The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

COLONIAL TIMES

The French & Indian War

LOTM Fact or Fantasy?

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Videos:

Message Icon:

Message:

Smilies




		$computer woes {CW:_(}$

[quote][i]Originally posted by Edmund McKinnon[/i]
[br]While I still believe that LOTM is one of the greatest F&I films of all time,the older that I get,the more that I see that the book & film have very little to do with actual history.

For example,on Saturday,Nov.2,2002 at the 14th annual F&I Seminar in Jumonville,Pa.the keynote speaker was Dr.Stephen Brumwell,author of RedCoats(www.amazon.com).At this time ,he pointed out that the bulk of the soldiers who were at Ft.William Henry during the siege were actually at a fortified encampment outside of the fort.At least half of these were Provincials.The Massacre Valley scene never happened,but instead occurred inside the fort as the last elements of the column were leaving.There were also some British naval vessels docked in the lake outside of the fort that were abandoned during the withdrawl.

A native american authority at the seminar informed me that the old sachem at the end of the movie would never have made the decision to spare Alice & Cora and condemn Major Duncan Haywood.Rather,this would have been up to the women of the tribe.

A PBS special several years ago also brought light to the fact that Col.Munro survived and made it to Ft.Edward while Alice & Cora were killed and thrown into a well inside of Ft.William Henry.Montcalm also personally got involved in the fort massacre where he bared his breast and invited the savages to kill him as he had given his word to the English that they could have safe passage out.

Another independent source confirmed that prior to the surrender,a small pox epidemic had raged within the fort and claimed the life of the brother of Robert Rogers(of the Ranger fame).When the indians dug up the bodies of the infected victims to desecrate them,they contracted the disease,and spread it among their tribes.

I don't see why Michael Mann had to dispense with many of these details to make this movie.Any thoughts?

Capt.John Graham
Cmdr.42nd Highlanders
[/quote]

Upload an Image File From Your PC For Insertion in Your Post

- HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON

Check here to include your profile signature.

T O P I C R E V I E W
Edmund McKinnon	Posted - November 04 2002 : 5:57:43 PM While I still believe that LOTM is one of the greatest F&I films of all time,the older that I get,the more that I see that the book & film have very little to do with actual history. For example,on Saturday,Nov.2,2002 at the 14th annual F&I Seminar in Jumonville,Pa.the keynote speaker was Dr.Stephen Brumwell,author of RedCoats(www.amazon.com).At this time ,he pointed out that the bulk of the soldiers who were at Ft.William Henry during the siege were actually at a fortified encampment outside of the fort.At least half of these were Provincials.The Massacre Valley scene never happened,but instead occurred inside the fort as the last elements of the column were leaving.There were also some British naval vessels docked in the lake outside of the fort that were abandoned during the withdrawl. A native american authority at the seminar informed me that the old sachem at the end of the movie would never have made the decision to spare Alice & Cora and condemn Major Duncan Haywood.Rather,this would have been up to the women of the tribe. A PBS special several years ago also brought light to the fact that Col.Munro survived and made it to Ft.Edward while Alice & Cora were killed and thrown into a well inside of Ft.William Henry.Montcalm also personally got involved in the fort massacre where he bared his breast and invited the savages to kill him as he had given his word to the English that they could have safe passage out. Another independent source confirmed that prior to the surrender,a small pox epidemic had raged within the fort and claimed the life of the brother of Robert Rogers(of the Ranger fame).When the indians dug up the bodies of the infected victims to desecrate them,they contracted the disease,and spread it among their tribes. I don't see why Michael Mann had to dispense with many of these details to make this movie.Any thoughts? Capt.John Graham Cmdr.42nd Highlanders
25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Highlander	Posted - April 28 2003 : 4:20:52 PM If true,it would have been no greater than a platoon
CT•Ranger	Posted - April 25 2003 : 12:53:15 AM quote: Originally posted by Highlander I've uhe book:"The BlackWatch:or Forty-Second Highlanders"by one James Grant.In Chapter IV it speaks of The Massacre at Fort William Henry,with the 42nd taking part What, is it true? Were the 42nd at the great massacre? I've not seen any documentation that the Black Watch were there.
Highlander	Posted - April 24 2003 : 7:14:12 PM It was a good love storyand I know that movies are meant to entertain,but it really wouldn't have taken that much more effort to get some details correct.While not reaching documentary status,it would have been cool
chasis_22	Posted - April 24 2003 : 10:40:25 AM I hope you don't mind a woman's perspective on the historical accuracy of the Last of the Mohicans! Although I can't say that I know a whole lot on the F and I other than what I learned in high school I do know that the movie was awesome. I think that if they were more focused on the historical accuracy they probably wouldn't have made the romance as good as it is. I like the movie the way it is because it is not only somewhat historical but also fantasy. I wouldn't change a thing!
Highlander	Posted - April 23 2003 : 10:55:29 PM I've uhe book:"The BlackWatch:or Forty-Second Highlanders"by one James Grant.In Chapter IV it speaks of The Massacre at Fort William Henry,with the 42nd taking part
Scott Bubar	Posted - November 15 2002 : 8:56:57 PM Hey! Magua understand English very well.
Edmund McKinnon	Posted - November 15 2002 : 7:05:16 PM That is just ridiculous.Why everyone knows that Duncan Haywood as the hero.EM
SgtMunro	Posted - November 15 2002 : 11:08:07 AM Magua, the hero? Yikes!!! Gott in Himmel!!!
Jayne	Posted - November 13 2002 : 7:23:38 PM Yikes! And to think that both my boys had teachers who did show LOTM in class!! Fortunately, they know Hollywood when they see it (my children, anyway - I don't know about the teachers). I saw the movie for the first time when my oldest son told me it was worth watching. 1994, I think. This thread reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with my husband (a serious history freak) re the dangers of Hollywood history. I think the JFK movie was the impetus of the discussion. Jayne
richfed	Posted - November 13 2002 : 05:39:14 AM Actually, somewhere, way back in the Archives of the old board, there were those proclaiming him to be THE HERO! Really ...
SgtMunro	Posted - November 12 2002 : 11:05:47 PM You know, Sachem, I've been thinking about Mann's 'vision'. Would that make Magua a sort of Anti-Hero? I know Micheal Mann is famous for going in depth into the villan's past, that was why he picked up on Thomas Harris's "Red Dragon" 16 years ago. Just look at what that started, perhaps he might spark the same interest in the F&IW arena.
Pvt. Chauncey	Posted - November 12 2002 : 09:54:36 AM quote: (snip) 2 - Mann had this vision, if you will, of giving life & depth to the Indian villain, Magua. How to do so? Give him reason for his actions. Mann chose the revenge factor against Monro, thus his death. We should give Mann credit in that regard. He told the Indian story in grand fashion. I don't know, given that this is merely a story, what's the big deal? 3 - Assuming LOTM was a real account, which it isn't, it would be excellent history because it would have brought the events to vivid life. Who would really have a misinterpretation of history because of incorrect buttons? Mann had very competent military & period advisers on hand - and in many ways - he utilized them very well - whatever decisions he made, and I can't pretend to give you his inner thoughts, were probably made for the sake of his art. An example: I watched Black Hawk Down with no knowledge of the event. I wondered, "Is it good history?" I watched a documentary on the subject. In fact, it was good history. Very good history. I was amazed at how true to the real events it was; how vivid a picture it presented. Watching the film, gave me, apparently, a good understanding of the event. Now, was every detail in the soldiers' accouterments, etc. accurate? I have no idea, BUT, how would that effect my understanding of the history, anyway? Negligibly, if at all. 4 - We should all be careful about criticizing this kind of stuff too severely, lest filmmakers give it up all together and go back to John Wayne stuff [which I mostly love, btw, but you get the idea!] (snip) Rich, I agree with what you said but in the case of the follow, only to a point. I thoroughly agree with the previously-made comment/question of how hard would it be to get some simple things right such as the color of the uniforms and facings, and the right haversacks? I honestly cannot see ANY reason for NOT doing those correctly. I can suppose that they used bigger cannon so that the audience would be sure to grasp the enormity of the damage the French were inflicting (yes, size does matter ), and certain other things were done for similar effect. But why not get right what you can get right? And in the Patriot, how hard would it be to use the right commands? I admit I have not sat through The Patriot -- when I heard the first "Ready, Aim, Fire" I turned it off and have no interest in watching it. (I did the same thing last night when the Raiders intercepted a pass from the Broncos and ran it back for a 98-yard TD -- you just know you aren't going to enjoy watching, so why bother?) Anyway, I would like to see Hollywood be more realistic where it doesn't hurt their story-line to do so. Oh, and totally agree about idiot teachers using LOTM as an educational film. Who is teaching the teachers??? YHOS, Pvt. Chauncey
richfed	Posted - November 11 2002 : 07:44:13 AM I guess we should all remember that these criticisms are being made by those who love the movie!! Just some comments I'd like to interject [Lainey & I were discussing this thread on the way to the hospital yesterday]: 1 - It's not Mann's fault, nor Hollywood's in general, if a teacher uses an inaccurate film to teach their class. That's a condemnation of the educational system, more than anything. That said, I feel LOTM can be used as an educational tool [and it is, I know that for a fact - many times in conjunction with this web site! So, your comments may be playing a part!], provided it is used as a springboard toward showing the differences between fact & fiction. There can be no doubt that films like LOTM spark interest in the subject. 2 - Mann had this vision, if you will, of giving life & depth to the Indian villain, Magua. How to do so? Give him reason for his actions. Mann chose the revenge factor against Monro, thus his death. We should give Mann credit in that regard. He told the Indian story in grand fashion. I don't know, given that this is merely a story, what's the big deal? 3 - Assuming LOTM was a real account, which it isn't, it would be excellent history because it would have brought the events to vivid life. Who would really have a misinterpretation of history because of incorrect buttons? Mann had very competent military & period advisers on hand - and in many ways - he utilized them very well - whatever decisions he made, and I can't pretend to give you his inner thoughts, were probably made for the sake of his art. An example: I watched Black Hawk Down with no knowledge of the event. I wondered, "Is it good history?" I watched a documentary on the subject. In fact, it was good history. Very good history. I was amazed at how true to the real events it was; how vivid a picture it presented. Watching the film, gave me, apparently, a good understanding of the event. Now, was every detail in the soldiers' accouterments, etc. accurate? I have no idea, BUT, how would that effect my understanding of the history, anyway? Negligibly, if at all. 4 - We should all be careful about criticizing this kind of stuff too severely, lest filmmakers give it up all together and go back to John Wayne stuff [which I mostly love, btw, but you get the idea!] Anyway, those were some of our thoughts ...
Pvt. Chauncey	Posted - November 09 2002 : 1:53:22 PM Dear All, Regarding the comment about no mention of Rogers' Rangers, it should be noted that three of the four companies of Rogers' Rangers (including his own company) were away at the Seige of Louisbourg at the time Montcalm attacked Fort William Henry. Indeed, that many British being away at Cape Breton was one reason he felt compelled to take the fort. The only company of Rogers' Rangers at the fort was that of Robert Rogers' younger brother, Richard Rogers. Richard himself had died of smallpox a couple of weeks before Montcalm's attack, and therefore it is unlikely the Rangers had much of a role to play. A few green coats in the column or on the wall amongst the fort defenders might have been appropriate, but not many. Rogers' had his small revenge, however, as Richard's body was one of those dug up by the Indians and thus a few probably contracted and died from the smallpox his dead body still carried. YHOS, Pvt. Chauncey Goodrich Rogers' Rangers Rogers' Own Coy.
SgtMunro	Posted - November 08 2002 : 01:03:21 AM You are right, Ranger, it should not be used as a teaching tool. Entertaining, it is, but it is not educational. However, as the Captain put it, a little attention to detail in regards to uniforms, drill, etc. would not have hurt. Your Humble Servant, Sgt. Duncan Munro Capt. Graham's Coy 1/42nd Royal Highlanders "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
CT•Ranger	Posted - November 07 2002 : 6:58:39 PM The bad thing about the whole "it's a movie, not a documentary" stance, is that some people look to historical films as a source of historical authority. I know of high school teachers who have shown LOTM and other historically based films as a teaching tool. LOTM is neither a good teaching tool for literature nor history. Historicallly based films often perpetuate historical myths amongst the public who don't know better. However if films of this nature were done accurately, then they could be extremely valuable teaching tools, and more enjoyable for reenactors and history buffs. CT•Ranger "Each day as we become more mechanized, we become...less aware, always more under the influence of powers beyond our comprehension." -Eric Sloane
Edmund McKinnon	Posted - November 07 2002 : 2:10:32 PM It still doesn't makes any sense why a little detail is such a bad thing.Why couldn't the 35th's facings have been correct?I also recall that Dale Dye was the military advisor for this one.While he was certainly good in:Platoon,Casualties of War,Under Siege etc.what did he know about 18th century warfare(other than we still use alot of the same tactics).As I've said previously,attention to detail is what makes a good movie great.John Sayles,are you listening? Capt.John Graham Cmdr.42nd Highlanders
richfed	Posted - November 07 2002 : 1:11:38 PM quote: Originally posted by Two Kettles: Since this has become a "thread", I'm going to throw my two pence in. I was very involved in the "background" of MOHICANS, providing information on the British and Provincial troops of the era, and recruiting reenactor extras. Because of the demands of a new job, I was not able to actually work on set as an extra, but I know many who did. What I find most troublesome about MOHICANS are the very points brought up here. When I and some good friends first became involved (before Michael Mann), we were told that the movie would have a "100% commitment to authenticity" -no, I'm not kidding. The MOHICANS story was to be used as a framework for a really authentic portrayal of the F&I War, with the same period feel and intensity as GLORY. ... Let's just be glad it was made at all, eh??? I gotta ask you, Two Kettles ... why you think Michael Mann wasn't in this project from the get-go? He actually bought the rights to the Dunne screenplay, and worked on the film way before production began. It was his baby from the beginning. Not that I agree with all his decisions, but I have no problem, at all, with his "we're making a movie ..." philosophy. After all, that is what he was doing. I know, I know ... this discussion always come up - and I agree with the prevalent reenactor stance, to a point. And, to a point, I think Mann stuck to the accuracy angle. But, he's a filmmaker ... he looks for ways to connect with an audience that is not strictly reenactor, or history buff, etc. He's looking for visuals, the familiar, etc. etc. He's telling a story ... I know how you feel, though. I'm a Little Bighorn buff, big time. It kills me to see how Hollywood portrays the event!!! Even "Son of the Morning Star," a fairly accurate portrayal ... I'm sitting there, "Why didn't they do that?" Why didn't they do this?" It's almost a curse! Anyway, there are valid points to both sides of this issue ... I feel very strongly both ways!
SgtMunro	Posted - November 06 2002 : 10:44:51 PM I could not have said it better myself. As far as Mr. Mann's "This is a movie, not a documentary", well you have my sympathy for having to deal with such tripe. Your Humble Servant, Sgt. Duncan Munro Capt. Graham's Coy 1/42nd Royal Highlanders "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
Two Kettles	Posted - November 06 2002 : 5:24:18 PM Since this has become a "thread", I'm going to throw my two pence in. I was very involved in the "background" of MOHICANS, providing information on the British and Provincial troops of the era, and recruiting reenactor extras. Because of the demands of a new job, I was not able to actually work on set as an extra, but I know many who did. What I find most troublesome about MOHICANS are the very points brought up here. When I and some good friends first became involved (before Michael Mann), we were told that the movie would have a "100% commitment to authenticity" -no, I'm not kidding. The MOHICANS story was to be used as a framework for a really authentic portrayal of the F&I War, with the same period feel and intensity as GLORY. James Atcheson, costume designer for DANGEROUS LIAISONS, spent months in England researching both civilian clothing and uniforms. Most of the top people in F&I War research and reenacting were contacted and many of them involved. After Michael Mann came on, things began to change. For example: A master gunsmith (Hershel House, if memory serves) created a believeble 1750's rifle for Hawkeye, very much influenced by the Jaeger style, but also with influence of British fowlers and early American rifles. This was rejected by Mann, who wanted the golden age Kentucky Rambo rifle Hawkeye wound up using. Atcheson and Mann got into it over the facings of the 35th coats. When Atcheson pointed out that this was what was historically accurate, Mann replied, "This is a movie, not a documentary". That phrase became a mantra on the set. Atcheson walked, and the costuming became less authentic. As reenactors were recruited, more and more innacuracies became apparent. No rangers need apply - apparently they didn't want to show anybody but Hawkeye being any good in the woods. No provincial regulars need apply - they only wanted militia. But, in addition to the 35th (with wrong facings) and the 60th (with Rev War knapsacks), Mann wanted Highlanders because he thought they looked good. On the French side, only Marines would be portrayed, no Troupes de la Terre (which probably sent Montcalm spinning in his grave). The British troops were originally supposed to be trained in Bland's, then the Norfolk Manual, and finally, they used a cobbled together drill with definitely modern influences (like the "Huzzah" when going from "Make Ready" to "Present"). When the "100% commitment to authenticity" was brought up, we were told that it had shifted to being authentic to the French War era, but not necessarily 1757; then to a general mid-18th century feel. Finally, in an interview (in Entertainment Weekly, I think) Michael Mann said basically that historical authenticity was only worthwhile if it helped him tell the story he wanted to tell the way he wanted to tell it. Obviously, Mann's vision of the story works for a lot of people. This website is proof of that. Personally, I think the movie works very well as a popcorn action/romance. But I can't help but wonder what it might have been like if the original vision had been followed. Two Kettles
SgtMunro	Posted - November 06 2002 : 4:25:49 PM Well Ranger, I'll definately have to check it out. Thanks for the book ideas on King Phillip's War. Your Humble Servant, Sgt. Duncan Munro Capt. Graham's Coy 1/42nd Royal Highlanders "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
CT•Ranger	Posted - November 06 2002 : 10:00:43 AM Starbuck's "The Great Warpath" is a great book. It covers Saratoga, Rogers Island & Ft. Edward, Ft. William Henry, Mount Independence, Crown Point and underwater archaeology in both Lake Champlain and Lake George. Lots of black & white photos of artifacts and good maps of the excavations. Archaeology reveals so many details we don't get from the historical documents. CT•Ranger "Each day as we become more mechanized, we become...less aware, always more under the influence of powers beyond our comprehension." -Eric Sloane
SgtMunro	Posted - November 06 2002 : 03:26:04 AM Thanks, Captain, see you at the barracks. Sgt. Duncan Munro Capt. Graham's Coy 1/42nd Royal Highlanders "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
Edmund McKinnon	Posted - November 05 2002 : 11:17:39 PM I have "WarPaths"as it was required reading for my"Warfare in Colonial America(PreRev)course from AMU.I shall send it over.EM Capt.John Graham Cmdr.42nd Highlanders
SgtMunro	Posted - November 05 2002 : 10:24:24 PM Greetings Captain and Ranger, both of you once again bring very good points to the table. One question for you, Ranger, the 'Warpaths' book is one I do not have yet, do you recomend it? Sgt. Duncan Munro Capt. Graham's Coy 1/42nd Royal Highlanders "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"

DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke

Custom Search

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.16 seconds