Alone Yet Not Alone

I was entertained by this film. Based on a true story and made on a low budget. It's a TV movie not a Hollywood blockbuster. The storyline is good. I don't understand the very low ratings, perhaps people expect to much from a film. I've turned off plenty of films with big stars after 15 mins but this film I watched to the end.

Starting in 1775 we have a story of a German family who emigrated to America to avoid religious persecution. They buy their own land in an area that was previously the domain of the local Native Indian Tribe. The British are at war with the French – again – and both sides drag the local populace into the conflict and the local tribes also.

This results in a previously allied tribe raiding the frontier homesteads and killing, burning and taking prisoners. This includes Barbara Leininger and her sister. What follows is what befalls them and their friends.

Now I love a good frontier tale, the Native Americans are really done well and some of the locations are excellent – I think they used the same area as Michael Mann in 'The Last of the Mohicans' so very evocative. The acting ranges from good to am dram and that is a shame. Some of the characters are stereo typed to the point of incredulity – especially a couple of the English officers. Then there are the wigs which started of being funny and then became annoying. I have seen more realistic toupees on sale in a joke shop. Why ruin a film that had a fair amount of money spent on it with minor hic cups? If you like a frontier story with a bit of action and some great fancy dress then there may be a great film here for you, if you like true quality in your films then think twice.

Let me start out by saying, I am a Native Re en actor and have been in a few movies and several documentary's relating to the French and Indian War. And I am a Native American Little River Band Of Odawa Indians Tribal Member. The Person who put the native casting together to play the parts in the movie certainly did not do any research at all in regards to what did the woodland native people woman/men(period correct) look like as far appearance,their clothing, there hair, their beliefs, there traditions. The whole native outlook in this movie is so far fetched. It is in comparison to a Hollywood John Wayne shoot um up cowboys and Indians type native scenes. Here are a few things what I saw with the movie in regards to the native characters are so wrong. Woodland Natives Warriors east of the Mississippi for the most part only had a scalp lock in the back of the head which means the rest of the head was plucked of hair. Glasko is wearing a long porky pine roach which is western plains peoples tradition, not woodland. Squaw in the French language back then and today means Whore. Warrior men would never miss use there women, children and more so white captives or children. Remember they would replace there fallen warriors with captives, which meant males would become warriors and there hair plucked with only a scalp lock remaining. Women would become providers, not squaws for sure. There English clothes would be discarded and all would be dressed as natives. We never dyed the hair black of white captives. Food was always distributed throughout the tribe, so we never had to eat grubs believe me. Burning captives at the stake is very far fetched to say the least. Native people are far from being sadistic barbarians. And the Great Spirit is the person you call God or Jesus. We are spiritual people, God gave us our language and one of the words in our language is Gitchi Manido(Great Spirit) So one last comment in this review is, I was one of the Native Re enactors in the movie in which at the time of the filming of this movie myself and other Native Re enactors tried to tell the casting, movie director and ward robe personal that period correct clothing was not being used, and scene were just out of character for a French and Indian Type True Story Movie. Myself, Ron Pinson, Tony Wade, Dancing Elk were the only Natives who were dressed in period correct French and Indian War type clothing. At the end of the movie, they showed the casting in which I did not see one Native American name in the casting. And with that, I Have Nothing more to say.

Really enjoyed the story and story-telling. Filmography and scenery were great. Showed how people with faith can still find ways to be happy through great tribulations.

Disclosure: My production company produced an 18th century television series ("Courage, New Hampshire"), and while we're toiling in the same time period, this project ("Alone, Yet Not Alone") was out of our league on the budget front. "Alone" has some crowd scene production value (village/nautical/battle sequences) that have a truly "big film" look. I thought the stunt work in the battle scenes was more than credible. Some of the sets were stunning, and the cinematography was beautiful.

Having said that, and trying to be as honest as I can about other 18th century projects (I liked "Turn", Hated "Sons of Liberty"), I think the script and the direction lacked any objective review. Faith films always seem burdened by the need to project a wholesomeness, and a cheerfulness in even mundane human exchanges that can put a strain on the audience. You can't even get your belongings off a ship, in these stories, or chase a dog through the woods without smiling like Howdy- Doody. Against the perils of carving out a wilderness farm, these appear to be the happiest German immigrants ever minted. Plant a seed - - smile broadly. Split some firewood -- make your sister giggle. Bake some bread -- look beatifically on the blessed land. (I know this is in reaction to dark, existential versions of history by conventional Hollywood, but still..)

The savages: one of the reasons I have never attempted (yet) to include a Native American component in "Courage" is that it's just difficult to tell this story honestly.The actual Barbara Leininger account (the primary history upon which "Alone, Yet Not Alone" is based) includes journal accounts like this one:

"Three days later an Englishman was brought in, who had, likewise attempted to escape with Col. Armstrong, and burned alive in the same village. His torments, however, continued only about three hours, but his screams were frightful to listen to. It rained that day very hard, so that the Indians could not keep up the fire. Hence they began to discharge gunpowder at his body. At last, amidst his worst pains, when the poor man called for a drink of water, they brought him melted lead, and poured it down his throat."

..and this:

"Having been recaptured by the savages, and brought back to Kittanny, she was put to death in an unheard of way. First, they scalped her; next, they laid burning splinters of wood, here and there, upon her body; and then they cut off her ears and fingers, forcing them into her mouth so that she had to swallow them..."

(The Declaration of Independence doesn't use the term "savages" gratuitously, in other words.)

Although "Alone" hints at some of this brutality, the overall effect feels a bit more like "My summer vacation playing with Indian war paint." If you don't want to show the actual ears being cut off, you can do the Hitchcock thing and let us hear it, but you have to let us know that mortal peril is always there, or you cheapen the terror these women must have felt.

Look, movie making is hard work. I've made all of these mistakes, and more. Onward and upward, folks.

Trivia: despite the rumors of ending up on the cutting room floor, Doug Phillips actually does a fair amount of face time in this film.