MOHICANS, to the rescue of

[FAC_J...@jmuvax.bitnet]

Well yes, Martha, I should add my two cents. Lately, I've had Cinema-L
on digest, due to general busy-ness, and just read your prod to me this
morning. At day's end, I've finally got a some time to spend in answer.

Martha and I (switching to an all-inclusive address at the moment) have
been over this film extensively off-list, and I find her appreciation--
which is only hinted at here--right on. We agree, except for one point:
the one regarding the unbalanced, stereotypical view of Native Americans
that LotM nonetheless ends up promulgating despite its virtues. (Please
excuse the remembering-back-to-this-morning nutshelling of your point,
Martha.)

I don't agree that this lack of "balance" or penetration in the portrait is
a flaw--basically because I don't think that's the job the film sets for
itself. Filmmaker Mann didn't intend either novelistic virtues of character
delineation or further, social realism of the times. The film comes from
the book (as well as the earlier film version), and Cooper's book was more
properly a romance rather than a novel. "In common usage," Holman's _Handbook
to Literature_, sez, romance "refers to works with extravagant characters,
or remote and exotic places, or highly exciting and heroic events, or pas-
sionate love, or mysterious or supernatural powers. In another and more
sophisticated sense, romance refers to works which are relatively free of
the more restrictive aspects of realistic verisimilitude and which are
expressive of profound or transcendent or idealistic truths." This, it
seems to me--especially the latter, more sophisticated sense--is "Mohicans"
in spades, as we look back upon the origins of our American society through
mythic ideals and an ever-present knowledge of what history has really passed
and what we have become, now. Difference from Cooper is, Mann's updated him
for more penetrating "idealistic truths," and expressed them in sound and
image more exquisite than ole Coop could ever be in words. We can't cut
any slack for "Dances With Wolves" in the same regard, because it _does_
set itself up, in style and form, as a sort of Intro to Cross-Cultural
Relations 101, or somesuch.

Yeah, but you say, what about all that "authenticity" in LotM that Mann tried
for, if it doesn't mesh with trying to present a socially realistic portrait?
First off, of course, Mann wasn't completely authentic. Even he pointed out
that if his Natives were authentic, a lot of them would've been more naked,
with decorated penises, even. And the fighting style he concocted for Hawkeye
and Chingachgook was at best educated speculative. But such things are really
beside the point. You have to ask yourself: if we weren't told by the publicity,
how many of us would recognize what's authentic anyway? It's unimportant as
an end in itself. What's important is the intensity and conviction that such
measures can lend to the impressions the film creates on screen for the viewer,
sort of like the prep-work and memory-recall that Method and similar acting
styles employ. Which isn't to say it's not fun and pleasing to know what might
be authentic--like going through historical Williamsburg (or you name your
own place) for a tour--but that this frisson is beside the main point, as far
as yours truly is concerned. The tears the Method actor cries aren't from the
thought of the situation he's in on-screen, perhaps, but they make that moment
emotionally palpable.

There's always the question--even admitting my "romantic" argument--of the
effect that "misrepresentation" of reality, and a people, may have. But now
we're getting into questions of the social responsibility of art, and not
sticking exclusively (which is what I meant to do) with the achievement of
the artistic task the film sets itself, as it can be appreciated by a
receptive and discriminating viewer. (No self-congratulation intended, but
nonetheless inevitable, I suppose.)

And I just want to close with a comment on the dialog, the modernistic
hipness of which--in Hawkeye's mouth--seems objectionable to some viewers.
Specifically, someone on the list mentioned the clash between Hawkeye and
the proper Brit Duncan, when the former says something like (you'd think
I'd know this by heart now, wouldn't you Martha!): "Some day you and I are
going to have a serious disagreement, mister," with that dry wit. There's
also the earlier moment between them when he says, in response to the question
of how Hawkeye could not be engaged in the struggle but heading instead for
KEN-tuck-ee, with the same laconic irony: "Well, we face north and then, real
subtle-like, turn left." For my money, there's more in these moments than
the clever putdown of the stuff second bananna by the righteously hip star.
Throughout the film, the balance of formal, antique diction and modernistically
informal turns of phrase seems wonderfully flexible. And at these few moments,
when the dialog pushes the envelope, so to speak, it's almost a glimpse into
the mythic origins of American character. You can practically see where we got
to today from this unaffected, practical rudeness born of dealing with life
in the wilderness that people pushed themselves into, often in isolation.
For them it was as if a growth from the roots... not style of speaking you can
wear now like clothing. So its sense strikes *this* ear differently than any
utterance from Clint or Bruce and company.

Nuff said.

Jeff

[Mikel Koven]

In ref. to MOHICANS controversy, the only way Native North Americans can
begin to feel empowered through the cinema is when they have the opportunities
to express THEMSELVES cinematically. Toronto's Thompson Highway, put down
your pen and pick up the camera.

Mikel Koven

[Donald Larsson]

Jeff writes:
"You can practically see where we got
to today from this unaffected, practical rudeness born of dealing with life
in the wilderness that people pushed themselves into, often in isolation.
For them it was as if a growth from the roots... not style of speaking you can
wear now like clothing. So its sense strikes *this* ear differently than any

utterance from Clint or Bruce and company." [re LAST OF MOHICANS]

A good set of comments, Jeff [and thank God I'm off the Mankato thread for
now!]. There's something about that irreverent and laconic style of speech
that got lost somewhere, some time (the 1950s?). You can hear its remnants
in the kind of talk that used to issue from from such actors as Cagney,
Bogart and Stanwyck, that Bruce Willis saying "Fuck you!" or Michael J.
Fox exclaiming, "Holy shit!" just can't equal.

--Don Larsson, Mankato State U., MN

[FAC_J...@vax1.acs.jmu.edu]

Glad you agree, Don. That's a great point about our earlier-style actors;
they *did* have it in the 50s and before.

Jeff