"What if Napoleon had won battle of Waterloo" Topic

Mserafin

A very interesting and important point you raised about different opinions and interpretations of events possibly clouded by national bias. I think that's why we have to read as many versions and undertake as much research as possible, rather than just accept one version by one writer. Many however, I fear, just accept anything that supports their own point of view.

The same could be said of film makers. How many accurate historical films have we all encountered? And it is interesting that Zulu was a British made film covering the battle of Rorke's Drift in 1879, made in 1964. Was it made because it was a British victory during the Zulu Wars, while the Zulu victory at Isandlwana was not made until fifteen years later and that was by the Americans. I still enjoyed both films by the way.

But it makes you wonder if all books and films should be written and made by those nations not actually involved in the wars? LOL

'Zulu' and 'Zulu Dawn' were both written by Cy Endfield, a black-listed American writer and director re-located to Britain. He collaborated with Stanley Baker who produced 'Zulu' as well as starring. The film was made with American money through Baker's production company and distributed by Paramount.

Stanley Baker's original aim was to work with Cy Endfield on a film about Isandlwana – to 'tell the other side of the story' but their collaborative relationship ended soon after. Financed in Europe, the decidedly inferior 'Zulu Dawn,' based on Endfield's book of that name, was made with a British director and cast except for the lone American Burt Lancaster, gamely playing the uni-dexter Col. Durnford.

'inferior' Why? Because the British lost? Or because you never had the troops singing as portrayed in Zulu. They were too busy fighting, not that they did actually sing at Rorke's Drift anyway and possibly fought at night rather than in daytime and it was possibly more of a close run action than the film portrays. But, as with most so called historical films, why let the truth get in the way of a good story. I still enjoyed both films equally, both of which I think helped bring that particular war into the public eye.

link

Inferior because it's not as good.
It's rather wooden acting, the music and the script.

Pretty much

Interestingly, when I looked at various reviews on Zulu Dawn, I noticed that negative reviews and low star rating tended to come from the UK, while it was given higher star rating and more positive reviews from aboard? LOL

I saw Zulu with my eldest brother when it came out in 1964. It was, and still is, an excellent movie.

Didn't care for Zulu Dawn as much for various reasons.

Whatever our views I guess we should be thankful that such films were actually made for military enthusiasts to enjoy. After all, there's not that many films based on period battles made these days. But we live in hope.

Assuming it wasn't cgi, the the sight of the Zulus approaching Isamdalwhan was the most impressive part of the film.

CGI? In 1979? Don't think ZX Spectrum's were that good!

Probably more to do with giving Chief Buthelezi a part in the films, and then being abale to recruit lots of Zulu extras, due to him being , er, Chief of the Zulus?

I'm pretty sure he also played Cetshewayo – an ancestor – in the Stanley Baker/Cy Enfield "Zulu".

(Just rediscovered this thread by following a Link added in another).