The Last of the Mohicans

This is truly a magnificent film. It goes way beyond nostalgia in its appeal - it is a sublime work of art. Maurice Tourneur, one of the most neglected geniuses of cinema, directed most of it but, after being injured on set, he gave the great Clarence Brown his first directing assignment. And it's easy to see where Brown learnt a lot of the visual stylings that he became so famous for. This film, in a gorgeously restored print with colour tints, is a visual treat - with its revolutionary use of shadows, changes of light, actors moving into the camera, extreme long shots and even a tracking shot. The camera was still pretty immobile in 1920, but through quick edits and superb shot composition, Tourneur creates a sense of movement.

But you'll forget all the technical brilliance once the emotion of the story grabs you - and that will be in the massacre scene, which is one of the most horrifying sequences I have ever seen. And the film's finale on a cliff-top is awesome. Excellent performances from the 17 year old Barbara Bedford, in her film debut, and Alan (then Albert) Roscoe - as the inter-racial lovers. They create an eroticism together that'll have you panting - it's not surprising that the pair later married in real life. And Wallace Beery is menacingly evil as the man who comes between them.

It's an astonishing picture politically too - very contemporary in its treatment of racial issues. The Native Americans, the English and the French are all portrayed as both good and bad - the massacre being blamed primarily on the French giving the Native Americans alcohol. And the inter-racial love is respected by the film-makers and most of the characters.

Don't miss this one - it deserves a place with the great achievements of cinema.

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!!!

This is a fine movie adaptation of the classic story of "The Last of the Mohicans", for its time certainly, but in many respects it has held up at least as well as just about any other screen version of the story. The scenario emphasizes the gist of the story, develops most of the main characters efficiently, and at the right times creates a good sense of danger and suspense.

The story is by and large the one familiar from the novel, set in the Seven Years War (which in the USA is often called the 'French and Indian War'), with the British and French relying heavily on their allies among the various native tribes of North America. The Mohicans were the tribe that had occupied some of the first land to be taken by European colonists, and thus already in 1757 had almost disappeared. In the story, they are down to one father and one son, which adds considerable poignancy to events.

The script in this version makes the interesting choice to deemphasize the role of the Mohicans' friend Hawkeye in the course of the story, instead portraying the two Indians, Uncas and Magua, as the primary figures in the fighting and in the ongoing battle of wits. Cooper's novel contains many lengthy descriptive passages, and they are omitted here, replaced instead by many location shots that efficiently and effectively suggest the atmosphere of the time, without using words.

Albert Roscoe (as he was billed here) stars as the courageous Mohican Uncas, Wallace Beery (always good in the role of a heavy) plays the treacherous, mean-spirited Magua, and Barbara Bedford is Cora, whose safety becomes one of the crucial issues in the conflict.

While the story is largely the same, this has a much livelier pace than the novel, and it really works quite well. The photography is very good, especially for 1920. It is well worth seeing for itself, and as an example of a good approach to adapting a classic novel into a movie.

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.

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.