Le dernier des Mohicans

Maurice Tourneur and Clarence Brown co-directed this version James Fenimore Cooper's classic tale of the American primeval forest, The Last Of The Mohicans. In it we have an opportunity to see Wallace Beery get first billing in a film, possibly for the first time as the villainous Magua.

Steeped in the tales of the French and Indian War growing up in the forest region of Upstate New York, Cooper knew his subject and his region well and created some unforgettable literary characters. He was also influenced by Rousseau's ideas of the 'noble savage' who the white man with his civilization had destroyed and continues to destroy. The American Indian was the perfect example for that theory.

Cooper also knew that the Indians, the Hurons here were in the pay of the French. The British too had their allies, the Iroquois Confederation were allied with them. In the end they all got used and abandoned.

As bad as Magua is it's also clear he's in the pay of one faction of the white man which is how I'm sure the Indians saw it back in the day. The noble savage is Uncas played here by Alan Roscoe, a truly magnificent tragic figure who is brought down by his love for one of the Munro sisters.

The Munro sisters Cora and Alice played by Barbara Bedford and Lillian Hall respectively are the daughters of Colonel in charge of Fort William Henry in the Adirondacks. Outnumbered and outgunned the British agree to a surrender to the French, but the Indians all liquored up go hog wild and start killing. Magua who had the Munro Sisters captive before has a thing for Alice who has fallen for Uncas.

Given the title you know it all is going to end badly for a lot of the cast members. That's all I can really say.

This version of The Last Of The Mohicans was filmed at Big Bear Lake and Yosemite National Park to create the primeval forest. Actually that area between the Hudson River and the Massachusetts/Vermont border is still pretty primeval. The cinematography is really outstanding, the best thing about this film.

This silent film after 90 years holds up very well as does Cooper's novel which is an immortal classic.

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.

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.

This is well photographed, as are most of the films I've seen from director Maurice Tourneur. The framing and composition of shots are apt, except occasionally when it is theatrical. Much of the action happens outside, which helps--freeing the camera and providing scenery. There are some nice lighting effects: use of low-key lighting, nighttime photography, the flickering light against a wall to represent candlelight and such. There are some silhouette shots, which seem to be a trademark in Tourneur's films. The tinting, too, adds to the beauty.

Some moments show a resemblance to D.W. Griffith and Billy Bitzer's work, such as "The Battle at Elderbush Gulch" and "The Birth of a Nation". There are the iris shots and actor's approaching the camera, both of which were popularized by Griffith and Bitzer. The battle scene at the fort is rather Griffith-like. Impressively innovative is the pan of the faces of Magua and Uncas and then them rushing towards the camera, as they begin fighting. The main pictorial schema for this film, and I think it's a good one, if not entirely original, is switching from distanced views to intimate shots, thus taking in the breadth of the scenic environment and concentrating on the story's action. This can be seen in the battle scenes, the cliff scene and pretty much every other important scene outside.

I've referred to this as Tourneur's film, but that's contentious. Clarence Brown, Tourneur's longtime assistant, is said to have directed most of the shooting, due to Tourneur being ill. In the early days without detailed shooting scripts, it's questionable as to how much of the picture was the conception and design of Tourneur, but Brown having worked under him, the issue may be moot. Perhaps, the poor use of the same set for fictionally different locations, made obvious by the successive cuts, in addition to other minor amateurish mistakes, can be blamed on inexperience.

Of worse error are Caucasians playing Indians, and the film's occasional condescension and racism, although it can be commended for its generally respectful treatment. As well, intertitles do replace some action and acting, as fellow commenter Sorsimus criticized. And, the story contrives three moments where Dark Hair faces the choice of replacing herself for Yellow Hair as Magua's captive. The film appears rather unpolished at times, as a result. These are rather minor, or commonplace, problems, though.

This is a promising early picture for Brown, at the peak of Tourneur's career. Tourneur, a pioneer of the medium, dealt with a variety of stories, so from there one can't characterize his body of work easily; it's in cinematography that a characteristic style of innovation and the use of the best of film grammar known can be seen. For Brown, his films would surpass the visual brilliance of his master, with pictures such as, say, "The Flesh and the Devil". Here, it seems he wisely worked from the style of Tourneur to create some very interesting photography.

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!!!