FORGOTTEN GEM? Fixed Bayonets!

              “Fixed Bayonets” was Samuel Fuller’s second Korean War movie after “Steel Helmet”.  It was released in 1951 and is dedicated to the “Queen of Battles – the U.S. Infantry”.  Fuller was a decorated veteran of the Big Red One in WWII.  His “Big Red One” has autobiographical elements.  The Army insisted that Medal of Honor winner Raymond Harvey be technical adviser after Fuller had stepped on Army toes in “Steel Helmet”.  Harvey and Fuller became close friends during production.  The theme of the movie is:  “It takes more than brains – you’ve got to have guts to lead”.  The film is set in the initial stages of the retreat from the Chinese intervention of 1951.

 

                The film opens with a general ordering a platoon of 48 men to fight a rearguard action to screen the withdrawal of the main unit.   As the rest pull out, the faces on the platoon indicate that they realize they are on a suicide mission.  They set up a road block and send out patrols.  When not on guard duty, the focus squad of soldiers (which include James Dean in his first role) huddle in a cave away from the frigid weather.  The unofficial commander of the squad is the crusty Sgt. Rock (you heard me) played by “Steel Helmet”s Gene Evans.  The main character is a Cpl. Denno (Richard Basehart).  Denno is tormented by his inability to kill other human beings.  He had been demoted for this and chastises himself for his reluctance.  He also has a great fear of having to command men in battle.  With the chain of command being whittled down, Denno’s fear is closing in on him.  He even risks his life in a minefield to rescue an officer so he will not have to move up the chain.  The dirty rat dies anyhow!  Before you know it, Denno is in command.  Surprise!  He rises to the occasion.  Surprise!

                Denno is transformed by the circumstances.  He quells a revolt of the men who want to abandon the road block early.  “I’ll clobber the first guy that tries to bug out!”  He’s a leader now, but can he kill?  An enemy tank provides an opportunity for redemption.  Denno kills a scout and they take out the tank with several RPGs.  Unfortunately, a second tank arrives and it’s time to go.  Will they make it back to their main unit?

                “Fixed Bayonets!” is gritty partly because it is low budget.  The sound stages are not going to fool anyone.  Neither is the fake snow.  However, kudos for being one of the first war movies to emphasize the effects of freezing weather on combatants.  Another effect of the low budget is the feeling that most of the scenes were done with few takes.  The movie has an almost quaint quality to it.  I would guess that audiences cut it some slack since it was covering events that were set in the very year that the movie was made.

                The acting is fine.  Evans builds on his amazing performance in “Steel Helmet”.  The two movies were the height of his career.  Every character actor should have such on their resume.  He gets a great death scene.  “I told you, I’m dead”.  Basehart is also good.  His character arc is realistic and not maudlin.  It is very predictable, however.  The rest of the cast is average.

                The dialogue is a strength.  The movie is not verbose.  The soldier talk is well rendered.  Not surprising given the overseeing by Fuller and Harvey.  The interaction in the cave is a highlight.  There is a foot massaging orgy that only a Fuller film would depict.  The unit dynamics are reminiscent of “A Walk in the Sun”.  There is a camaraderie that is evident and does not seem forced.  There is a soldiers’ thoughts segment similar to “Guadalcanal Diary”.  A little corny, but with some humor.  Speaking of dialogue, one flaw is the appalling lack of noise discipline by our rearguard heroes.  They do a lot of shouting.

                The plot is too predictable.  Although the film does not beat you over the head with clichés, it has some obvious ones.  The best example is the redemption theme.  The killing off of the officers to eventually get to Denno was necessary and somewhat suspenseful.  I have to say that for a director who made a point of insisting his war movies were designed to make future wars more unlikely, Denno’s quick evolution to a killer tends to dilute that message.  Perhaps he should have remained the coward that he imagined himself to be.  But then, that would have contradicted the main theme of men rising to leadership when it is thrust upon them.  

                The movie has some good action scenes, but the low budget does not lend itself to anything spectacular.  There is a realistic artillery bombardment with good sound effects.  The minefield scene tends to drag on and does not have Denno using proper tactics to avoid blowing himself up.  Surprising since movie audiences had been tutored on the proper technique of slanted knife probing from numerous other war movies.  And boy, when they set up some dummies to fool the Chinese, those Chinese mortarmen are incredibly accurate in taking them out.

                “Fixed Bayonets!” is an entertaining war film.  It is a step down from “Steel Helmet”.  If you did not know it, you would assume “Steel Helmet” was made after “Fixed Bayonets!”  Where “Steel Helmet” was a revelation and put Fuller on the map, I find “Fixed Bayonets!” to be a bit disappointing.  It is well remembered by critics which means I feel it is overrated.  Considering the competition from other Korean War movies, it is relatively good.  The war did not exactly bring out the best in Hollywood.

Grade =  B-

the full movie

 

 

POSTER -  Check out that poster.  Did the artist even see the movie?  It is another example of studios gearing their advertisements to what they think the audience wants to see rather than what is actually on the screen.  One has to wonder what Fuller thought of the studio's approach to marketing what he clearly meant to be a film that deglamourized war.  "Their story ALL GLORY".  Are you kidding me?!  Glory is the one word Fuller would not have wanted to be associated with the film.  Here is the apporopriate slogan:  "Bayonets all bloody... Hearts and feet frozen... Their story ALL SURVIVAL"

 

DUELING MOVIES: Red Dawn (1984) vs. Red Dawn (2012)

 

 

                Oh, the things a war movie blogger has to do.  One of them is going to see the rare war movie release realizing that it will most likely be terrible (ex. “Battleship”).  I had put off seeing the new “Red Dawn” because it seems a useless remake of a bad film and I have been very busy with soccer.  However, I could not let my public down so I bit the bullet and headed for the theater.  Being a masochist, I also watched the original (which I have to admit I had not seen due to the terrible reviews it got when it came out).  What a day!  I have cemented my place in war movie heaven by spending some time in war movie hell.

"Wolverines!"

                “Red Dawn” (1984) actually has a pretty good reputation.  Apparently there were a large number of high school boys who saw it in 1984 and there are a lot of conservatives today that remember it fondly since it fit their fantasy of World War III.  It is definitely a curio from the Cold War days.  Specifically, the Russians in Afghanistan days.  The opening scrawl confusingly explains that NATO has dissolved, Mexico has gone communist, and the Warsaw Pact is on the move.  Before you know it, Cuban paratroopers are landing in Calumet, Colorado.  An idyllically all-American town that is of great strategic importance, I suppose.  A few high school boys join the slightly older Jed (Patrick Swayse) in the outdoors.  The crew includes his brother Matt (Charlie Sheen).  After some hand-wringing (and crying), they decide to become survivalists.  The movie is probably required viewing for militias.

Dirty Dance with this you commie bastard

                The town is under occupation and any adults (like Jed and Matt’s father) with balls are in a re-education camp.  Books are being burned.  The weasely mayor is collaborating (he is a liberal).  There are three villains:  the Cuban Col. Bella (who is now on the receiving end of insurgency), a Soviet adviser (who believes in several eyes for an eye), and a counterterrorist expert Col. Strelnikov (the menacing William Smith) brought in to hunt down the insurgents.  When the gang (called the “Wolverines”) kills three Soviets, the commies react by executing civilians including Jed and Matt’s father.  It’s on now.  They are joined by two girls (Lea Thompson and Jennifer Gray) who insist on being treated equally and refuse to do the dishes as teenage boys in the audience snicker.  There is a montage of attacks (including on a Soviet tank crew that stops at a gas station to fill up with regular).

Jed draws down on Strelnikov

                The director brings in Powers Boothe as a downed pilot to provide acting lessons and fill in the audience with how all this conquest came about.  Coming from him it almost seems plausible.  There are some bloody fire fights with old school deaths.  The movie supposedly set a record for body counts, especially for the first PG-13 rated film.  They keep getting whittled down, including the execution of one of their own (the mayor’s son) for swallowing a homing bug.  A couple more go in a surprise attack by vicious looking Soviet choppers straight out of Afghanistan.  The final set piece is Jed and Matt’s two man assault on enemy headquarters as cover for the escape of Danny and Erica to Free America.  Would you believe there is a duel between Jed and Strelnikov?  And an encounter with Bella?  

Jed ambushs some Orientals

             “Red Dawn” (2012) has the same basic premise and some familiar elements, but differs in many ways, including tone.  The causes of the war are even more WTFish.  Something about all American forces being abroad putting out conflicts and this allows the North Koreans (with their fourth largest army in the world) to swoop in.  Their secret weapon is an electro-magnetic pulse thingy.  Who cares?  Not 14 year old boys.  The brothers are fleshed out a lot more.  Jed (Chris Hemsworth) is a Marine on leave.  Matt (Josh Peck) is the starting high school quarterback.  They are at odds with each other, naturally.  Matt is not a team player.  Each is also given a love interest.  Matt’s is the head cheerleader, surprise!  All he cares about is rescuing her and she isn’t even Megan Fox.  The gang is more heterogeneous and the girls are treated equally from the start.  We get a montage of training  instead of attacks.  Five minutes of montage can transform high schoolers into killing machines.

Wolverines + Special Forces

                The main villain is a Col. Cho.  He is your typical inscrutable oriental villain.  The kind you can’t wait to see die in a nasty way.  The movie also throws in a Russian spetsnaz and a slimy collaborating teen.  Don’t look forward to their cathartic deaths.  Instead of one downed airman, this version drops in three crusty Special Forces types to teach and learn from the Wolverines.

                The big finale also involves an assault on the headquarters, but with the purpose of acquiring a black box that will change the course of the war.  Or so we are vaguely informed.  There is a massive expenditure of ammo and the grand entrance of a tank through the wall of the headquarters.  Hey, it could happen.  There is a much cooler confrontation between Jed and Cho than between Jed and Strelnikov in the original.  

                How to compare the movies?  1984 has more explosions than 2012 (30-23) which is surprising.  2012 has many more crash-crazy car chases.  1984 drowns 2012 in tears.  It is one of the weepiest movies I have ever seen.  Even after they become tough warriors, they still bawl at the drop of a hat.  And I’m not talking about the girls.  There is a scene where Swayse and Sheen cry as they see their father for the last time that is hilarious!  

 

                1984 has many more terrible acting performances.  You can argue that Swayse and Sheen became good actors, but they certainly are not there yet.  The movie is one of the most poorly acted films I have ever seen.  The dialogue does not help.  At one point one of the gang actually says “Things are different now”.  You think?  The acting in 2012 is tolerable.  Hemsworth dominates every scene.  He is charismatic.  The rest of the cast does not stand out, but does not embarrass itself (except Peck who is wooden).  The dialogue has some groaners.  They are told “you made a difference”.  One of the special forces stoically states “it’s a good day to die”.  There’s the usual “I’m not going to leave you” altruism and the “you fucked with the wrong family” epithet for a villain.  You also get several talkie dysfunctional brothers’ dialogues.  Kudos to 2012 for one unexpected death similar to Samuel Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”.

                Cinematography goes to 2012 unless you get sick watching hand-held, quick cutting, video gamesque camerawork.  1984 is fairly tame in that respect.  It doesn’t even have the slo-mo the 1980s are noted for.  The score duel goes to 2012 also.  It is revved up and surprisingly does not have a slew of soundtrack worthy hits.  1984 is more cheesily backed.

 

                As far as realism, why argue whether dog shit or cat poop smells worse?  With that said, no plot could top North f***ing Korea invading the U.S.  And you put clips of Obama to imply this could happen in the near future!  In for a penny…  Of course, as you might already know, the original villains were the Chinese until the makers were contacted by Walmart (I only made up the Walmart part).  Why couldn’t these high schoolers battle aliens or zombies?  Something that could actually happen.  By the way, how does a North Korean fighter jet participate in a battle in America?  Did it launch from one of those North Korean aircraft carriers?  1984 also featured enemy jets, by the way.

                In conclusion, “Red Dawn” (1984) was worse than I expected and “Red Dawn” (2012) was better.  2012 has some good action of the modern frenetic variety.  The kind where you don’t have the foggiest idea who just got killed, but you’re pretty sure it should be everyone.  It improves upon the original in almost every way and does not suffer from the common "what the hell is the purpose of this remake" conundrum.  It’s just a shame it had to demonize those nice North Koreans.  I hope it doesn’t piss them off to where they might invade us.  The makers of the film will be held accountable if that happens.  It is not wise to poke a chihuahua.

Red Dawn (1984) =  D
Red Dawn (2012) =  C+

 

 

 

CLASSIC or ANTIQUE? Throne of Blood

                “Throne of Blood” was released in 1957 in black and white.  It is the retelling of MacBeth by acclaimed Japanese director Akira Kurosawa.  It was originally entitled “Spider Web Castle”.  (“Oh what a tangled web we weave…”)  The film opens with a foggy view of the destroyed castle, but when the fog lifts the castle is intact – what a nifty way to flash back!  Two generals named Washizu (Toshiro Mifune) and Miki have just defeated an invasion.  They get lost in “Spider’s Web Forest”, naturally.  They encounter an evil spirit which predicts that Washizu will become ruler and pass the throne on to Miki’s son. After an extended silly period of riding back and forth, they return to Lord Tzusuki castle and are shocked to be promoted just as the spirit said.

Asaji

                Washizu’s wife Asaji (Isuzu Yamada) is a creepy schemer.  She encourages Washizu to preemptively kill Tzusuki before he finds out about the prophecy (from Miki).  Guess who’s coming to dinner?  The camera stays on Asaji as Washizu goes off to do the deed.  When he returns with a bloody spear, she puts it with the guards who she had slipped a mickey to in order to shift the blame.  Next up her big sleeved kimono is to remove Miki and his son.  She lies and tells Washizu that she is pregnant.  This unhinges Washizu who hosts a banquet for Miki where he proceeds to hallucinate the appearance of Miki’s ghost and then proceeds to try to kill it.  Could he look more guilty?

Washizu

                The chickens come home to roost as Washizu’s enemies approach his castle.  Washizu visits the spirit to get a prophecy update and is assured that he cannot be defeated unless the trees of the forest attack him.  Washizu boosts the morale of his men with this guarantee of victory.  He returns home to find Asaji feverishly trying to wash bloodstains off her hands.  Oh. well, at least there is no chance of trees attacking.  Oops!  Here comes the forest.  (Actually the enemy has cut down trees and is using them for cover.)  This is the last straw for Washizu’s fed-up garrison.  They pelt him with a barrage of arrows until one goes through his neck and he dies looking like a pin cushion.

                The movie is bizarrely interesting.  It bears the marks of Kurosawa’s genius and attention to detail.  He filmed much of it on the slopes of Mount Fuji.  It is a very foggy movie.  There are a lot of shots through the branches of trees which I am sure has some point to it because the cinematography has been lauded.  Most impressively, the arrows fired at (but not hitting) Mifune are actual arrows fired by archers .  Mifune’s movements were choreographed and he waved his arms to show the archers which direction he was heading in next.  This death scene is one of the most remarkable in movie history.

                The acting is top notch, especially Mifune and Yamada.  The plot is Shakepearean with a Japanese twist. One twist is the spare dialogue.  Kurosawa plants the MacBeth plot in Fifteenth Century Japan during the period called Sengoku Jidai (“The Age of the Country at War”).  This era of political chaos featured wars between rival clans marked by treachery and assassinations.  He also blends in elements of Noh Theater like the flutish music, bare sets, and the formalized performances.  It is a fascinating film, but not really a war movie.  Classic or antique?  Definitely a classic.

GRADE =  B

RANKING OF KUROSAWA WAR MOVIES:

1.   Seven Samurai
2.   Yojimbo
3.   Ran
4.  Throne of Blood
5.   Kagemusha

the trailer

riding in the forest

#22 - Zulu (1964)

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

 

the full movie

 

a neat battle scene

 

POSTER -  Outstanding.  A+

TRAILER -  Disorganized.  Doesn't give a clear picture of what the movie is about.  C