View source for 329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments

== Things the movie got right ==

The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)


The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.


The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127).  --Deborah S.


Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred.  An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man.  The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.

This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.

The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann

I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.

My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic.  No one is perfect, in one direction or another.  - Cilla

I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also depicted the generousity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done. The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn

To add to Megan mc's paragraph on Hawkeye's adoption:  The film also captured the major cultural differences that Hawkeye experienced after being adopted. The director speaks specifically to the issue of language. Cora asks Hawkeye how he knows English, and of course that's when Eleazar Wheelocks' school comes into play. That moment is at least a nod to a small detail which lends a dash more historical credibility to the film. Mind you that it seems films and television shows tend to not make much out of language barriers, everyone is assumed to speak English. Like Susana's son, Hawkeye, having been separated off from "civilized" culture for so long and at such an early age, can speak a Native language (also probably a bit of French considering the fur traders), but he must learn English  with his brother.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:41, 8 September 2010 (MDT)

== Things the movie got wrong ==

One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.

The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno

One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.

As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.

To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen

Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing.  Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better.  One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers.  These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps.  Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun.  He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest.  In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel.  Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk

I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the  "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.

I don't care how historically inaccurate it is, dual wielding long rifles and shooting from the hips always score points in my book. To hell with it being unlikely! To respond to Isaac Whalen, I do recall even with the original book many of the surviving Mohicans being rather annoyed that a book would claim that there were essentially no Mohicans left. Not very nice Mr Cooper.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:51, 8 September 2010 (MDT)

== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==

This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)

Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman

There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann

I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. 
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen

== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==

In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices.  The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists.  European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though.  The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land.  The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.

There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.”  According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society.  The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family.  Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters.  The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death.  Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua.  (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.

In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.

One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier.  Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him.  In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers.  Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was  totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation.  Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family.  Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt.  The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.

I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.

== Questions asked in class ==

*How are the British colonists portrayed?
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?


In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.

During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.

The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists.  Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans.  The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless.  Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie.  They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them.  It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.”  
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority.  When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims.  Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer.  The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies.  They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.
–Samantha W.

I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it.  I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman

I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann

Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers.  Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview.  To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie.  After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all.  For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream.  Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.

The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers".  -- Justine R.

I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.

The British military officers treated the militia men like crap. The officers told them they could not go home to protect their families and if they were caught trying to leave they would be hanged. The officers thought they were ignorant of the importance of what they were doing when in reality the colonists did know what they were doing. They would just rather protect their family then fight a losing battle at the fort. -LeAnn

For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans.  The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable.  It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different.  It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another.  Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart.  Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion.  The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over.  However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk

The movie depicts the British officers as horrible, arrogant men.  They treat the colonists as lesser people.  - Cilla