Last Of The Mohicans Differents Between The Book And Movie Essays

Last of the Mohicans: Differents Between the Book and Movie The book Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper was very different from the movie Last of the Mohicans in terms of the storyline. However, I feel that the producer and director of this movie did a good job of preserving Cooper's original vision of the classic American man surviving in the wilderness, while possibly presenting it better than the book originally did and in a more believable fashion to a late twentieth century reader. The makers of the movie Last of the Mohicans preserved Cooper's central ideas and themes very well, the most important of which is the question, what makes a man? Very few books that I have read contain such a clear sense of what a man should be as Last of the Mohicans. Cooper portrays the hero, Hawkeye, as brave, independent, and skillful in the ways of the woods. He is a tracker, he can hit a target with a bullet from any distance, he can fight the evil Iroquois Indians without batting so much as an eyelash. The makers of the movie take great pains to preserve these facets of Hawkeye, but then go beyond what Cooper originally laid down as the basis for his hero's character. In the book, Hawkeye displays very little feeling and the reader has very little empathy with him, even though he is the hero. In the movie, however, there is a great romance between Hawkeye and Cora that does not exist in the book. This romance adds a more human side to Hawkeye's character; it show s his caring side beyond all the hero-woodsman qualities--in other words, the non-Rambo, late twentieth century version of a hero. Every hero should have a woman at his side, and the makers of the movie, realizing this, transfer Cora from Uncas' side to Hawkeye's. This I think was a wise choice because it gave the viewer more things in common with the hero and thus made Hawkeye a more human hero and therefore more comprehensible to the late twentieth century viewer. One thing the makers of the movie attempted to keep was the vision portrayed in the book of sweeping landscapes, gigantic trees, dark forests, crashing waterfalls, and other impressive features of nature. This again was a wise choice, seeing as how part of Cooper's vision was the goodness and power of nature. However, once again I think the film presented this facet better than the book did, although this time it was not due to a feature Cooper left out but instead was simply due to the fact that film presents such features in a more vivid, more appealing way than pages of descriptive passage. (This again may be the bias of a late twentieth century viewer/reader, as we are used to having our images presented in a graphic, immediate way, rather than allowing our imaginations to conjure up pictures from the written word.) One thing the makers of the movie left out that was originally in the book was the character of David Gamut, the psalmist. Of all the characters in the book I felt his was best developed by Cooper; almost all of the others were cardboard characters with no depth. Gamut, however, is at the beginning portrayed as anything but a hero He is gawky, doesn't believe in killing other men (even Indians), and is something of what we would today call a nerd. However, he goes through many "trials by fire" and in the end is shaped into Cooper's version of the American man. David Gamut amused me as the story went along and his presence certainly lightened things up compared to the constant sense of foreboding that pervades the book. However, the movie makers sadly left out his character altogether. Though David Gamut was not an important part of Cooper's vision, he still played a part in it. He developed throughout the book from a wimpy coward to one who took up arms in the final battle, placing his life in God's hands and throwing caution to the wind. I cannot see a reason for removing his character other than the producers possibly wishing to remove all semblance of comedy from the movie and thus make it a very serious film. I think this is a stupid reason, because his character added much more to the story than a few jokes, and had I been the director I would have included his character, perhaps even embellished it in the same manner as