"January 22 - 50th Anniversary of Zulu FIlm Release" Topic

stumbleupon.com/su/9Q1NmF

I know what I'll be watching tomorrow.

"One thousand British soldiers have been massacred. While I stood here talking peace, a war has started."

Enjoy!

"Years sir, 50 of them"

Fifty years since the film, 135 since the battle. My dad took me to see Zulu when I was six, at the oddly-named Essoldo cinema on the Hagley Road, fifteen minutes walk from our house.

Good article in The Independent – may be easier to read it here:

link

It is a splendid film – great entertainment and fine performances – but it takes so many liberties with history!

One can't help but wonder – why? Was it careless research, or a desire to 'improve' the story by making lifelong teetotaller Hook into a drunken malingerer; making Colour Sergeant Frank Bourne bigger and twenty years older; ignoring the face that Bromhead was both deaf and regarded as such a poor officer he had been deliberately left behind at Rorke's Drift, and it was Commissary James Dalton who persuaded Chard and Bromhead to fortify the post and defend it rather than risk being caught by the Zulus in the open?

In 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance' John Ford has the newspaperman say, 'When truth conflicts with legend, print the legend.' There was no popular legend of Rorke's Drift until the film created one.

Watched Zulu Dawn last night. Watching ZULU now.
One of my top 5 movies of all time.

To borrow a turn of phrase from Phil Barker (who was describing Braveheart If I recall right), Zulu is "the most historically accurate movie since Monty Python and the Holy Grail"! Arthur1815's list of problems with the movie does not even begin to scratch the surface.

That being said, it's a great film with loads of flavor and atmosphere. I'm not alone in saying that Zulu was what got me started in the Colonial genre of wargaming. It should be in the top 5 list of anyone who enjoys war movies.

On a related note,I would love to see a new film that more correctly portrayed the Battle of Rorke's Drift made. There is plenty of drama and action in the actual events, to make a great movie and if shot in today's "hyper-realistic" style of shooting war films it would be pretty intense. But, sadly, given today's PC enviorment that simply is not going to happen, is it?

Martin

I don't think Stanly Baker & Cy Enfield ever set about to make a documentary, but a great film and they well surpassed that endevour.

It was the characters and the actors that made the film great, along with a great title & soundtrack. What movie goer would have been interested in a teetotall Hook, or a deaf Bromhead or who got the defences started!

The Hook character was totally innancurate, but perfect.. The tough anti authoritarian wideboy, hated by his NCOs but admired by his mates. Can't be relied on to conform to the spit & polish, but a true hero when it comes to a fight. Who as a kid didn't want to be Hooky??

As for the others, Nigel Green as Bourne, fitted the popular image of the no nonsense, fight to the end British NCO and it goes on. Plenty of depth of character in the actors back then that is well lacking today.

As a side note, Stanly Baker was avid toy soldier collector and military enthusiast. I believe he at one stage actually owned Chards VC. After his death a large portion of his toy soldier collection was purchased at auction by an Australian collector..

I don't deny that it is a superb film, great entertainment and fine performances by the cast. Had it been made about a fictitious engagement, 'based upon Rorke's Drift', rather like John Ford's 'Fort Apache' is clearly referring to, but not naming, Custer, I would have no criticism of it.

But 'Zulu' purported to portray a real action, fought by real people. Had Henry Hook been alive, he could have sued for libel under English law and would have won substantial damages. Thanks to the film, the name of this exemplary soldier is now forever in the public mind associated with a drunken – albeit brave when forced to fight to save himself – malingerer. Is that just? And is it right that Commissary James Dalton's role in organising the defence should forgotten?

You seem to be saying, in effect: ignore the truth, just portray real people as inaccurate stereotypes because it will be more entertaining.

I presume you prefer John Wayne's version of the Alamo!

It's just a movie, dude! :)

The Hook 'character' was far more complex than a drunken malingerer forced to fight to save himself. As I recall the majority of the fighting he is dipicted as involved in, is in an attempt to save his nemasis Sgt Maxfield.

It's interesting that you would prefer to see Bromhead portrayed to the broader public as a deaf imbacile with no grasp of leadership just for historical accuracy. I think that would be far more unfair to his memory & family.

I feel all the characters were all very well portrayed as was the bravery of the Zulu's.

It seems a pity for you that you cannot enjoy a great movie for the want of historical nit picking. You must be a lot of fun to go to the movies with..

The movie has stood the test of time and as appreciated by most was never meant to be a documentury. I don't think you're going to get too much traction with your one dimensional case unfortunately.

On a side note, & as you have brought it up. I much prefered the heroic Laurence Harvey character of Travis in The JW Alamo as oppossed to the the wishy washy no imapact or screen presence of whoever it was in the most recent version.

I don't see criticising the presentation of real people, in plays, novels or films, as completely different characters, simply in order to 'improve' the story as 'historical nit picking'. That would surely be complaining about trivial details of the uniforms, equipment &c.

I enjoyed 'Zulu' tremendously when I saw it as a child, and still watch it with affection when it is repeated on television. I have nothing but admiration for the way the actors portrayed the characters they were presented with in the screenplay. It is, certainly, a well constructed and directed film.

Nor do I have any objection to films employing stereotypical or archetypal characters: John Ford does this throughout his cavalry films – the grizzled Irish sergeant who is too fond of the bottle; the ex-Confederate officer serving in the ranks, and so on.

But it does concern me when historical characters are deliberately misrepresented, simply for 'entertainment'. It seems we must 'agree to disagree' on this issue.

As to acting styles, screen presence &c. these are differently issues altogether, which I never raised in my post. They are entirely matters of personal taste.

Great musical, that movie!

In my youth I loved to watched Historical films, and in my naivety I thought that it was History.
Now I hope that I am better informed,it dos not stop me enjoy most of the great historical films of my youth.

There is a very long list of historical films that have been ruined because I have picked up a book.
Cromwell,Bravehart,The Alamo,U571 ect,ect,ect…..
and some are just bad films (this list is not my complete list)
Battle of the bulge,Pear Harbor,Zulu Dawn,633Squadrom,Force 10 from Naarone ect

Are there any films that are histoically correct and entertaining ?
Let us enjoy the best that there is !