From: jhf@dbrus.Unify.Com (Jeff Fields)
Newsgroups: alt.native
Subject: Re: "Mohicans" review
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:29:48 GMT
Organization: Unify Corp.

In article <9401588E0000F466@HWS.BITNET> writes:
>Original-Sender: HWS.bitnet!HWS1!MIHALYI
>
>This message was  originally submitted by MIHALYI%HWS1@HWS to  the NATCHAT list
>at TAMVM1. If  you simply forward it  back to the list, it  will be distributed
>with the paragraph you are now reading being automatically removed. If you edit
>the  contributions you  receive into  a digest,  you will  need to  remove this
>paragraph before  mailing the  result to  the list. Finally,  if you  need more
>information from  the author of this  message, you should  be able to do  so by
>simply replying to this note.

I do not know if the submitter of this article holds the same view as
Doug George-Kanentiio. This is my response to his article, written before
I realized that the original author may not even know about NATCHAT or
alt.native. -Jeff

>
>----------------- Message requiring your approval (100 lines) -----------------
>from the SYRACUSE HERALD AMERICAN, Sunday,October 11,1992 (without permission)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>'Mohicans' attacks Indians' dignity
>
>by Doug George-Kanentiio
>
>When I saw "The Last of the Mohicans," I saw red.  Red as in a stream of blood
>in this most violent of films.  Red because I, as a Mohawk, was embarrassed by
>this assault upon the dignity of all native peoples, especially our cousins the
>Hurons.
>The casual movie patron, knowing little or nothing about Indians, will leave
>the theater convinced of our historical treachery and our biological savagery.

I left the theater sickened by the arrogance of the British and French
imperialists who placed more value on the interests of their respective
monarchs than on the lives of the colonists. I thought Munro (although perhaps
historically inaccurate as you write later) deserved to have his heart
torn from his chest.

>According to director Michael Mann, Indians were but a primitive people, given
>to performing acts of extreme cruelty as they satisfied their lust for revenge.

Hmm... what about Uncas defending Munro's daughter? What about the chief
in the Abenaki village?

I recall that only Magua's band of Huron braves committing acts of barbarism.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see any depictions of Mohawk
cruelty.

>Sadly, Mann's work has been praised by film reviewers, almost all of whom cite
>his attention to detail and commitment to presenting an important part of
>colonial history as truthfully as possible.  The critics mention his use of
>native actors, language and custom as indicative of the film's accuracy. Mann
>is also given high marks for his ability to capture the violence of the times,
>not sparing the viewer the sound of a war club striking skulls or blood
>spurting from fresh scalps.

d
>Mann had the opportunity to present us with fresh insights into a critical
>time in our history but he elected to literally rip at the heart.  The tragic
>result is one of the most terrible assaults upon the dignity and image of
>Indian people since the excesses of John Wayne.


>To Mann, whose movie is based on the novel by James Fenimore Cooper, Indians
>clearly represent that side of the human psyche which is given to rage and
>wanton acts of cruelty.  His hero is Daniel Day-Lewis, a white man raised in
>savagery but saved from barbarism by the love of a pure woman.  As alter-ego,
>there is the Huron, Maquas, depraved and clever, a man only in appearance for
>he was without such human emotions as compassion, humor or fear.  Maquas is a
>colonial serial killer infatuated with his tomahawk.

Mann was only following Cooper's novel. It is he who is guilty of historical
inaccuracy in his unbalanced fictional account of pre-Revolutionary America.


>Utterly simplistic by design, "Last of the Mohicans" borrows freely from the
>old westerns.  There are shootouts and brawls, maidens at risk, a hero
>triumphant against terrible odds and, of course, the dramatic last fight
>before the victorious couple stand on a hilltop, bathed in glorious sunset.
>Why does such a film appeal to so many people?  Is it American audiences
>have difficulty accepting native people as complex human beings, torn by doubt,
>moved by joy and consumed with love?  Compared with "Dances with Wolves,"
>this film is a disturbing step back into another era, one native people had
>hoped ended with John Ford.  This film cannot stand unchallenged.

This is your view of the final scene. I saw the final scene as hauntingly
depressing. Chingachook has lost not only a son but his whole tribe. Who
will mourn him when he dies? Hawkeye's love has lost her sister. This was
hardly a glorious sunset scene. It was tragic.

Also, where were the shootout scenes ala the "Old West" as depicted in
old Westerns? Where were the brawls? I saw mortal combat with no glory
involved. As far as the "dramatic last fight" goes, this was Chingachook
seeking revenge on the killer of his son. Yes, it was dramatic, but the
tone had nothing to do with glory.

As to the complexity of native people, I agree that Mann could have spent
more time developing the characters, especially Chingachook and Uncas.
Magua is given many more lines than both. Magua is more complex than
most natives depicted in old Westerns. The scene after the fall of
Ft. William Henry when he speaks with Montcalm shows that there is more
than a cruel heartless man bent on revenge. Magua has suppressed all else
because he has one all-consuming passion to make the English Colonel Munro
suffer as Magua's family had suffered and died before. At last we see
what motivated a violent character. In "Dances With Wolves" it is never
mentioned why the leader of the Pawnee hates whites and the Sioux so much.
An interesting connection between "Dances With Wolves" and "The Last of the
Mohicans" is that the Native American actor Wes Studi who played the brutal
leader of the Pawnees in "DWW" also played Magua in "TLM".

Anyway, although I think Mann could have developed the characters of
Chingachook and Uncas to a much greater extent, I believe that

>Rather than accept Mann's version of history, I looked into the facts.  I
>found there were very few Hurons in the northeast in 1757.  They were called
>Wyandots with villages in the Ohio-Michigan area.  Some were part of the
>French military expedition against Ft. Edward along with 32 other native
>groups.  The name Maquas is not Huron but was a term used by Dutch settlers
>to describe the Mohawks.
>Digging a little deeper, as Mann should have done, I discovered many of the
>atrocities attributed to the Hurons were committed by a colonial militia
>unit called Roger's Rangers, of whom Nathaniel (Day-Lewis) would have been
>a part.  I learned Uncas and Chingachgook were hardly the "last of the
>Mohicans" since that native nation had a prosperous settlement in Massachusetts.
>These people later moved west to a place near Oneida, then to Wisconsin,
>where they are known as the Stockbridge Indians.  Other Mohicans now live in
>Connecticut.

Thanks for sharing the real history, but I think you may have missed something.
The film is not an historical documentary. It is based on a 19th century
novel written to romanticize the 18th century.

>I found out the British surrendered Ft. Edward on August 9, 1757 after days
>of bombardment by the French.  English troops were murdered by Indian fighters
>but not to the extent shown in the film.  Colonel Munro did not have his
>heart ripped out by Maquas, but survived, was promoted and died the following
>year.  Maquas could not have brought his captives to an Abenaki village in the
>Adirondacks since they lived in northern Vermont.  The Abenakis would not
>have conversed in Mohawk nor would they have permitted a single man to
>order the execution of a British officer.
>Reference is made in the film to Joseph Brant, a noted Mohawk military
>leader during the American Revolution.  The problem is, Brant was born
>in 1742 and would have been 15 years old in 1757.  There is also a scene
>involving an Indian burial ground, where corpses are placed on scaffolds.
>The Iroquois never used scaffolds, preferring to place their dead in the
>ground.
>For all of its obvious mistakes, just as disturbing is what the director
>elected to omit.  There is but one mention of the Six Nations Iroquois
>Confederacy, the most formidable native force in eastern North America,
>and its efforts to prevent war.  Sir William Johnson was the most
>influential white man in the colonies.  He played a key role as a British
>general and superintendent of Indian Affairs during this war, yet he is
>completely ignored.

Again, the film is a piece of fiction. Mann never made claims to its
historical accuracy. This was not Mann's version of history. I was
Mann's version of a work of fiction.

>No one should have to accept these compromises, least of all by a director
>who had the chance to create a film which adhered to the laws of common
>sense.  Can a man running at full sprint fire two 12 pound, four foot
>muskets simultaneously, killing two men moving quickly in opposite
>directions?  Maybe Arnold Shwarzenegger, but certainly not an emaciated
>Day-Lewis.  Is it possible for a fragile birch bark canoe to go over a
>waterfall and not be damaged?  Boat builders across the United States
>would love to know how Mann managed this little trick.

Hawkeye is a mythical character like Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett only
Boone and Crockett were real people that were mythologized through folk
tales. Riding the canoe over the falls seems a little more plausible than
killing a bear with one's hands at the age of three.

>It is embarassing to see people I know in this film.  Clearly, native
>historians and writers were not consulted in the writing of the script
>because Mann did not want facts to stand in the way of his action-thriller.
>It is disappointing to see American Indian Movement activists Russell Means
>and Dennis Banks play key roles in the "Last of the Mohicans" with straight
>faces.  It is even more disturbing for Michael Mann to strive for credibility
>by having Leon Shenandoah of the Six Nations Confederacy cited in the film
>credits.  As if any self-respecting Iroquois would be proud of this atrocity.
>To my knowledge, no one from the Iroquois has endorsed this film.
>If you love violence, if you want your worst fears about Indian savages
>confirmed, if you want to leave a theater just itching to take care of those
>pesky redskins then see this film.  If you want to see the truth, save
>your money and rent "Dances With Wolves" or "Powwow Highway".

I recommend adding "Little Big Man" to this list.

Perhaps Mann should have written an entirely different movie based on
the work of a more contemporary novelist like the author of "DWW", but
he didn't. He made a movie version of "The Last of the Mohicans". I
went to the theater expecting this, already knowing that James Fenimore
Cooper was a romanticist. I thought that Mann did a good job in capturing
the feeling of the era that Cooper wrote about, but also went on to
depict just how bloody and brutal it was where the predominant number of
acts of brutality were either the overt acts of the British or French or
were native reactions to the British and French invasion of their land.

I am not saying that you should like the movie. I just want to point out
that not everyone who sees this film is going to see your version of it.
I respect your opinion. I humbly submit that there are others.

Ya-ta-hey.

-Jeff
Jeffery H. Fields               email: jhf@dbrus.unify.com
Unify Corporation               phone: 916 928-6286
Sacramento, California
Newsgroups: alt.native