The Last of the Mohicans

Made right after the Full Implementation of the Hays Code that Limited the Portraying of Certain types of Violence and Behavior, this Film shows Signs of Capitulation and Adherence but not Complete Surrender.

There is Interracial Love making, Scalping, Torture, and other Displays of Nastiness that give this Movie a Real Feel for the Frontier Days and the Conflicts of Cultures and Countries.

Quite Impressive, the Film Holds Up really well and Modern Audiences will be Surprised that this Early Hollywood effort is a Testament at how Good they could be at their Craft when everything was Clicking. It has very Little that is Dated or Embarrassing Today. Especially the Reverence and Tolerance given All Points of View from All Points of View.

A good companion piece to the Michael Mann remake, this is a film that could be offered as one of the best of the early "period" films of the slowly evolving studio movie machine that would peak just a few years later.

For those of us immune to the charms of James Fenimore Cooper's novels this movie is a godsend. I've never understood Cooper's plots, his characters, his appeal, his (apparent) greatness. He strikes me as nearly unreadable. The 1936 movie of Last Of the Mohicans, however, is quite good, though none of it makes much sense. It is set on the American frontier of the 18th century, which then meant upper New York state. Two sisters are involved; as are several British officers; a tribe or so of Indians, some virtuous, others not; and a chap named Hawkeye, who is exceedingly brave and an excellent shot with a long rifle. There are magnificently photographed scenes featuring forests, lakes, rivers and waterfalls. The birch-bark canoes, the costumes, the way the Indians look and act, the fort, the feeling of excitement, alternating with fear, and with it the sense that the Native Americans are quite as proficient at killing one another as the white man is of killing the whole lot of them, and maybe even better, are all conveyed with admirable realism. There is also an air of tragedy in the film, for white and red alike, though this is not dwelt on for long. The entire movie feels like a product of the period in which it is set, not the twentieth century. Many of the Indians are played by white actors, all of whom do an excellent job. Bruce Cabot's performance as Magua is the stuff of nightmares, and one's image of him lingers in the mind long after the film is over.

As a kid, I read all of the JF Cooper's Leatherstocking series, as well as dang near anything else I could get my hands on about Red Indians. I saw this film, which was made and released the year before I was born, while in grammar school. It was revived from time to time as it was already on its way to being a classic. It is just a great film. Randolph Scott whose presentations tended to be a bit wooden seemed to fit the character of Natty Bummpo, AKA Hawkeye quite well. The delightful Bruce Cabot is a villainous Magua and Philip Reed is a romantic Uncus and Robert Barrat, a studio character actor plays the revenging Chingachgook. Henry Wilcoxson who plays the British officer rival is also well known to us buffs as a frequent anti-hero, villain or rival. Binnie Barnes and Heather Angel were studio starlets who were likewise convincing. While this version largely remains truer to the original than the '95 version with Daniel Day-Lewis, it is a very different film. After seeing the later version, I rented this one and saw it again. I plan to watch it again and again. The final scene where Philip Reed crawls to grasp the hand of Heather Angel to die together, gets to me as much today as it did when I was a kid. Randolph Scott's Hawkeye is closer than Day-Lewis's to the original but that shouldn't detract. Both films are wonderful. Anyway, comparisons are not always fruitful. But this film made and released during the final years of the great depression has it all: action, romance and hope.

Those who enjoyed the 1992 Michael Mann/Daniel Day-Lewis version of this American classic might also like to take a look at this older Hollywood production and contrast the two. Randolph Scott plays Hawkeye as a much more affable, almost happy-go-lucky character than does the famously intense Mr. Day-Lewis. The Indian roles are played by palefaces here, but at least they're not egregiously insulting to native Americans.

It still surprises me from time to time when I see how well movies were made so long ago, when the art form didn't have that long of a tradition behind it. Techniques and temperaments change over the years, but the world is big enough for more than one good version of 'The Last of the Mohicans.'

I will admit that I knew James Fenimore Cooper wrote the classic book, but I never read it. And I knew and loved the excitement of the 1992 film version starring Daniel-Day Lewis, but didn't know that it did not follow the book. And I knew about the Statler Bros song "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott?", but I had never seen one of his movies.

So I decided to watch this version starring Randolph Scott in B/W and of course not as much special effects as today's movies. The acting is really quite well, except for the fake dying when actors are shot.

This version is equally exciting and keeps you on the edge of your seat. And if you, like me, liked the 1992 version, you will like this knowing an idea of the story, but with a different ending.