass on because they weren't aiming for historical accuracy. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/09/14 22:30