DigitalRevenantX7 The year is 1757 during the French & Indian War in the New World. The British fort of Fort Edward is being targeted by the French & their Native American allies the Hurons. Captain Randolph, a cowardly British officer decides to defect to the French after discovering that the fort is fitted with weapons that are basically useless & after his girlfriend Cora Munro, the eldest daughter of the fort's colonel, rebuffs his advances & instead falls for Uncas, the last of the Mohican tribe. The Hurons' chief runner Magua, who also desires Cora, leads the Hurons to massacre the inhabitants of the fort & kidnaps Cora & her younger sister Alice for himself. Uncas challenges Magua to a duel for the sisters' freedom.This 1920 silent film was the first of four adaptations of the novel by Fenimore Cooper & by far the best of the bunch. It is also the most faithful of the adaptations & correctly depicts the nasty side of the war at the time. The film was originally directed by Maurice Tourneur but when he became too ill to continue, Clarence Brown stepped in to finish the production.The film, like most other silent features of the era, is filled with pioneering shots, although it is still technically crude in some respects (this was 1920, after all – the cinema was still in its infancy at the time). The film is a bit stagy in some parts but there are no superfluous shots to be found. The acting is good & the film is reasonably exciting. The film is also watchable for the fact that it correctly depicts the New World (later to become the USA) as filled with good Indians, bad Indians, bigoted whites, romance between white women & Indians & the simple message that war is indeed a form of hell.

funkyfry Having only seen the 1990s version of this story and not having read the book, I can't say how true this film is to Cooper's vision so you'd have to look to other posters for that. I will say that it feels much more dark and brooding than the later version. Maurice Tourneur's visuals are wonderful, taking in the vistas of the West and framing the drama of the characters on an appropriately vast scale.Here we have the story of 2 sisters, dark haired and resolute Cora (Barbara Bedford) and fair haired and similarly gentle in demeanor Alice (Lillian Hall), who are caught up in the violence of the French and Indian War because their father (James Gordon) commands a fort on the frontier. Cora finds her protector in a Native Mohican hunter named Uncas (Alan Roscoe) who manages to rescue her from the clutches of the conniving Magua (Wallace Beery). There is treachery on the part of both the English and the Indians, and the film takes pains to show that the Indians are not inherently evil but mislead by greedy white men and the unscrupulous Magua.The performances in this film, with the exception of Wallace Beery, are for the most part very restrained and emotive as opposed to some of the more expressive styles of silent acting that you saw a lot in the late teens. Beery is way over the top but that's presumably the way the directors wanted him to be. There's one shot where he completely goes ape-wild and jumps at the camera with his mouth and eyes wide open, the total "savage" image designed apparently to startle audiences who'd rather keep a character like Magua at arm's length. Bedford's face is really remarkable, so much expression and fragility. Roscoe is somewhat less well cast, not simply because of the racial issues but just because he looks a bit too old to be the romantic he's being described as here. His acting is good though, and the two have decent chemistry.I watched the movie mostly to study Maurice Tourneur's technique. I hadn't realized he co-directed it with Clarence Brown, his protégé, until I saw his name on the credits. I can't really assess what kind of role Brown played because the film doesn't show any kind of divisions and most of the visual style that I picked up on were things that I recognized from previous Tourneur films. Tourneur and Brown always worked together in those years officially or unofficially though is my understanding. Twice in the film we see what is the most distinctive type of shot that Tourneur uses at least in his silent American films, a dark silhouette framed by a triangular shaped cave opening behind which sprawls an epic landscape. The same type of shot was used to great effect in his version of "Treasure Island" and has been imitated or payed homage to in dozens of films. You can see variations of it in many of his films; for example in "Victory" he has this really striking shot of a fisherman on the shore, with his body and his rod pushed to the extreme edge of the frame and a large sea ship passing in the distance framed against a dark triangular rock. Also as in "Victory" of the previous year 1919, in "Mohicans" the most brutal violence is handled in a foreground silhouette, which produces a stylized effect very similar to what you would see in a modern graphic novel. Generally speaking, Tourneur was a master at shooting perspective in the outdoors, and the photography that Philip Du Bois and Charles Van Enger did in what looks like Yosemite Valley is some of the most impressive that you will see in any film.I can't hugely recommend the movie because it's so tragic and I'm just not crazy about that type of story, although I think it was done in a less melodramatic and more impressionistic way than in the other version I've seen. It's a relief not to be forced to sit through the "dialog" of these two lovers; in this particular story I think it's a lot stronger for the feelings to be left unsaid.

Cineanalyst This film is well photographed, as are most of the films I've seen that are directed by 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 film's 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 likely invented 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 doubtful. Clarence Brown, Tourneur's longtime assistant, 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 film was the conception and design of Tourneur, but Brown having worked under him, the issue is probably 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 the film can be commended for its generally respectful treatment. As well, intertitles do replace some action and acting in this film, 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 film 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 films 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.

Sorsimus Many of the best films ever made were made during the silent era. Titles such as Nosferatu, Sunrise and The Crowd are all stunning examples of how mature an art form silent cinema actually was.Literary adaptations made up most of the earliest cinema. As films were perceived as a cheap form of entertainment it seemed crazy to actually pay someone to write when you had hundreds of books to film.Last Of The Mohicans is (obviously) an adaptation. Sadly it is not a good film. Actually it makes me think whether it is a film at all. All of its storytelling happens in the captions. At times you get several captions following each other telling what the characters do. They are followed by panoramic shots of American nature not necessarily relating to the captions in any way. At best you get Images depicting what has just been expressed verbally in the last caption. Murnau made "Der Letzte Mann" without any captions and managed to tell a story ten times more complicated in a lucid and coherent fashion.All in all this is a very disappointing film that should be forgotten.