Point being that it's not really a film about the American Revolution. It's a film about the very peripheral effect that a far-off war is having on some people who, shall we say, aren't exactly on the front lines. IMO Gone With the Wind is not a "film about the Civil War," and neither is this one a "film about the American Revolution."
That's not an apt distinction. The Indians attacking the settlers are certainly in the employ of the British and you couldn't reasonably draw a distinction. I believe you're on the front lines when an enemy army appears in your backyard. Thus it very much is a Revolutionary War film. If you consider it thematically, as opposed to simple surface level, then it's even more evident as such.
It's true that if the Revolutionary War didn't happen, then this movie wouldn't happen. On that level, and IMO only on that level, is this a Revolutionary War movie
Except the events depicted in the film are part of the Revolutionary War. It is not a tertiary concern of the plot as in Gone With the Wind but its driving force and arguably its focus. If we consider, both literally and symbolically, that the film is about the creation of America, it's rather explicitly so. What are you on about?
I don't think that the fact that the fighting does arise out of the War was going on at that time, necessarily means that this movie is a depiction of that War.
Huh?Your methods of film analysis are marvelously reductive drink: there's something admirable about analyzing things on the simplest surface level. If you can only explain the above comment I'll happily cede the argument.
Just before the revolution the valley was basically split into 1/3d's, Torry, Rebel, and neutral. To the Iroquois it was their traditional homeland, they had sided and treated with the British for a number of reasons, protection against white encroachment, payments & trade goods, and the fact the the British allowed them to be in effect the middlemen in the lucrative fur trade.It was the "civil war" nature of the conflict in the Mohawk Valley that the film attempted to depict, but conveniently omitting the equally repugnant acts on the Rebel side of the equation, while the neutrals were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Both sides were guilty.
Which population was split into thirds -- the Indians or the whites? Or are you referring to the actual land that was split into thirds?(Or both?)And when you talk about "the repugnant acts on the Rebel side of the equation, while the neutrals...." are you talking about the whites who opposed the British, or the Indians who opposed the British? (Or both?)
The white settlers, I talking about the white loyalist settlers of the Mohawk that were burned out of their homes and farms by the rebels.
I glanced through this book at the library today CJ, ever read it?http://www.amazon.com/Iroquois-American-Revolution-Barbara-Graymont/dp/0815601166/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336269034&sr=1-1