After reading Fred Anderson’s account of the siege of Fort William Henry in The Crucible of War, and watching Michael Mann’s film, The Last of the Mohicans, several distinct differences are evident, but overall Mann pays attention to detail while still maintaining historical integrity. Mann added theatrical elements of romance and dynamic characters to make the film entertaining, but rarely used those elements as a way to mask the historical significance and reality of the events. The movie tells the story of interactions between the British, the French, the Colonists, and two Indian tribes during the French and Indian war. The events took place in New York in the year of 1757. Cora and Alice, daughters of British officer Monro, are told
…show more content…
The Last of the Mohicans is historical fiction, so many of the characters are adaptations of what it would be like to live during the time period, but the officials, Munro and Montcalm, were real characters. Magua, Hawkeye, and Monro’s daughters were however not real people, but were based on people of this era. There was never any historical indication that Monro was ever married, but the character development of Cora and Alice are instrumental in the development of the movie’s plotline (“George Monro (British Army officer)”). Without the development of these characters there would not be the added elements of heroism and romance, which appeals to the movie’s audience. Also by creating these characters Munn was able to create a more dynamic interaction between the different groups and dramatize the clash of the cultures during the …show more content…
However, many of the main communications and events were kept consistent including the letter from Webb and when Monro received it. As is in the movie Anderson stated, “the letter came to Monro under a flag of truce together with a polite note from Montcalm suggesting that he take Webb’s advice and surrender” (Anderson pg 11). The Indian fighting styles were accurate, minus a few changes in the details of weaponry, and the scene where Munro’s heart was cut out. Monro was not killed in the attack. Anderson describes the nature of the attacks aftermath by saying, “On August 15 the largest single group arrived, a contingent of perhaps five hundred survivors including Colonel Monro.” One of the biggest liberties taken was the scene where Montcalm seemed to condone the Indian attack and the motives of the attack. The reality is that the Indians thought they got “the short end of the stick” in their alliance with the French and acted on their own accord. The intentions of the attack were to make up for what the French neglected to give them and leave with possessions and prisoners. Anderson expresses the intentions of the Indian attacks by stating, “Indians has stripped others of clothes, money, and possessions” (Anderson, pg 14). This was not an act of revenge on Monro as illustrated in the movie, but rather what they defined as compensation for the French
The Last of the Mohicans is historical fiction, so many of the characters are adaptations of what it would be like to live during the time period, but the officials, Munro and Montcalm, were real characters. Magua, Hawkeye, and Monro’s daughters were however not real people, but were based on people of this era. There was never any historical indication that Monro was ever married, but the character development of Cora and Alice are instrumental in the development of the movie’s plotline (“George Monro (British Army officer)”). Without the development of these characters there would not be the added elements of heroism and romance, which appeals to the movie’s audience. Also by creating these characters Munn was able to create a more dynamic interaction between the different groups and dramatize the clash of the cultures during the …show more content…
However, many of the main communications and events were kept consistent including the letter from Webb and when Monro received it. As is in the movie Anderson stated, “the letter came to Monro under a flag of truce together with a polite note from Montcalm suggesting that he take Webb’s advice and surrender” (Anderson pg 11). The Indian fighting styles were accurate, minus a few changes in the details of weaponry, and the scene where Munro’s heart was cut out. Monro was not killed in the attack. Anderson describes the nature of the attacks aftermath by saying, “On August 15 the largest single group arrived, a contingent of perhaps five hundred survivors including Colonel Monro.” One of the biggest liberties taken was the scene where Montcalm seemed to condone the Indian attack and the motives of the attack. The reality is that the Indians thought they got “the short end of the stick” in their alliance with the French and acted on their own accord. The intentions of the attack were to make up for what the French neglected to give them and leave with possessions and prisoners. Anderson expresses the intentions of the Indian attacks by stating, “Indians has stripped others of clothes, money, and possessions” (Anderson, pg 14). This was not an act of revenge on Monro as illustrated in the movie, but rather what they defined as compensation for the French