Posted by Elaine on April 30, 2001 at 21:19:17:
In Reply to: Historical Accuracy posted by Lory Rogers on April 16, 2001 at 08:47:37:
: I am writing a paper about the historical accuracy of the film and wanted to have a few comments from others interested in this subject. I am reading the material available on this site now, but would like some personal opinions.
: Thank you for your assistance,
: Lory Rogers
Hi again, Lory~
Since you've been reading what we've written or posted on the site I won't repeat it here. I would say this ... Mann's LOTM remains one of the best 'Hollywood' productions of historical fiction subject matter. Despite its flaws & inaccuracies, the film offers a good window to time & place, and has been the catalyst for many people to seek out historical info/sources for the F & I War, pre-rev Indian culture, & the American colonial era. (Yes, that's good!)
The historical inaccuracies (or falsities, depending upon one's passion for history) are, overall, innocuous. Bearskin mitre caps, Joseph Brandt's age, white flag/red flag ... these can be viewed within the context of artistic license. (I know some will disagree, but, none of these have had great negative impact upon the public's collective perception of the Seven Year's War.)
The most glaring question mark, in my mind, is the indictment of Le Marquis de Montcalm as culpable in the events that took place following the surrender of Fort William Henry. Mann's film clearly accused Montcalm (as did Cooper) yet the historical record on this remains unclear. There are reports that would suggest Montcalm knew of & permitted the assault; there are reports that strongly vindicate him. Interpretation, as expected, is probably impacted by one's sense of *allegiance* to either France or England.
One last thought ... the film's primary objective was to entertain rather than instruct. A documentary (theoretically) requires rigid adherence to the known facts. A film based upon historical fiction can be allowed a bit more room.
Elaine