I think the movie gives a fairly accurate depiction of what things were like at the time. The moviemakers did make an effort to use historically correct costumes and props and tried to set up a fort from historical documents. More importantly, it also highlighted some of the tensions between Britain, France, the colonists, and the Indians. You can see how Britain and France have mutual disdain for each other, the contrasts between Britain and the colonists, and how Indians align themselves with either country.
One thing the movie could have done a better job of is talking about the different Indian tribes involved. It wasn't all cut and dry, one big Indian tribe on the British side, another tribe on the French side. Bad Indians, good Indians. There was more than one tribe involved and alliances shifted constantly; the Indian people had their own agenda. Plus for better historical accuracy, get rid of all the dramatic and romantic tripe, but then I suppose it would never have made it into book or movie form...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I think that this film gives a very accurate depiction of the topic that we're discussing. It shows how the Indians, out of nowhere, start attacking even though they had no consent to do so. I thought that the fighting in the scenes in the movie might have been dramatized, but the movie has to be made more exciting. I also think that the relationships between the British and the colonists before the massacre were also pretty realistic. You could sense that there was some hostility between the colonists and the British, and the British didn't give colonists much choice to join them. The British also didn't seem to really appreciate when the colonists finally agreed to fight with them. I thought that these feelings pretty accurately portrayed what life was like.
This film was fairly accurate because it depicted the tension between colonists and the British, and it also showed how the regimented british units failed under the might of native guerilla tactics. The clothes, accents, and weapons were also representative of the era. It also shows that Indians were on both sides of the conflict.
The Film seems very accurate. The reluctance of the colonists to fight a war they have no interest in, the snobbery of the british commander, the brutal and sudden nature of the attack by the natives... all seems very real. However, I think the Scalping should be much more violent and graphic. the guys head got cut open, but it looks like they shaved his head! Other than that, historically accurate.
I believe that this film does give a fairly accurate dipiction of our discussion. It shows very well of how the colonists are starting to get a mindset of their own which shows the tension starting to grow between the colonies and Britain. It also shows the different styles of fighting between them. The only thing I noticed was that it did not show both sides to the Indians because not all of them were allies of the French.
This film gives an accurate depiction of this topic. It showed the tension that was building between the colonists and the British. It also displayed the different fighting techniques and military styles. The British troops were well-organized and ordered, while the Indians relied on guerrilla tactics and scalping. The movie also illustrated how the Indians were split fighting on the side of the French or the side of the British.
I think that the film did a good job of capturing the scenes relating to the topic we are discussing. It was accurate in showing the guerilla tactics used by the Indians, such as the surprise raids and the more organized styles of the British troops. It also showed how the colonists were reluctant to fight in the war and would rather stay home and defend their farms. The Indiands fough on both sides and it gave an overall acurracy to the French and Indian War.
I think the movie did a pretty good job depicting the situation between the British and the Native Americans. It first showed the reluctance of the colonists to join the war, and how the English soldiers were both suprised and irritated by their decisions and had to resort to bribery. Also, it accurately depicted the geurilla tactics used by the Natives. I also agree with SP, the costumes and the accents and even the scenery were very true to the time period.
I feel that this film had a pretty accurate depiction of both the war and the tensions. The colonists wanted to be able to protect their settlements if need be, which the British hated. The battle seemed to be captured well, with the Native Americans using guerilla style warfare against the British and colonists. The film even went as far as to show them scalping the defeated men. I must say it was gruesome, but mostly accurate.
This section of the film seems very accurate. The British are portrayed as more proffessional and powerful, however they were contemptuous of their Colonial allies, and scoffed at the thought of negotiating with them as if they were foreign mercenaries. The colonials were portrayed well as keeping their interests localized, caring far more for their homes and farms than the glory of the empire and their duty to Britain. It also displays accurately that the colonists would be better adapt to facing the guerilla tactics of the Indians with their own, and so they were portrayed as being more effective against the natives. The native Americans, finally were faithfully show using swarming, guerilla strategies and using british and traditional weapons in concert to great effect. Finally it showed the double-platying of the Indians, the arrogance of the British, and the individualism and defiance of the colonists
It's hard to tell from the short scene that we watched but it seems pretty accurate.
-British tactics are organized, colonists fight like guerillas, etc.
-Tension between British and colonists, British look down on colonists
Of course the movie was a bit dramatized and exaggerated when it came to the Indian behavior. I also don't think the British troops are THAT incompetent and that Indians suddenly become weak when colonists show up. Oh and everything looks real, which is important too.
I personally feel that the film, The Last of the Mohicans, did a relatively good job of depicting the situation in the colonies during the French and Indian War. While the acting was a bit overly sentimental and the fighting appeared to be very dramatized, the principles behind the film were sound. The script depicted the relations between colonists and their royal counterparts very well, emphasizing the colonial value on land and family by highlighting the English's lack there of. It also did a sound job of comparing and contrasting the styles of the colonists versus the royal soldiers, using the scrambled and shabby dwellings and clothes of the militiamen as a foil to the regal British uniforms and formations, and vice versa. It is my opinion, however, that the actors hindered the conveying of the film's previously described historical message.
I think the film was accurate in the depiction of the topic that we are discussing. I mean since it is a film minor details could be off. But for the most part I think the film accurately showed the fighting methods of the Native Americans as well as the British. The British were depicted accurately in that they were marching in formation. The film also displayed scalping and the guerilla tactics used by the Native Americans which they did do in the wars and battles. The film showed just how an ambush might turn out like during the time of war.
I thought that The Last of the Mohicans was a pretty accurate depiction of the time period. It showed a clear hesitance by the colonists to join the war. The sudden outbreak of attacks from the Indians was realistic. The clip also did a good job of showing the building British and colonial tensions. The clip showed the differences between the colonial and British troops. While the British were in order, uniformed, and proper, the colonists had a more rugged look with less order and organization. Overall, I thought that the clip was fairly accurate.
Yes, The Last of the Mohicans gives an accurate depiction of the Seven Years (French-Indian) War.
In the opening of the select scene we watched, the British sought unsuccessfully to recruit the backcountry/farming colonists in the fight against the French and her Native America allies. The colonists argued that they had nothing to do with the British-French rivalry and they would rather defend their homes against French/Indian attacks instead of fighting in the British army many miles away. Only one colonist volunteered to fight for the British with the rest of his fellow colonists looking at him in scorn and distaste. The portrayal of the unsuccessful recruiting of colonists by the British was accurate in the first few years of the war was accurate; only later when William Pitt became Prime Minister and literally bribed the colonists did the colonists actively join the fight.
Later, the British return unhappily to their headquarters...in their stylish and fashionable and tea-serving horse-drawn carriage, of course. In the tent, the British make spiting remarks about the colonists - lazy and unreliable - and the French. The British eloquence and her antagonism with other peoples are accurately portrayed.
A British squad, an Indian scout, and one colonist set off several moments later and are very much surprised during a French-allied Indian ambush. The outnumbered Indians kick some serious butt, scalping and killing the entire squadron which in my opinion is pretty sad. This film accurately depicts the Native Americans' and British fighting style: the Native Americans ambush without warning while the British fight in a strict formation. This fight also showed that the British were losing incredibly during the first years of the war before they turned the tide. The British could have defeated the French and the Indians in the Seven Years War as well as later during the Revolutionary War if they'd just tried some guerrilla tactics instead of marching in the open.
The British officer, seriously ticked off because his force was just beaten destroyed by a few "ignorant and beastly savages" attempts to shoot at the back of a fleeing Indian but is stopped by a colonist shocked by the brutal British fighting style. This film accurately depicts the American shock at the British battle tactics.
Other details I'd like to mention are the accurate depiction of the costumes, races, behavior, accents, and culture displayed in this film. It's nice to see an actual Native American playing a Native American instead of a white playing a Native American.
One I'd like to correct, however, are the portrayal of the Indian alliances. Like Mr. Hamilton said, Indians allied with either the British or the French, they could have introduced the tribe at the opening of the clip.
Overall, this film portrayed the colonists' and British mutual antagonism as well as the British, French, and Native Americans' mutual hate toward each other as well as well as the events that unfolded.
I thought that the movie was pretty acurate historically. The colonists were very reluctant to join the military, and mainly worried about their homes, which was true. Their fighting tactics were also very acurate with the guerilla warfare. The Indians also had this style of fighting, which was accuratly depicted in the movie. The British fighting tactics and how they were, in a way, "looked down apon" by the colonists were also historically accurate. They were lined up, and did not fire until told to do so. The colonist in the movie also made a jab at the British officer when he tried to shoot an Indian chasing a colonist. The colonist (not being chased) told him something along the lines of "watch your judgement" as the colonist being chased killed the Indian. This accuratly depicts tensions between the colonist and British. But really, the colonists jumping out of nowhere to save the day seems a bit dramatized.
After watching the short clip, I believe that the film does provided a fairly accurate summary of the topic. It touched on most of the major ideas of the French and Indian War. For example, the film showed that the Indians took both sides of the conflict. They used their guerilla tactics to fight, opposed to the organized way the British fought. The movie also shows how the Americans began to think more independently and that the British looked down on them. For the most part, each aspect of the clip we watched was historically accurate and relevant to the topic we are discussing.
The film seemed fairly accurate. It depicted the strict well-organized British that had their distinct battle tactics. It also showed how the colonists and Indians utilized guerilla warfare, and used it to their advantage. The conflict with Britain and the Indians aligned with the French side is shown, but some of the movie isn't particularly accurate. This is however a movie and needs to add some points that make it interesting. Overall the costumes and accents along with the environment add to the already historically accurate context of the movie.
I agree with what has been said. The movie depicts the different styles of warfare utilized by the colonists and the indians. However the battle seens were made to get the audiences attention rather than displaying historical facts. I am wondering why the troops did not realize the threat of the indians as one of them walked by unnoticed with an axe?
I agree this film gives s fairly accurate depiction of the events of this time era. It was a good visual to help the historian get a better view on history from a more emotional point of view. This clip of the movie brings empathy and makes you symapathise with the colonists,Indians and maybe even the British soldiers and officials. A brief clip can give you a real feel of the events and actions of those people hopefully it will help the historian get a better non biased opinion on the subject.
I do believe the film gives an accurate depiction of the French & Indian War. In the beginning of the scene, the English colonists are disputing with the British officer about having to go to war, for they would rather defend their own homes. Also, in the fighting scene, from the historical information that I know, it was accurate as well. Overall, this scene was historically accurate.
I think that the scene we watched in class today was historically acurrate. There were many small details that were well incorporated, but I think that some of the main ideas that came across were quite relavent to the discussion topic. We had spoken in class about the colonists lack of involvement in the first several world wars, and when Britain asks for help, they are reluctant to give it. This is shown through the difficulty the militia gave to the British general. Additionally, we spoke of how the Indians went wild and scalped the soldiers, and this scene is shoen in the movie. Also, the scene demonstrates the difference between the British form of fighting (orderly and in marching formation) and the natives for of fighting (guerilla warfare). Overall, the movie did give an accurate depiction of the topic we are discussing.
Although the scene that we saw in the movie was relatively short, I think that it gives an accurate depiction of the topics we're discussing. It shows the guerilla tactics of the Native Americans against the British, while the British fight very formally and in lines. Of course the Indians seemed to start the battle suddenly, which could have actually happened in real life. Obviously some of the killings and fights were dramitized, but it was for special effect. That general idea of the scene was accurate.
I feel that this movie was a semi accurate movie with some definite exaggerated themes. I like how they portrayed the colonists as working for them selves. I thought the whole think about how three colonist took out all the Indians and how they were all martial arts experts was a little Hollywood.
Post a Comment