329-2012--Week 3 Questions/Comments

Things the movie got right
I felt like the movie showed how the Native Americans integrated European technology into their lives; they were all proficient with muskets and rifles, and used iron tomahawks alongside stone weapons. They also showed how the colonists were very divided on whether they should fight with the British regulars, and how many wouldn't involve themselves in the conflict. The fear the frontier family faced was also very authentic-feeling.--Carrie

One thing that really stuck out to me is how accurate the material culture in this movie was. I like how those making the film actually put some effort into it…unlike other filmmakers. Having accurate material culture and props really gave the viewers a better idea about how things might have looked in the 18th Century. I also noticed how the British soldiers in the film thought less of the colonists than their fellow British soldiers. This was portrayed in the tension between the British officers and the colonists when they enlisted in the militia and when trying to leave Fort William Henry. --Paige

To go along with that, the overall outline of the film seems to be correct. Given that the majority of the characters was fictitious, the outline of battles and major events seem to follow the historical record. --Pmccloy

One of the things the film got right towards the beginning was that the settlers felt like they owed allegiance to the British because they saw themselves as British. Another thing was that Nathanial was adopted, which fits in with the idea that Native Americans would adopt Europeans into their families to replace people they had lost. -Amanda

In the final scene, Hawk-eye went into the Huron tribe to save the Monroe sisters and offered the belt of his adoptive father in an act of diplomacy. Native American tribes often provided gifts to one another when engaging in diplomacy. -Wolana

I felt like the movie did a good job keeping the military tactics accurate. One of the first scenes the French using the Native Americans tactics as well as the British lining up in perfect rows to battle in the first scene with the fort. Hawkeye also gets very mad in the waterfall scene when his powder gets wet, since it would no longer be able to fire. –Kayle P

The film did a good job of depicting the animosity between the French and British as they struggled to gain control of both land and loyalty of Native American tribes. The movie spent time showing diplomatic negotiations (for example, when the generals of both sides converse about the fort and the British accept the French terms of surrender) which was interesting. --Ellen S.

The film accurately depicted the correct weapons that both the French and British would have used and given to the Native Americans during that time. Also '''the attire for both the women, and the military is also accurate. The cabin that the Cameron family lived in would be accurate for "frontier living" and the replica of Fort Henry is also correct.''' --Mary O.

The props and costuming of the movie were very accurate as well as the style of fighting that occurred at the time. The European soldiers in their lines and the Native Americans with tomahawks and clubs. - Emily

The cultural differences between the colonists and the Indians are very strong throughout the film. The scene where Hawkeye discovers the Cameron's cabin destroyed, Cora demands that the family receive a "good christian burial." When Hawkeye refuses to bury his friends for safety, Cora is confused by leaving these people without a respectable burial. This contrast demonstrates that even those these two groups of people lived close to and interacted with one another,their views on life were miles apart. -Rachel T.

The movie portrayed the Native American’s interesting habit of adopting or marrying their captives. We see Hawkeye, who was not captured by his “father” but was adopted into the tribe, and we see Magua planning to marry Alice. We also see Hawkeye offering a wampum belt as a gift while he negotiates for the release of Cora, Alice, and Duncan, which is in line with the practice of offering gifts during diplomatic talks. The costuming was very good. Laura-Michal

After Tuesday, I can appreciate the tension between "The Crown" and the colonial people a little more. I think this more than anything echoed reality. For adoption, I think they got it right with Nathaniel and the Huron leader's requests for Magua to take the young girl. Finally, they got the scalping part right, especially after reading Susanna Johnson's narrative. - Brooke

'''The movie also portrayed the feelings of hostility and resenmtent the Huron had towards the British. Magua's need for revenge against the "gray haired" for the deaths of his children demonstrated the lack of care the British had towards keeping relations with the Native Americans on good terms. -'''Kendall

After Tuesday’s class '''I fully expected to find many glaring mistakes while watching this movie like Pocahontas. I was pleasantly surprised''' to find that many of the topics we discussed in class and read about were present in the movie. First Nathaniel was adopted by a Native American tribe at the age of one or two. The Indians were portrayed using guns to hunt instead of bows and arrows showing their reliance on European goods. The only opportunity for poor people was out west on the frontier because that is where all the land was. English hire Magua thinking he is from one particular tribe when he is really from another which illustrates the English have no idea who these people are and what separates them. Magua also mentions that he plans to sell Major Duncan to the French which was a common practice during that time. - Jason M

This movie was actually pretty accurate about a lot of details. The American Indians used guns to hunt, they showed the difference in how the Europeans and the American Indians fought, and showed how not all settlers hated American Indians, some actually had loyalty for them. --Olivia H.

The fighting style of both Europeans and Natives appeared correct. Natives used guns instead of bows and arrows. They changed their hunting by using guns, making it easier. It was also obvious that many colonists did not want to leave their families to go fight at Fort William Henry. Not everyone agreed on so much conflict. Indians had to adapt or move. –Hannah Laughlin

The film did a nice job representing the integration of European technology and clothing into Native American culture and customs. The Native American characters are all skilled in the use of rifles and can effectively fight with them. Also, the clothing which many of the same characters wore reflected a combination of their own traditional dress with long European cloth shirts. Furthermore, the costumes worn by the English characters in the film were well done too, especially the silhouette of the women's clothes for the time period. A well-costumed movie kind of makes my day. ---Mary Quinn

One thing I did notice was that towards the end when the two girls and the blonde British soldier were taken to the village of the Native Americans, they were taken to the main chief. The movie got this right because the main person in charge was a male. Especially with he new changes that Professor McClurken stressed in class as a result of the conflict with the NA's. -Aqsa Z.

This film did a great job portraying the continent-wide cultural confusion. The Native Americans were dealing with European culture, technology, goods, ideologies, and more. The Native Americans used guns, changed leadership styles, and changed their reliance of supplies. While the supplies issue wasn't mentioned really (other than the obvious guns), the film did a good job portraying the cultural issues. The colonists were in the confusing position of continued patriotism to Britain, even though Britain had screwed them over and left them to fend for themselves. Maybe they were "too American" for this point in history, but it was a nice reminder of what's coming. I was impressed by how well the movie portrayed this major cultural confusion. -- Sam R.

The speech Hawkeye gives against Magua shows some of the trends of where Native American culture was headed. Magua adapted to the european settlers, he wanted to trade slaves and fur like the europeans did. Its a sign of the supply and demand effect on the Native American economy, furs and slaves were highly demanded which led to conflict. - Zhen Chen

'''Someone already mentioned the belt Hawkeye gives at the end of the film, I'm going to expand. Belts and other gifts of this sort were/are often a sign of trust among Native Americans.''' Some western Native American tribes still participate in this practice. In fact, I have a belt which was handcrafted for specifically my grandfather by a leading member of the Navajo nation as a sign of trust and thanks for his help with greatly expanding the education opportunities on the reservation. Needless to say, his scene made me smile. -- Sam R.

With a few notable exceptions, I think The Last of the Mohicans” did a very good job demonstrating quite a few things. The movie did a good job exemplifying British military tactics and techniques. In most cases, they also did an extremely good job depicting “the fog of war” – the confusion and disorientation that comes from the chaos that is a battlefield. This effect was not carried out only in the battle scenes, but extended throughout the movie with the very dark scenes and the rushing water. I thought they did a very good job representing the Native American value of exchanging a life for a life on more than one occasion. One good example is seen when Nathaniel is explaining how Magua’s personal vendetta is unfairly influencing the Huron involvement, so it is decided that Alice will replace Magua’s wife and Cora will burn to pay the price for Magua’s dead children. – Sara G.

One thing the movie did get right was that native Americans were integrating European technology in their lives. I did not see very much dependence on the items that made the NAs weak, but usually in films NAs are confined to bows and arrows and are not adapting. ---JST

Things the movie got wrong
One thing that really annoyed me while watching the movie were all of the magnolia trees in “New York”, but the entire film was filmed in North Carolina, so that’s okay, I get it. In general, this film is a better film in terms of historical accuracy (for being based on another movie and a novel). However, there were portions of the film that were done for the sake of drama then historical accuracy, and this includes the attack at Fort William Henry. Those guns would not have been firing that fast right after the other and those guns were not that accurate and as a result, probably would have been more misses than hits. –Paige

I’m going to point out the obvious. The Mohawks were a neutral party and therefore would not have been involved with the French during this war. Although the film mentioned the Hurons, there was much more emphasis on the Mohawks. This gives the public the wrong idea about a group of Native Americans and basically groups them all together rather than mentioning the vast differences between these people, other than Mohicans were good and everyone else was bad. Whoever was in charge here has some explaining to do. -Amanda

'''When they were meeting at Albany, they said that they were going to force colonist’s men into service for the milta. I''' thought that was interesting since most of the colonies didn’t send men to fight in the war. I don’t know how accurate it would have been that they would have for them to be forced into service.–Kayle P.

I also was interested to see the attitude of the British settlers. We learned on Tuesday that these men had absolutely no sense of being "American." They viewed Native Americans as being "in the way." However, at the start of the movie when the settlers and the British military are discussing the need for a "colonial" or "American" militia, it seemed like the two groups (British settlers and British military) were very disjointed and separate. --Ellen S.

Everyone has gorgeous teeth. You know the Hurons are bad because they don't use pronouns. How did Cora learn how to fire a gun? '''Everyone is a really good shot, and can reload quickly. The ladies are able to cross rivers and climb steep hillsides in binding and heavy clothes, but they can't ride horses without getting tired.''' Magua says that English women walk all over their men, even though it seems like there was greater gender parity among Native Americans than among Europeans. The Hurons speak English with an American accent--instead of French, or for the convenience of the audience, English with a French accent. How does Duncan know every language ever? Hawkeye, you only met these trifling white girls like, two days ago. Are they really worth the lives of your family and everyone you know? --Stef L.

Guns were not that accurate.Nathaniel looked like a sniper up on that hill picking the guys off one by one. Gun technology was definitely not that advanced. - Kendall

Was it me or did anyone else notice that Col. Munro's Scottish accent was not consistent? One scene he was really Scottish, and the next he wasn't...maybe it was just me. And if he was Scottish, why didn't his daughters have a Scottish accent also? The strange wooden spear/club weapon that Chingachgook wielded is not an accurate Native American weapon. Also Chingachgook and Uncas were not the last of the Mohicans. --Mary O.

While the film depicted the clothing and the weaponry of the time accurately, the actual function of the guns was not correct. Guns during the time period were not that accurate. Settlers also had no colonial pride, but in the movie it seemed that they were separate from the British soldiers. – Emily

I must disagree and say that '''its kind of annoying that this was filmed in N. Carolina. It just seemed like one of the things that the movie could have easily gotten right.''' There is also the issue of the scene near the beginning of the movie in which Nathaniel is hunting and he points the gun at the screen. When the gun goes off you see the powder in the pan flash but there was no muzzle blast. When the camera cuts back to his character there is very little smoke in the air.'''A gun such as that would have produced a lot of smoke. Then there's the gratuitous love scene between Nathaniel and Cora...but thats best left for a film critic.''' --NJenn

NJenn--if they had filmed in NY, there would be absolutely no way to disguise how truly awful Albany is. --Stef L.

The movie hardly seemed to mention any Native Americans helping the British, besides scouts. Also it did not show the native’s dependence on goods and especially weapons from the Europeans. Also, when Cora picked up the pistol from the dead soldier, it looked to me like her pockets were sewn into her dress, instead of being fastened on separately under her petticoats and accessed through a simple slit in her skirt. Laura-Michal

'''Yet another movie with a dichotomy between the heroic Native American and the barbaric savage. Even though I expected it, it still irritated me. If you're going to create an antagonist out of one of the participants in the Seven Years War, you shouldn't be allowed to choose the Native Americans. The French and the British were still villains, but no where near the level of Magua and the Huron, Mohawk, and Ottawa peoples. As a side note--why was Nathaniel always the one talking to whatever white people are around? And then he has to explain what the white man is saying? If Nathaniel was raised by the Mohicans, and specifically Chingachgook, wouldn't both Uncas and Chingachgook have picked up on the English language?''' -- Brooke

'''One issue I had with the movie was that it never once mentioned or showed anyone afflicted with disease or illness. I can understand not showing this dark and grim reality in a movie like Pocahontas. I do not understand how they could make this movie which seems to take pride in being historically accurate but never once mention one of the biggest issues these people faced'''. - Jason Milton

Aren't the Mohawks not supposed to be involved in the European conflict? The natives were dressed differently depending on what side they were on. The “good Indians” (allied with the British) were wearing clothes and the “bad Indians” were not wearing many clothes. If they were all in the same climate they would have worn similar clothing. This movie makes everyone look like the bad guys except for the three Mohawks Mohicans. Also, they movie instilled 19th century ideals of marrying for love, an idea which would not have been popular then. – Hannah Laughlin

'''This could be said for nearly any movie, but realistically-speaking, the emotions characters exhibit is at times nonsensical, and clearly only for the sake of drama (or time). For instance, Hawkeye really doesn't have much reason to give up everything he has.''' -- Sam R.

I thought the scene in the camp at Fort William Henry was a bit confusing. The conditions in the fort did not seem nearly squalid enough. I, too, noticed the conspicuous lack of disease. I find it extremely unlikely that men and women would have been dancing in the midst of ongoing hostilities. When Cora was being hauled away as a prisoner of the Huron, she would not have had the wherewithal to break the branches to mark a trail for Nathaniel to follow. Someone earlier noted that the Huron did not use pronouns; therefore, they were the bad guys.I also thought that it was a little hokey in the same way that Magua was the only Native American in the movie who consistently referred to himself in the third person. I had a bit of trouble following the weirdness of the accents. Why did Magua speak English with a French accent? What kind of accent did Nathaniel have? AndI didn’t see any magical swirling leaves, so how was Duncan imbued with the gift of tongues? Finally, the cinematic convenience of the 5 or 6 main characters consistently and very unrealistically escaping every bloodbath unharmed was annoying, but expected. – Sara G.

The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it
I felt like the movie showed there was a very clear difference between "Good Indians" and "Bad Indians" that seemed like an over-simplification on Cooper's part, and that the filmmakers exploited to simplify the plot. Also, Chingachgook's final monologue seemed like a very PC, late 20th century addition. --Carrie

'''Chingachgook's final lines reminded me initially of the classic American archetype which Cooper was the first to write down: the hero figure that lives outside of society and who works to bring order, but who really has no place in society once it has been civilized. "One day ... there will be no more frontier. Then men like you will go, too. Like the Mohicans. And new people will come... "''' I think it was more after that line that his speech became very PC and specifically attempting to drive home to the audience the point that the Native Americans were being forced out. But the first line or two at least I thought described a hero-type that I think is more often associated with John Wayne and Old West sheriffs than strictly Native Americans. --Mary Quinn

I can get pretty confused when trying to analyze these movies as a primary source especially when they were made in the last two decades, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that the movie can be a reflection about how in the recent years people were trying to be politically correct. For example, the Native Americans were portrayed as close to historically accurate as possible to avoid any type stereotyping or interpretation that might offend a group of people. However, I think the movie is more useful as a primary source as to how people might now view Cooper’s book. –Paige

The 90's dealt a lot with political correctness, but the first thing that came to mind was NAGPRA. Established two years earlier, I wonder how much of an impact if had on the portrayal of Native Americans in this film - Pmccloy

The end of the movie, when Chingachgook gives his monologue, is a good example of the feelings of the people who made the film. He makes a prediction that the Native Americans will have to move further and further west, until there is no more land for Native Americans. The creators of this film try and make the audience feel for the Native Americans who forced off their land and killed by settlers, but this last monologue is blatant in its political correctness. -Amanda

'''We talked last time about Pocahontas coming out during a time of eco-awareness. The crying Native American upset about the damage done to the beautiful land. Here, we're seeing them as far from that as possible. All of the spirituality is now kill and scalp, kill and scalp.''' I'm not really sure what that says about the film as a primary source, but it's definitely not Pocahontas. '''I personally disagree that they portrayed the Native Americans as historically accurate as possible. I think they portrayed the Native Americans as close to the book as possible and how Cooper and his time viewed them.''' -- Brooke

I was a little disappointed that no one got sick during the entire film considering disease ravaged through the place. But what really concerned me was how brutal the NAs were portrayed. I did not feel good about the natives. Here they seemed to be attacking the English just for the sport, something our reading did not allude to. Capturing prisioners was not something they did just for fun, rather it was to fill the holes in their societies. ---JST

Its interesting how some things change and some things remain the same. This movie portrays Native Americans in a black and white manner. As mentioned above there are "Good" and "Bad" Native Americans, but there is no mention of ones who wished to avoid conflict. This concept has existed for a while and continues to this day. A recent example is AMC's highly popular "Hell On Wheels." There are those who are good and bad and there is no room for a middle ground. While the new age spirituality may have faded from popularity very little else has changed. --NJenn

I may be wrong, but I do remember Professor McClurken saying that rape was not common and punished by stoning in public. At the end of the movie when Alice (I believe that's her name?) was taken by the Indidan men who have captured her and her sister Alice and she is taken to be raped. She eventually takes her life because she knows what they want to do. However, didn't we learn in class that an act such as rape could be punishable. --Aqsa Z.

Comments on the reading versus the movie
In the reading, '''the author wrote that her son was adopted into their kidnapping tribe at a young age, but older than Hawkeye was, and how he was thoroughly "Indianized" within a few years, and an official tribe member. But Hawkeye, who presumably went through a similar experience, is always set aside as being different, and they take pains to call him "the white son". I don't know if that was Cooper's bias, wanting to make his hero white enough for his audiences to relate to but enough of a Mohican to fit in, but it struck me as very different from the reading.''' --Carrie

The movie did a good job of stressing the loyalties of Native Americans to their respective European allies. '''There was a scene at the fort where Hawk-eye asks one of the Native Americans if he will desert the fort and the Native American said he would not because of the pact he made to his English "fathers," a term that was used heavily in the narratives by Native Americans in reference to their allies. However, the movie neglected to show some of the resentment that the Native Americans felt towards their allies for unfair treatment in trade and in suffering heavy casualties for fighting the war.''' -Wolana

'''There are several linguistic conventions in the reading that recur in the film script. First, Magua called the Huron sachem a  "woman" as an insult. Similarly, in the 1744 Gachadow letters, the author describes a saucy conversation he had with the Catawbas, wherein the Catawbas said "that we were but Women; that they were men and double men…"''' Another motif is the use of familial names as terms of endearment, "brother," "father," etc. This does make an appearance in the movie as well, but often "Father" is used to mean "originator." The "good guys" call each other "brother" affectionately, but Magua calls Munro the "father" of his undesirable personal circumstances. In many of the letters, "father" was an indication of allegiance, rather than an assignation of responsibility.--Stef L

'''These women are ridiculous. After reading Susanna Johnson's narrative, I'm just more annoyed by their Tarzan and Jane mentality. "Oh the savage life, I feel so alive!" Susanna Johnson didn't feel that way, and she was around Native Americans for a bit longer than these two.''' -- Brooke

I think the movie demonstrated the intertribal warfare discussed in the Colden reading. Not only were Native Americans fighting the Europeans but in some cases they were fighting each other. Of course, the Europeans helped start those conflicts in some instances.-- Kendall

While watching the movie two question jumped out at me. When the French and Indians are attacking the fort they are using trench warfare was that a popular tactic during this time period? Secondly in the movie they portray the Indians that are allied with the French in very traditional Native American attire loin clothes and dramatic war paint while the Indians that are helping the English are clothed in attire which seems a little less traditional. I was wondering if this was the movies attempt to make the Indians helping the French look more menacing and savage (like bad guys) or were Native Americans that were allied with the English more likely to dress like Europeans? - Jason Milton

I got annoyed reading Susanna Johnson's narrative. She kept thinking the worse, which you can't blame her for, but then would be proven wrong by the American Indians being somewhat pleasant. In the movie the first time the two English women were under attack both of them crouched together on the trail, didn't even move to the bush! Now that I'm done venting, the movie was very modernized to not have those same anti-savages views as Johnson's narrative. --Olivia H.

Although the movie has the British army as the whipping boys, '''the second reading "World turned upside down" showed it was the Native Americans who were on their heels. In the movie, there are vast Indian hordes swarming down onto the British whereas the reading shows the struggles the Native Americans faced in a war where they controlled little of the resources. They had to beg for the guns and supplies necessary to protect themselves, much less try to wage war.''' - Zhen Chen