Zulu, Historical Action Film

One of the great action war movies of all time was filmed in 1963 and released in early 1964. That film was "Zulu," which was heavily based on the real battle of Rorke's Drift in the British colony of Natal in southeastern Africa in 1879. The movie was filmed in South Africa, but not at the exact site of the battle. In more recent times, a debate about colonialism would more than likely weigh heavily against the subjugation of people and territory far from a nation's own homeland, but such was not the case at the time of the battle in Natal in the 1800s. When the film was released in 1964, the European nations that had colonized many territories around the world had either already granted varying degrees of independence to their colonies, or they were under pressure to do so. The film script was very cleverly written to avoid the moral debate over colonialism, as it focuses only on the battle of Rorke's Drift, and correctly uses reference to, and a brief scene from, another battle earlier that day, at Isandlwana, as the set up for the film. Isandlwana was less than 50 miles from Rorke's Drift, which itself was simply a relatively small Christian missionary outpost, with a Swedish missionary, in Natal.* Isandlwana was a terrible defeat for the British against Zulu warriors that day, and a Zulu force some 4000 strong was moving on Rorke's Drift, which was held by only about 150 men, almost all British regular troops, with a small colonial force in support. A major key, however, was that the British had modern fire arms, while the much larger Zulu force had only a smattering of old rifles, and they were poorly trained in their use. The overwhelming number of Zulus were equipped with short spears and animal hide shields.

The movie plays up a bit of a rivalry between two British officers as to who should be in command, with Lieutenant Chard, played by Welsh/British actor Stanley Baker, who is commanding an engineer detachment there, and Lieutenant Bromhead, played by English/British actor Michael Caine (in his first major film role), who is commanding a company of regular infantry, comparing their commission dates for the identical ranks, only to find the engineer has seniority by just a couple of months. Bromhead is miffed that his regulars will be under the command of a Royal Engineer, but because Chard is an engineer, he uses the men to build some good defensive positions before the Zulus arrive.  

The British await the arrival of the Zulu force, and the Swedish missionary, played by well known English actor Jack Hawkins, goes about trying to scare the hell out the soldiers about the Zulus. He proceeds to get drunk (hey, Christian missionaries get drunk), but Chard has him locked up to prevent him from totally undermining morale. The Zulus arrive with much noise making, as they chant and bang on their shields to instill fear. They launch an attack, but suffer many casualties, making Chard and the men feel a burst of confidence, until an experienced Boer (Dutch ancestry African colonist) officer tells them the Zulu chief is sacrificing his men's lives to gauge the British strength. The missionary is permitted to take his (adult) daughter and leave in a buggy. The Zulus know the missionary and they do not bother with him. The Zulus launch further attacks, including with the use of the few rifles they have. There is some fierce hand to hand combat, as the Zulus enter the complex in many places. Each attack is halted, with heavy casualties, although the British also suffer losses, and the hospital part of the complex is set on fire. This leads malcontent Private Hook, played by English actor James Booth, to take heroic action to get the sick and wounded to safety.

The dwindling number of defenders prepares for what the men think will be their final stand, as the Zulus prepare to attack again. Chard hides part of his remaining force behind a hastily constructed barrier. The Zulus attack and the British fall back, after a short time, to form lines of troops, including the now revealed reserves, with each line firing on command into the charging Zulus. The Zulu attack is stopped and they fall back once again, but the British know their own ranks can't hold out much longer. After a period of time, the Zulus line up again and begin singing and chanting, as the defenders await their doom, but the Boer officer tells them the Zulus are honoring the troops for their brave and steadfast defense. The Zulus withdraw... the battle is over.

The film has two rather short narrations from Welsh/British actor Richard Burton, one at the beginning and then again at the end. He tells how the small British force became one of the most highly decorated in British history because of this battle.

I've read two or three books about this battle, and the movie does a good job at much of the history, but the script did take some liberties, the most controversial of which was the initial portrayal of Private Hook (NOT Captain Hook! You're thinking of Peter Pan). Before Hook rises to the occasion, the movie makes Hook to be a coward and malcontent, something that was the opposite of the real soldier. The controversy came when his elderly daughter or daughters (I just forget) walked out of the then just released film in 1964, because of the way her/their father was portrayed. The movie correctly shows the real Private Hook's heroic action, for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery in the face of the enemy.

The other major deviation from history was the ending. The Zulus did indeed withdraw, historically, but they did not sing a song to honor the British. The other thing is, the Zulus likely withdrew because of approaching British reinforcements, not because of their heavy casualties (dead and wounded in the many hundreds) and the tough British defense.             

* Both Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift are located in the modern Republic of South Africa.
 
Photo is from the MGM Home Entertainment DVD

WORD HISTORY:
Scene-This word goes back to Indo European "skai/ski," which had the notion of "to shine." This gave Old Greek "skia," which meant "shade;" seemingly from the notion of "a condition of less sunlight." This then produced Greek "skene" ("tent"). Tents were used to provide places where plays were performed ("shaded, protected from the sun"), and the word came to also mean not only the tent, but the stage area for a play to be performed. Latin borrowed the word form Greek as "scaena/scena," with the "stage for a play" meaning, and also "segment of a play" (as in Scene One, Scene Two, etc), "perhaps" initially from the change in decor/set up on stage during a play to represent a change in locale (example: Scene One stage set up depicts an outside setting, while Scene Two depicts an inside setting). French, a Latin based language, inherited a form from Latin, as "scène," and English borrowed the word form French in the 1500s. The word also took on the meaning "public squabble, or action that brings attention of others" (as in, "Joe and Ted made a 'scene' during dinner by arguing about basketball").