Mystic Voices: The Story of the Pequot War (2005)
Mystic Voices: The Story of the Pequot War (2005) In this documentary producers/writers/directors Guy Perrotta and Charles Clemmons unravel the tribal complexities of the Algonquian people, expand on the English motivation, and use the historical events to illustrate broader themes of culture clash and religious misunderstanding. Most importantly, this docu-drama tells events from divergent perspectives which illuminate the basic Native/European struggle: two very different peoples with two very different belief systems both vying for existence on the same piece of land.
The film opens with a general history of pre-European America and focuses primarily on Native-American cultural beliefs and practices. The narrative is told sympathetically through the voices of Native-American descendants as well as character actors playing the parts of significant figures involved. Not surprisingly, the natives are depicted as a peaceful people living in harmony with nature and one another. The film states that the Algonquian speaking people were of the same lineage and that differences between the varying tribes were only a matter of geography. This information weighs heavily, since the Pequot and Narragansett people would land on opposite sides of the war. The film also provides new insight into other Native-American practices. Most surprising is the film’s assertion that wampum, generally believed to be “Indian money”, assumed its role as currency after European contact. According to the film, until European traders initiated this usage, wampum was a sacred material used only in ceremonies and transactions of the highest importance.
The film is clear that from a Native perspective the white newcomers were seen as invaders. However, the narrative does not disintegrate into Euro-bashing. There is a shift in perspective – an English narrator takes over the account – and the film then works from the colonists’ point of view. This change in perspective allows for a probing of Puritan motivations and a better understanding of the English presence. Using diaries and other primary sources as their scripts, actors play the parts of various New England leaders and illuminate the Puritan rationale for gradual expansion into Indian territory. The film pays particular attention to Puritan beliefs in providence and their notion of being God’s chosen people.
When the narrative delves into the events of the war and portrays the altercation at Missituck (known today as Mystic), it once again maintains a sense of multiple view points. Pequot sympathy is developed, but the English perspective of the situation is not neglected. A fine example of the film’s balanced approach is the treatment of John Mason, the controversial English commander who ordered the burning of Missituck despite the presence of women and children. Present in the film are perspectives that both condemn Mason as a villain as well as those that seek to explain his rationale. In a compelling piece of dramatization, a character actor playing the role of Mason forcefully argues his point of view against Captain Underhill, an English soldier feeling some qualms about the decision to burn Missituck.
Ultimately, the filmmakers are trying to underscore the cultural clash that led to the Pequot War and countless other European/Native-American battles. Since the two sides were unable to reconcile differences, disaster ensued. The film resonates today in the Age of Terrorism, largely because of the cultural clash tied into this modern struggle. The “mystic voices” trapped in the burning enclave of Missituck sound eerily similar to the 9-1-1 tapes recorded in smoky New York City on September 11th, 2001. The parallels are subtle but present, and they are likely to spark discussion if this film is used in a classroom setting.
Michael DiCamillo LaSalle University mdicam@hotmail.com
