Le dernier des Mohicans

Keeping the story-line close to that of the original novel, this is perhaps the best telling of the Cooper classic. Great photography, and what for the time, must have been considered "under-acting" maintain a timelessness to this version. It is interesting to see a somewhat slim Wallace Beery as the villain Magua. While the 1936 Randolph Scott version is good, this one is the best, much more so than the Daniel Day Lewis atrocity produced in the 90s!!!

You can't compare this version of the Cooper story to later sound versions--it just wouldn't be fair. It's like comparing apples to oranges. However, if you compare this adventure film to other similar silent films, then it comes off as one of the better ones you can find today. Not only does it do a pretty good job of sticking to the original story, but the production values and acting are superb. For a 1920 film, it was amazingly well-crafted and complex. In particular, the outdoor scenes were so realistic and beautiful. Many of the outdoor scenes (particularly at the end) were like works of art--and look very much like moving Ansel Adams photographs. The mountainous scenes are just gorgeous. The stunts were also amazing and well performed--looking every bit as good as modern stunt-work. Also, while most of the Indians are played by white folks in dark paint (a very, very common practice for the day--and which included Boris Karloff as an extra!), they at least look a lot like real Indians. In fact, I was very surprised that they were able to get Wallace Beery of all people to play the lead evil Indian--and he looked pretty convincing!! A tight script and excellent direction all helped to make this a dandy bit of entertainment--well worth seeing even today.

By the way, in some ways the film may seem pretty offensive (calling the natives "savages"), but for the most part it tried to convey them in a three-dimensional way. Sure there were plenty of bad Indians, but some decent ones as well and the movie tried very hard at times to humanize them--something you rarely saw in contemporary films or even those in the 1930s, 40s or 50s.

I just saw "Last of the Mohicans." I didn't expect much. I had seen other adaptations: the 1936 George B. Seitz movie and the Michael Mann remake of 1992. To me they all seem to lack the spirit of what is admittedly a rambling novel whose provocative subject matter is only partially realized. Cooper's problem was execution; he didn't understand how severely his story was compromised by unnecessary characters, needless plot devices, and ceaseless talk. Latter day film-makers steered around Cooper's problem by ignoring him and creating a story of their own, but in doing so they lost what was fine in his work.

Director Maurice Tourneur does not ignore Cooper, although he does cut through the crap. In a non-talking film the characters can't yap on the way they do in Cooper's fiction. Hawkeye's role is reduced. He has few scenes and is not the romantic lead Randolph Scott and Daniel Day Lewis would be in later adaptations. He is the homely, awkward, asexual woodsman Cooper describes. Tourneur chooses, rather, to focus directly on the tragic romance at the novel's core, between British colonial Cora Munro and Mohican hunk Uncas. He thereby rescues the film from becoming another "Birth of a Nation" with Wallace Beery's Magua standing in for Griffith's black-faced white men who try to rape white women.

Tourneur's technique is impressive. Camera perspective, lighting, and editing are well in advance of what was being done in 1920. The action on the Eastman print I saw seems a little fast. I'm not sure if it runs at the correct projection speed. Tourneur obviously under-cranked his camera during action sequences to give actors and extras the appearance of furious motion. These are only small criticisms, however.

As in all his films Tourneur reined in the actors' exaggerated facial expressions and theatrical gestures, which is perhaps why there are so many title cards explaining the actors' motivations. Barbara Bedford is restrained and natural as Cora, some might argue too restrained to be the passionate, dark-haired heroine of Cooper's novel. But Tourneur lets Bedford's quiet beauty act as a veneer masking a volatile nature. Her defiance of social and feminine conventions – showing attraction for a Native warrior, and impulsively sacrificing herself to protect her sister in the Indian town – affects us all the more because of her stillness. In Garbo such stillness was praised as mystique. So perhaps it is no coincidence that Tourneur's protégé Clarence Brown, who finished this film when Tourneur was injured, guided Garbo's early career beginning with "Flesh and the Devil" in 1926.

I love this film. In fact, I find it closer to the novel (written by James Fenimore Cooper) than the 1936 film starring Randolph Scott. Although filmed during the silent era, I find it more "true to form" than the latter film. Wallace Beery is wonderful as "Hawkeye". Unfortunately, nether this nor the 1936 film come close to Michael Mann's thrilling 1992 film. An epic film, It is 1 of my favorite films ever made by Michael Mann. Starring Daniel Day-Lewis as "Hawkeye", with Madeleine Stowe as "Cora Munroe", Jodi May as her sister "Alice Munroe". For me, the best of all casting is the inclusion of 2 very famous Native Americans: Russel Means (as "Chingachgook") and Dennis Banks (as "Ongewasgone"). In fact, Dennis Banks was a co-founder of the American Indian Movement ("AIM"). He was 1 of the leaders of AIM's takeover of Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota in 1973. It was a protest against both tribal and U.S. Governments. He was arrested by the FBI. Michael Mann was thrilled when both men accepted his offer to be cast in his (1992) version of this film, which is by far the very best.

The 1992 version is great, with Daniel Day Lewis and Madeleine Stowe in full swing and establishing an impressive and sensual chemistry as the romantic pair of the movie, the best that has ever been seen in the movies. But this 1920 version is also very good and was a surprise to me, as there are several changes in the final part of the film compared to 1992, being the much more tragic outcome in this 1920 version (but equally powerful and realistic, maybe even more) than in the latest version. Silent movies continue to be a constant (good) surprise to me. The actress Barbara Bedford is fantastic, I think she is the great star of the movie. The 1920s are undoubtedly one of the richest and most creative decades in film history.