BACK-STORY: “Zulu” was released in 1964 and
was so successful that it not only resurrected the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, but
molded the modern image of it. The film was a labor of love for Stanley
Baker. It was directed by the
blacklisted Cy Endfield. After The House
Unamerican Activities Committee branded him a communist, he moved to England to
continue his career. The movie was
filmed on location in South Africa. 700
blacks were used as extras. Many of them
were descendants of the Zulu who participated in the battle. So many had never seen a movie that Endfield screened
an old Gene Autrey film for them.
Because of apartheid, they could not be paid so Endfield let them keep
the cattle.
OPENING: A narrator (Richard Burton) reads
a dispatch outlining the British defeat at Isandlwana on Jan. 23, 1879. We see the aftermath of that disaster in the
corpse-strewn British camp. The scene
shifts to a Zulu village where a missionary named Witt (Jack Hawkins) and his
daughter Margareta (Ulla Jacobsson) witness a marriage ceremony. It’s a fascinating slice of Zulu
culture. They leave for their mission at
Rorke’s Drift when word of Isandlwana arrives.
 |
| Chard is in command |
SUMMARY: Back at Rorke’s Drift, Lt. Chard
(Baker) is building a bridge. He meets
Lt. Bromhead (Michael Caine in his first major role) who has been left in
command. Bromhead is your typical upper
class officer who is touchy about his status.
When they are alerted to the approach of a large force of Zulu warriors,
Chard assumes command based on being commissioned three months earlier. He orders the position be prepared for
defense using mealy bags, crates, and overturned wagons. He rejects Bromhead’s suggestion of
evacuating the post. The decision to
stay and not even evacuate the wounded sets off Witt who is a pacifist
Bible-thumper who considers the Zulu king to be a member of his parish. He is also a closet alcoholic who gets
himself and his daughter kicked out of the camp while ranting that they are all
going to die. This sobers up the men,
but they continue to prepare calmly for the onslaught.
We
are introduced to some of the soldiers (especially the future Victoria Cross
recipients). The standouts include
Colour Sergeant Bourne (Nigel Green) who stoically ramrods the enlisted. Private Hook (James Booth) serves as the
film’s anti-hero. He is a malingering,
petty thief, malcontent. Will he find
redemption as a real hero? Duh!
 |
| Bromhead joins in |
An
eerie train-like droning noise heralds the approach of the enemy. The suspense builds as they sneak up and then
launch a frontal charge which comes to a surprise halt within rifle distance of
the British line. A Boer ally named
Adendorff informs Chard that the strange tactic is not to allow for the standard
Gunga Dinish wanton slaughtering of the natives, but in fact is the Zulu
leader’s way of determining the fire power of the defenders. Get your calculators out if you want to find
out whether this movie will approach a “Where Eagles Dare” death count.
 |
| there is a Chinese laundry at the post |
As
though things are not bleak enough, a unit of the enemy is positioned on a hill
where they can use their newly acquired British rifles to harass the
defenders. When one soldier asks “why
us?”, Bourne responds with “because we’re here”. The second attack breaches part of the wall
and leads to hand to hand (or bayonet to iklwa) combat. There are a series of attacks followed by lulls
in the fighting. The casualties mount,
but none of the Brits panics. They all
have their upper lips stiff or their cheek on (as in the case of Hook). Chard is growing into command and Bromhead
proves an able second. At one point,
Chard calls for firing by ranks in a mini-counterattack. Discipline and firepower – how an empire was
won.
The
fifth attack reaches the hospital.
Bromhead fights on the roof and Hook leads the interior defense. The building catches fire to add to the
chaos. Hooks throws on the mantle of a
hero, but wears it reluctantly as he stops to take a drink of medicinal alcohol
before being the last to leave the burning building. A cattle stampede breaks the momentum of the
assault. Attacks continue in the night,
but we are swiftly in the broad daylight of the second day
CLOSING: The Zulu serenade the British
with a war song so the Brits respond with the regiment’s anthem, “Men of
Harlech”. “Keep these burning words
before ye / Welshmen will never yield”.
Could this be a Hollywood moment?
The final assault is defeated with three lines of British riflemen using
coordinated volleys. Result: a pile of black bodies. A mad minute of European fire power ends the
native dream of evicting the foreigners from their land. Just when it looks like it’s over, the Zulus
mass again on the hillside. However,
this time it’s to acknowledge respect for fellow warriors. Richard Burton’s voice returns to check off
the eleven VC winners.
RATINGS:
Acting - B
Action – 9/10
Accuracy - C+
Plot - A
Realism - B
Overall - A-
WILL CHICKS DIG IT? Very unlikely.
This movie is testosterone-fueled.
The one female character is not a positive one and disappears early in
the film. On the plus side, the movie is
not particularly graphic.
HISTORICAL
ACCURACY: The Battle of
Rorke’s Drift took place during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879. The war was brought about because of British
desire to expand its South African colony into Zululand. They manufactured a threat from the Zulus as
their provocation and used it as justification for an invasion. King Cetshwayo wanted peace, but could not
meekly accept his own overthrow and annexation of his land. The movie does not explain the background to
the war possibly because the British did not want to mar the feel-good aspect
of such a sterling battle.
The
allusions to the Battle of Isandlwana are accurate. The British central invading column did get
wiped out by 20,000 Zulu warriors.
However, King Cetshwayo did not follow this up with the attack on
Rorke’s Drift as the movie implies. The
attack was the idea of his glory-seeking half-brother whose unit had not gotten
to Isandlwana in time to participate. In
fact, the King had forbidden his forces to go on the offensive into British
territory.
The
recreation of the hospital/supply depot is accurate. It was leased by the British government from
the missionary Witt, but his depiction is way off. The real Witt was married with two young
kids. He was not a pacifist, nor a
drunkard. He supported British
policies. The Zulu king was not a
parishioner of his. He was not drummed
out of the camp, but left voluntarily to see after his family. His is not the only mischaracterization. The most egregious is Hook. He was not the malingering malcontent
depicted in the film. He was actually a
solid soldier and a teetotaler. His
portrayal was so offensive that his daughters walked out on the premiere. Bourne was actually very young for a Colour
Sergeant and also slight in stature. The
doctor was not cynically anti-war and earned his VC by leaving the hospital to
tend the wounded on the front lines. Not
to mention the unit itself is misidentified.
In the movie it is identified as a Welsh regiment when in reality it was
not predominately Welsh.
Some
of the incidents are close to reality.
The native levies did flee before the battle, but not because of the
rantings of Witt. They were actually led
out by their British officer who was subsequently court-martialed. The Boer cavalry that refuses to augment the
defense actually stayed for the early festivities, but left after its cavalry
carbine ammunition ran low. Chard was
actually appointed to command by the unit’s captain before he left. This was partly based on seniority, but he
was commissioned three years before Bromhead.
They did not disagree on strategy and Chard actually favored a
withdrawal. It was Acting Assistant
Commissary Dalton who pointed out that a small column slowed by wounded would
be easily caught and wiped out.
Although
Adendorf accurately describes the Zulu tactic described as “the horns of the
beast”, the movie does not depict them using this tactic. This might truly reflect the battle as the
attacks are best described as piecemeal.
The Zulu spear called an iklwa (the sound it made when being pulled out
of a wound) is authentic. It was a
variation of Shaka’s assegai. They also
carried the cow-hide shields shown in the film.
Unfortunately for realism, this force would not have had access to
looted British rifles to snipe with.
Like most Zulu units, they would have had an assortment of inferior
guns. Five of the seventeen British
deaths were from gunfire. The British
weaponry is accurate.
The
battle itself has some problems. There
is no evidence for the opening “cannon fodder as intelligence gathering”
gambit. The assaults were more
consistent and not as easily differentiated as in the film. The assault on the hospital, its defense led
by Hook, and its subsequent burning are pretty close. They did cut holes through the walls to go
from room to room. The last survivors
exited from a window, not out the back door.
Strangely, the movie foregoes the suspense of the consistent night
attacks which tapered off after midnight.
They ended around 2 A.M. and the subsequent gunfire was over by sunrise
thus ending the battle. There was no
climatic charge after dawn.
It
will not surprise that there was no sing-off.
Plus the song would not be the unit anthem for another two years. It goes without saying that the Zulus did not
salute the courage of the Europeans. As
far as why they withdrew, a final decisive assault was abandoned with the
approach of a relief force (“the cavalry was coming”). By the way, the movie leaves out the post
script of the British dispatching any wounded Zulu. On a similar note, the British actually lost
only 17 dead in the battle – the movie gives the impression it was quite a bit
more.
CRITIQUE: “Zulu” has many strong elements.
The set is authentic and the scenery is amazing. The movie was filmed in a national park
which, although hillier than the real locale, certainly added to the
visuals. The music by John Barry is used
sparingly, but effectively. Some scenes
have little or no background music. A
good example is the opening attack which is allowed to build without
music. The cinematography is
outstanding. It’s old school without the
modern pizazz, but you are in the thick of the fighting. The acting is excellent. Jack Hawkins chews the scenery a bit, but
everyone else controls himself like a proper British soldier would. Baker, Caine, Booth, and Green are
standouts. The most remarkable
performances are by the Zulu extras. They
are naturals. That Gene Autry movie must
have really done the trick.
The
movie gets the small things right. The
soldier behavior is true to British soldiers of that era. Their dialogue is not forced or
cringe-worthy. The comroderie is
evident. There are several friendships
that are highlighted. The soldiers’ bond
is apparent. There is not a lot of
humor, but then there is not a lot to laugh about. There is also very little whining. Hook is the only soldier who appears to be
avoiding combat. A bit unrealistic. The movie does not play up the chasm between
the upper class officers and the lower class enlisted which is often a theme in
movies about the British army of that time period.
The
character development is well done. The
movie does a good job of fleshing out all of the VC winners and several more
roles. Each man is distinct (although
name tags would have been nice). The
evolution of Chard from engineer building a bridge to combat leader is
instructive. There is a quiet moment
when he goes from trembling hand while reloading his revolver to
steadiness. Of course, the most
fascinating arc is that of Hook. It’s a
bit cliché, but it works. He could have
been a tedious character ( he reminded me of some of my students), but Booth
does a good job making him a likeable rogue.
His swigging on the broken liquor bottle before fleeing the burning
hospital is another nice touch.
As a
movie about a battle, “Zulu” is one of the best. This is partly because it has few
frills. It concentrates almost totally
on the battle and the men who fought it.
The tactics are realistic although some of them have a textbook feel to
them. In reality, it is doubtful the
British used the variety the movie depicts.
That’s acceptable for entertainment purposes. The action is intense and edge of your seat. The deaths are swift and not
melodramatic. There are no death
speeches.
The
movie is not without flaws. I have
already expounded on the historical inaccuracies. One problem is the lack of background about
what brought on the war. The audience is
treated to a fair treatment of the Zulu.
They are not demonized as the Indians were in most Westerns and they are
shown as brave warriors, but it is not made clear that they were in the
right. We are manipulated to root for
the Europeans instead of the natives fighting for their lands and liberty. A related flaw is the lack of a Zulu
perspective. This is perplexing given
that the movie opens in their village with an interesting take on their
culture.
CONCLUSION: The ranking of “Zulu” at #22
appears to be appropriate. It is not a
great war movie (as some claim), but it is certainly very good and accomplishes
its mission effectively. I am little
uncomfortable with this. As a war movie
lover, I really enjoyed the movie. But
as a military history buff, I can see how the movie used a different medium to
do in the 1960s what the British government used the newspapers to do in the
1870s. Think about it – 11 Victoria
Cross winners! Assuming a Victoria Cross
is equivalent to the Medal of Honor, it should take extreme bravery to be
awarded one. Not taking away from the
defenders, but it would appear the British government was looking for a
civilian morale booster to soften the Isandlwana disaster. The movie does a similar job in glamorizing
the imperial days of England. Unlike its
most obvious equivalent (Wayne’s “The Alamo”), the film does not recreate the
myths, but instead actually creates the myths.
the trailer
TRAILER - Disorganized. Doesn't give a clear picture of what the movie is about. C
