Posted by Vita on August 08, 1998 at 08:23:26:
In Reply to: Re: Duncan's Lie posted by Marcia on August 07, 1998 at 22:53:50:
Top o'the mornin' MMMMM,
You said: I guess we will have to agree to disagree on Duncan's motives for his lie. To me, when he looks at Cora, he is thinking, "Damn, I wish she weren't listening to what I'm about to do, but I must do it anyway, as it's in the best interests of the crown." That's how I see it, but you are certainly entitled to interpret his lie as you see it."
Yes, as many interpretations as there are eyes and angles watching the same scene. Besides, this is truly in he eye of the beholder, because my speculation is based not on fact, just my feelings about it. OK, but do we agree on that "perhaps" he fibbed because he was jeaolous? Not even knowing that this might be his motivation for the lie? Look, what leads me to this is this: he witnessed Weber's promise to the Militiamen. "British Law Makes the World England..." ought to encompass a promise made by a British officer being kept by another. If you don't, you harm the credibility of your Crown. Also, he did indeed saw that the people at Cameron's Cabin were murdered not by thieves but...
So, I am still wondering. We know this is a movie and that Mann decided to kill Uncas at the cliffs, and Mann decided to de-heart and de-scalp Munro. We are merely floating some opinions on a movie that's been part of us like an old friend.
Each time I turn on the VCR, I say "Hello, good buddies! Nice to visit with you again!"
: As far as his offer to burn in the fires, of course he lies to Hawkeye. He makes no attempt to translate Hawkeye's offer to be sacrificed, but instead tells the Sachem to take a British officer, instead. This then, in my opinion, is the "serious disagreement" spoken of in Munro's office. Others may see it as something else, but there is no doubt that he volunteered himself, and never translated that portion of Hawkeye's words.
Yes, that's my noble Duncan.
Finally I watched that famous scene where he gets shots with out my hands covering my eyes. I think it was you who said it is clear that he is shot in the forehead. I didn't find the slow-mo button on my VCR yet, so I have to keep rewinding it.
OK so I think I saw the terribly spot in the forehead. But there is no blood, and I htink this is what hade mislead me in the beginning. There seems to be a dark hole with powder burns or something equally terrible. Why no blood? Something to do with the mechanics of the gun of those days? Just curious...
Post a Followup