Considering the scarcity of the coveted Daniel Day-Lewis performance, sometimes you have to look backwards to find what you’re looking for. It’s hard to mention anyone as the so-called ‘greatest actor of all time’, but as far I’m concerned, Day-Lewis has done very little to dissuade me of that belief.

It’s impossible to discuss this movie however without bringing up the ‘white savior’ trope that’s been seen throughout time, and is entirely prevalent in this case as well. In the opening scene, Day-Lewis (who was orphaned as a boy and raised by the Mohican tribe) hunts a boar with his Father (played by Russell Means) and his brother (Eric Schweig). In the moment, it’s shown well how comfortable each one of them is with their weapons, and how formidable they are as a pack. It’s clear though, who the main protagonist is.

For a film so centered on the mistreatment of Native Americans, they’re given very little screentime. They have next to none of the dialogue, very few heroic moments, and the brother especially is relegated to the bench with the exception of a cheap dramatic moment. Day-Lewis succeeded in his ability to play his character, but it was in many ways at the expense of more genuine, constructive analysis of the bigger picture. Even a film that’s been so classically drawn upon as an example of the white savior trope (Dances with Wolves) dedicated far more time developing its American Indian characters. It wasn’t just an abstract issue as well. Because of their lack of development, it undercut a largely impactful ending and made it more difficult to appreciate the ongoing conflict.

So from a large scale picture, I’m not sure if the film had the right direction when it comes to tackling the intricacies of colonialism. Looking at the details though, there’s a lot to love with this movie. It was well acted, well directed, well written when it comes to the plot, and it created some exciting conflicts. Conversations between the British soldiers and the frontiersmen were natural, and painted a good picture of the struggle at the time. A certain conversation between the British and French garrisons also comes to mind when it comes to powerful expressions of responsibility, and how that comes into conflict with colonial rule. These tensions between the colonizers and the frontiersmen were largely where the film succeeded, and were able to accomplish a lasting impression on the rest of the story.

The character most representing this concept was Major Duncan Heyward, a newly deployed British officer convinced of England’s superiority. He was a surprisingly compelling character, as his stern lawful prejudice was constantly at arms with his duty to live as an honorable human being. During his continued journey through the frontier, he was faced with a multitude of different obstacles that lead to the weathering of his binary thought, although I don’t appreciate how many problems they kept inside him. They arguably didn’t do enough to establish the dangerous nature of his character, allowing him a little more redemption than I would’ve appreciated. Looking back at the small scale though, his arc was well acted, developed and executed.

He surprised me in this film by being something I’ve never seen out of him; slightly conventional. The film didn’t surround his character like his later work, and it wasn’t entirely reliant on his performance. Was he great? Of course he was. Actually, his success in this film gives me a new appreciation for him as a performer. It shows that he’s able to work from within a studio system as well as outside of it, and his dedication to the role is not only limited to those with eccentricities.

The film opens by taking advantage of the wonderful American scenery, and uses its time in the credits as an ode to the will of frontiersmen, and to the American Indians. It’s set during the time of war between the French and the English, a striking bout to determine the fate of colonial America.

There were three major parties to this brigade though, with the American Indians represented by the primary antagonist Magua (Wes Studi). While he was a decent representation of the anger of the Native American people, his character wasn’t given much time to be more than a vague representative threat. He wasn’t fleshed out in the same way the two other faction leaders were, and his ferocity was a little banal considering how often other Native American characters are portrayed this way.

Within the time they had though, conversation and intermingling between the three peoples were handled delicately, and with lots of care. It did its duty in exposing the nature of their conflicts and established the hierarchy of the community well. The ending, although cut under by its limited worldview, was from a technical level probably the best way you could go with the direction they had. It utilized some wonderful scenery, opening up the world and showing exactly the land which was at stake. That along with the music gave it an epic scale, allowing the pace to build into a story fit for its setting.

The Last of the Mohicans Film Review: Daniel Day-Lewis Elevates Powerful Yet Dated Colonialist-Era Epic

Joseph Garvey