The Last of the Mohicans vs. Fred Anderson’s Crucible of War

Michael Mann’s film, The Last of the Mohicans, and Fred Anderson’s novel, Crucible of War, describes the events of the French and Indian war that took place in the 1750’s in very much similar ways. The film has a set agenda that describes what took place during the French and Indian War. However, from a different person’s perspective could be perceived as being a film for pure entertainment, if not both. From the beginning to the end, the film is very much related to what really happened in the French and Indian War. There were only a few things that I caught that were a tad bit different from reality.
Furthermore, this film was made in 1992. Before watching the movie, I talked myself into imagining that the film was going to be a today’s society “French and Indian War.” Thinking it was going to be made-up, almost like fictional French and Indian War. I was completely wrong. Michael Mann did not hold back over anything in this film, minus the few things he added to make this film more violent and entertaining. From the firearms to the location, to the clothes that were worn, everything was right on the money. I could even feel the mood Mann was trying to get across from the film. Mann even set the film to take place in the upstate of New York, and it was filmed mostly in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, making it extremely realistic. With all that being said, this film was most definitely not trying to make a point about society at the time, rather than interpret the past event of the French and Indian War in 1750’s and explain what happened during that era to the best of their knowledge and ability.
In this film, the “good guys” and the “bad guys” both were considered the Native Americans from my point of view. Mann showed it to be that the Native Americans were the “good guys” by showing how multiple times they would use nature to hide in order to ambush their enemy. While some people view the Native Americans as the “bad guys,” I view them as the “good guys,” because of their intelligent strategies. Mann showed it to be that the Native Americans were the “bad guys” by showing them cutting out the hearts of the people and burning the people alive. However, that was not the case in real life history. The significance about the “bad guys” in this film was to simply heighten the entertainment. I mean, the French and Indian War as portrayed from the film would not have been the same French and Indian War if it were not for the horrific scenes, right? So that was just an intelligent strategy that Mann used to make this film complete. With all that accounted for, I would say for the most part this film has been critical towards the French and Indian War in the 1750’s. In comparison to the novel, the film used actors that very well resembled the real life people who really fought during the war in the 1750’s. Obviously the film could not use the real French and Native Americans who fought in the war because it was such a long time ago and because that they are all deceased now, but the film, like I said before, showed a very accurate description of the real people. Colonel George Monro is a prime example. In both the film and novel, it is expressed that Colonel George Monro would have never made it to history if it was not for him being dispatched to Fort William Henry, a fort in southern New York on Lake George. On a side note, the fort was built by the British and was abducted and wiped out by the French during the French and Indian War. Anderson writes in the novel