I watched it 2x...excellent movie
Flintlocks in The Revenant
- Thread starter CMichaud
- Start date
I watched it 2x...excellent movie
^This. I've read notations from John Norton's memoirs, he comments on the [at that time] long standing hatred between the Kentuckians and Tecumseh's Shawnee and [Brant's Mohawks]. Prior to the war of 1812, the "long gun" of the Kentuckian [Pennsylvanian] settler came to bear against various native tribes with notable effect. The Kentuckians [and their long arms] in 1813 mustered and involved in the fighting in and around Detroit, so hated the Native Confederacy {Tecumseh at it's head}, that when the British withdrew to the Thames, they requested and were granted the position of vanguard (1st in the fray) at the battle of the Thames in order to enact revenge against them. Norton remarks about the Kentuckians prefered arms in his memoirs in an almost envious way. [my opinion]
Some may take issue that I'm discussing 1812/13, but we should understand that I'm not taking about American 'regulars' rather militia units who supplied their own arms...I'm suggesting these arms would have been older than brand new at the time.[1790's built is plausible]
The, I believe still current, oldest reliably dated American longrifle is dated 1761 and was made by John Schreidt. There are others believed to be from the 1750s, but the actual dates of manufacture are open to debate. There are even older New England made guns in existence.
I find it very odd that with such VERY small cast of important actors it was found necessary to use frawks instead of real flintlocks. In the movie 'The Patriot', every one of the numerous rifles used by the 'hero' and his two sons in the famous ambush scene was a real flinter - all were made by one of the moderators on www.muzzleloadingforum.com.
tac
tac
Most folks would not know the difference and I think the producers are banking on that. It is a real shame when on considers what a little more historical accuracy would have cost. As I recall, Mark Baker even taught Daniel Daye Lewis how to load on the run in Last of the Mohicans. I haven't seen this movie yet but, if you want to see what I consider to be the ultimate in disregard for historical accuracy, watch Book of Negroes. Could have been such a good movie. I really don't think they had airtight style wood stoves and percussion doubles during the American revolution. As I recall, there may have been a kerosene oil lamp or two in there too.
If you get passed the nice scenery shots, this movie looks like it was shot on a shoestring budget.
Aweful shame to, as the Glasses gun features prominently in the story but not the movie.
The Daniel Day Lewis Last of the Mohicans is a great movie. There was a bit of pro-American liberty/independence messaging but there were some great scenes, great scenery, and an outstanding soundtrack.
The surrender to Montcalm was an excellent scene as was the opening stalk and final battle along the cliff.
There may have been some historical liberties taken but the story itself was the backbone of course.
Last edited:
I was briefly involved with the movie Props Master near Calgary before filming started and had an opportunity to review and comment on the script. I also was about 10 m behind the camera when the Indian raid on the trappers camp and their race to get on the boat to escape at the beginning was filmed. That and other early sequences were shot on the Morley Reserve west of Calgary along the Bow River. The bear attack scenes were filmed in the Lower mainland area of BC - note the different terrain and vegetation. The fur traders fort was built near Engedine Lodge at the south end of Spray Lake in Kananaskis Country west of Calgary. Yes, there are two scenes where our hero fires 2 shots with the pistol without reloading IIRC: once when fleeing the French and shortly after when fleeing the Indians before riding over the cliff. The other inconsistency I noticed was when he was dismounting his horse to pursue Fitzgerald on foot near the end of the story - the frizzen was open and #### was down.... not good practice for surviving a fight. Leo's rifle was a recently-made custom Maryland style longrifle built at significant cost by some well known builder from the East but then the barrel was shortened and the gun was "Antiqued" to look beat to rat s..t. However, there were about a dozen rubber copies cast from a mold made off the original and painted up so well you would have a hard time picking the real one out of a rack of them - I saw them. One of them would have been a neat souvenir from the movie! Several trap-doors were used, as were the Cooeys for shooting smoky blanks in the background and there were others as noted. I believe I contributed 2 things to make the scenes realistic: in the rain scene early in the movie several riders have Cow's Knees over their rifles to keep the lock area dry and in the scene where he builds a fire to cottarize his neck wound he strikes a flint against the back of his knife to start the fire whereas there were no details in the script as to how he would start the fire.
Having seen the movie, I had one nagging question: he used the bear skin fur side out for survival, whereas I think in those circumstances I would have kept the fur inside against my body to keep warm - any comments on that?
It was really fun to be involved, even if only for a couple of days...
Having seen the movie, I had one nagging question: he used the bear skin fur side out for survival, whereas I think in those circumstances I would have kept the fur inside against my body to keep warm - any comments on that?
It was really fun to be involved, even if only for a couple of days...
I used to wear a deerskin vest and it did not seem to matter a lot whether it was fur in or fur out. The fur was dense enough that it repelled a light rain when fur out. In the case of the movie, I think that I would have preferred hair in rather than untanned skin in, particularly because of the open wounds.
It must have been something to see the indian attack in real life (as long as it was a movie set) :>)
cheers mooncoon
It must have been something to see the indian attack in real life (as long as it was a movie set) :>)
cheers mooncoon
Most fur coats I have seen have the fur out eg bear/buffalo jackets.
I would think that the fur out would be better for repelling water. Not sure how the heat in vs out would work but I suppose that is why animals have their fur on the outside!
Of course these were lined coats and I agree that wearing untanned skin would dry and rub you without an under layer.
I would think that the fur out would be better for repelling water. Not sure how the heat in vs out would work but I suppose that is why animals have their fur on the outside!
Of course these were lined coats and I agree that wearing untanned skin would dry and rub you without an under layer.
From firsthand experience, I know wet buckskin is not much fun to wear. I suspect a hair-on hide coat would get just as wet, greasy and heavy if worn hair side in. The hair would probably shed most of the water when worn hair side out.
...so I saw the movie and although it was wonderfully shot, I felt that a) they could have done a better job with historical accuracy (firearms inclusive) and b) as it was supposed to be based in reality, the amount of physical punishment Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) endured crossed the line well into ridiculous.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
That explains it. Here I thought that some days you shaved and other days you didn't....
I just saw it. Didn't think it was that great. Great artistic filming aside, It was like watching survivor man at full volume. Most of the movie was shot 8" from an actors face as he groaned for minutes on end.
How is it that the scene could change from the bold flat lands or foot hills, then back into the mountains in an instant?
How is it that the scene could change from the bold flat lands or foot hills, then back into the mountains in an instant?
