Zoulou

I watched three videos the other night: Belly of the Beast, Kill Bill#1, and ZULU. Belly was better than most of Seagals efforts lately, Bill had a bigger budget but was pretty ordinary, and last,at about 2am, I watched ZULU. Sure I was tired, but I soon got my second wind. The others, while more graphically violent, numbed my senses, wereas ZULU stimulated them!!! Who cares that the deaths were stylized (little gore) and there were no four-letter words...... While I can remember very little now about the first two, images dialog, music and camera from ZULU are still with me, days later. A sterling effort, you actually CARE about these people. This movie could not be produced today to this quality - even by the best in the world. A classic: five out of five. (loved the "colour seargant" character!!

ZULU steers away from making one side good and one side bad. Okay, we identify with the British troops in the face of insurmountable odds and all that - but you have to admire the ZULU warriors all the more for going up against them unfalteringly and the 'pan' across their fallen bodies isn't so much a moment of joy for the Brits saying "Ha, look how many we've killed of you lot" as opposed to clearly showing what an awful waste of life it all actually was.

The film clearly marks out why the British Army was as good as it was. Organisation. Okay, we got butchered a couple of times, but when placed in a position with time to ready ourselves the British forces where pretty unbeatable. One of the huge advantages being the fact that often we were going up against quite primitive 'warriors' with even more primitive weapons. The whole staying smart, obeying orders and keeping in line, firing in order helped to saved all those mens lives and is a neatly condensed show of arms to everybody out there. Each setpiece of British organisation re-inforces just how good they were, just how well they were drilled and just how murderous they could be with their efforts.

The film clearly marks out why the ZULU forces wasn't quite so good. It wasn't a lack of courage or absence of valour, it was simply down to the fact that they were outclassed weapon and organisation wise. Okay, they made pretty well organised charges and all that, but against rifles that's just cannon fodder. But as is pointed out by the Dutch guy, they're merely counting your guns. The ZULU's in the film aren't daft guys in furry underpants, they're the bravest warriors ever seen (or ever likely to be seen). Well organised forces wilted in the face of British troops during that period, they didn't. The fact they salute the British and walk away merely adds to their nobility and patheticises the British efforts - eventually they would have crumbled, the British would have lost against such odds if the Zulus had pressed all at once. They didn't. They walked away saluting the British effort. That moment alone, with Caine blazing about how they're being taunted and the Dutch guy chuckling to himself struggling to believe what is actually taking place is the icing on the cake of the gradually increasing tension.

For a moment of absolute spine tingling tension you can't beat the ZULU singing being countered by the Welsh Choir of voices. It's an equaliser as such, a moment of contrast and compare between the rigid red suited Brits and the tribal shield clapping chanting.

John Barry's music is a constant presence and always perfectly suited to the moment, I'd be interested to know the content of the ZULU chants though, whether they are authentic (which I figure they are) or simply picked out by the director for looking the most intimidating.

Top film, no insult to anybody.

I have read others comments with interest, particularly those complaining about small bullet holes. Well it was 1964, and to be truthfull, do you need gore to explain a true event?

Anyway - a couple of facts about the story which were not depicted correctly. Cetewayo did not order the attack. In fact he ordered his men NOT to attack, but a head strong son ignored him.

The tribute song at the end of the film, did not take place, the Zulu just disappeared into the night.

Now, having said that, and having read the books and seen the film (x number of times since I was 15 (in 1968). I had the opportunity in 1998 to travel to Rorkes Drift and stand where the soldiers stood to face the Zulu.

The foundations of the hospital building has a museum built over it full of interesting stuff, the small grave yard to the fallen soldiers, and the grave stone remembering all the dead zulu are thought provoking.

But what strikes you most is how small the area was in which the soldiers held their ground, with Zulu firing on them from the hills behind and charging them from 3 sides. As you stand inside foundation stones marking the site of the walls etc, the hairs stand up on the back of your neck, and you wonder just how you would have reacted facing up to such a huge army, charging down on you.

If you are a Zulu film fanatic, and should you get the chance - go there. And take time to visit the site of the film Zulu Dawn, where the Zulu attacked the garrison camped at the foot of a hill BEFORE moving on to the small unit at the Drift. White stones mark where men fell, kept bright by dedicated Zulu staff.

When "Zulu" opened in Sydney in 1964 it had one of those big premieres that military epics received back then: searchlights, red carpet, a band and guests wearing medals.

Shortly after, I took my brother to see it. "Zulu" ticked all the boxes for us.

From Richard Burton's opening narration to his listing of the names of the Victoria Cross winners at the end, we were rapt.

As well as the battle, those bare-breasted Zulu girls did not go unappreciated by a couple of young lads. You didn't see a lot of that sort of thing on the screen in those days. The filmmakers obviously got away with it under the old National Geographic Magazine rule of it's OK if it's the natural attire of the culture, it didn't stop them being hot though.

The film still stands up even if the censorship of the day kept it relatively bloodless. Demonstrations show what a round from a Martini Henry rifle can do to a watermelon, no doubt it would have had the same spectacular effect on a human head. An assegai in the belly would not be as clinical as depicted in the movie either.

But the best bits of the film were often the tense scenes waiting for things to happen and the one where the men drown out the Zulu chant with "Men of Harlech". I haven't a drop of Welsh blood, but that scene always puts a lump in my throat.

The film is classy. Breathtaking photography, terrific performances from top to bottom and an awesome score by John Barry; music to perform heroics by.

The film was a hit in Australia, but something unexpected happened not long after. In 1966, D Company, 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment found itself surrounded by up to 2000 Viet Cong in a rubber plantation at Long Tan in South Vietnam. There were 108 of them, about the same number as the 24th Regiment at Rorke's Drift. They held off attack after attack. Instead of mealie bags they brought down artillery fire, but the fighting was at close quarters as they held their perimeter.

By the time help arrived, 18 of them were dead (17 at Rorke's Drift) while the enemy lay dead in the hundreds. Controversially, there were no Victoria Crosses although more than one was earned. Years later, the company commander likened the battle to Rorke's Drift. But I wonder if while the battle was on, did it flash through the minds of the blokes who had seen the movie that what they saw depicted on the screen they were now experiencing for real?

Would anyone make a film like "Zulu" today? Possibly it would be just too un-PC. Most battles on the screen these days are fought vicariously through intergalactic stormtroopers or by the denizens of "Game of Thrones".

However, historical rights and wrongs aside, I still think "Zulu" rocks; it's simply an exceptional piece of filmmaking.

It is only natural I suppose for an avowed socialist such as Stanley Baker to have formed a professional bond with two of Hollywood's blacklisted liberals. Some of Baker's best work is for Joseph Losey while 'Zulu' is the finest and most commercially successful of his collaborations with Cy Endfield.

Adapted by John Prebble from his own article, it is shot on location amidst the grandeur of the Drakensberg Mountains in glorious Technirama 70mm by Stephen Dade, has one of John Barry's strongest scores, excellent editing by John Jympson, especially in the battle sequences and boasts a strong cast.

Stanley Baker gives his customarily earthy, no-nonsense performance as Chard whilst Michael Caine in his breakthrough role as Bromhead has ironically been obliged to disguise his cockney roots and has never been quite as effete. Caine was originally considered for the part of Private Hook which went to James Booth whose performance ranks as his finest filmic hour. The requirements of film have dictated that Hook be portrayed as a thief and drunkard whereas in reality he was by all accounts a model soldier. Marvellous support from the imposing Nigel Green as Colour-Sergeant Bourne although the original Bourne was a mere 5' 3''. Patrick Magee impresses as Surgeon Reynolds whilst the superlative Jack Hawkins steals his scenes as the missionary Witt(wisely eschewing a Swedish accent)

Since the film was released there has been a seismic historical shift and nations have been forced to come to terms with their colonial past. One observer has noted that this is essentially 'a cavalry Western in which white men kill indigenous people in order to steal their land and are deemed heroic for doing so.' Empire-making has become synonymous with ethnic-cleansing.

Despite is dramatic licence, glaring inaccuracies and ideological flaws this film is a well-constructed, stirring, Kiplingesque tale of derring-do and individual bravery that has deservedly remained a perennial favourite.

.