The 1936 Rendition of The Last of The Mohicans directed by George B. Seitz is more historically accurate than most movies today and is deeply infused with 1936 ideals. These ideals do not always match up with the movies 1856 setting. This movie adaptation of Fenimore’s classic novel accurately depicts the right people on the right dates in the right historical events. It takes liberty by adding a few characters and changing the characteristics and relationships of historical figures. This film includes contemporary ideas on race and gender roles. It includes subliminal messages about American foreign relations and humor targeting current events of the day. The relationships between national powers in the movie are that of a Disney quality,
…show more content…
After some defiance, the colonials decide to march with the Britons up to Fort William Henry. As the French forces bore down on the Fort, the movie has Montcalm offer Munro surrender after intercepting General Webb’s letter saying there are no reinforcements. History has it that General Daniel Webb had already abandoned the Fort with no plans to come back to assist Munro. The French had the Brits surrender the Fort with promise of safe passage home (though in the movie they didn’t take away their weapons). The Hurons violated the terms of surrender by attacking The Britons who had surrendered. With a brush of racism and propaganda in the same stroke, the movie and history paint these Indians as killers and savages. The motive behind the massacre at Fort William Henry cannot be so easily portrayed. First of all, The French colonials had a multitude of Indian tribes as allies, who were often mashed together for the purposes of war. Another important note is that all the colonizing nations often did not compensate their Indian allies except with the spoils of war. Because the French had accepted the British surrender, the Native Americans would not be paid for their efforts. As far as scalps are concerned, Hawkeye says it well: “Scalps to the …show more content…
Hawkeye as the projection of the American Yankee is a strong, independent, anti authoritarian, peaceful man who only has quarrel with the Indians due to their savage nature. His colonial buddies seem to share his defiance of the crown and have a drawl that suggests that they are simpleton. This story pushes the American independence agenda too early. At this point the colonists were mostly content to be subject to the crown. This film does not due diligence to acknowledge the variance of combat styles between the colonists and the Britons. The Britons formalities of war are exactly what will get them killed by an Indian. Hawkeye says to Alice: “Maybe I’ve got too much sense to wear a red coat in the woods.” The movie suggests that the Colonists only wanted to fight the “Injun’s”, a movie review posted on History on film says: “Although the militiamen say that they only want to fight the Indians, not the French, in reality they knew that Crown Point was the base for Indian raids and wanted to eliminate it.”-HoF Though the movie portrays a free and content American settler, the actual settlers very much still had an agenda to continue settling more land and gaining more profit that was not consistent with this Hawkeye ideal. The Briton’s are not nearly as organized and confident and just as they are portrayed either. The British official who seems to be in charge is George II who is referred to as “German
After some defiance, the colonials decide to march with the Britons up to Fort William Henry. As the French forces bore down on the Fort, the movie has Montcalm offer Munro surrender after intercepting General Webb’s letter saying there are no reinforcements. History has it that General Daniel Webb had already abandoned the Fort with no plans to come back to assist Munro. The French had the Brits surrender the Fort with promise of safe passage home (though in the movie they didn’t take away their weapons). The Hurons violated the terms of surrender by attacking The Britons who had surrendered. With a brush of racism and propaganda in the same stroke, the movie and history paint these Indians as killers and savages. The motive behind the massacre at Fort William Henry cannot be so easily portrayed. First of all, The French colonials had a multitude of Indian tribes as allies, who were often mashed together for the purposes of war. Another important note is that all the colonizing nations often did not compensate their Indian allies except with the spoils of war. Because the French had accepted the British surrender, the Native Americans would not be paid for their efforts. As far as scalps are concerned, Hawkeye says it well: “Scalps to the …show more content…
Hawkeye as the projection of the American Yankee is a strong, independent, anti authoritarian, peaceful man who only has quarrel with the Indians due to their savage nature. His colonial buddies seem to share his defiance of the crown and have a drawl that suggests that they are simpleton. This story pushes the American independence agenda too early. At this point the colonists were mostly content to be subject to the crown. This film does not due diligence to acknowledge the variance of combat styles between the colonists and the Britons. The Britons formalities of war are exactly what will get them killed by an Indian. Hawkeye says to Alice: “Maybe I’ve got too much sense to wear a red coat in the woods.” The movie suggests that the Colonists only wanted to fight the “Injun’s”, a movie review posted on History on film says: “Although the militiamen say that they only want to fight the Indians, not the French, in reality they knew that Crown Point was the base for Indian raids and wanted to eliminate it.”-HoF Though the movie portrays a free and content American settler, the actual settlers very much still had an agenda to continue settling more land and gaining more profit that was not consistent with this Hawkeye ideal. The Briton’s are not nearly as organized and confident and just as they are portrayed either. The British official who seems to be in charge is George II who is referred to as “German