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").

Bridge On The River Kwai Has A Major Lesson

Way back in the late 1950s, I first saw one of the great pictures of film history, "The Bridge On The River Kwai." The film won several Oscars. I was just a kid and my dad had taken us to what was a common place back then, a drive-in movie. The movie was only remotely connected to real history; that being, there had been a bridge built during the war in that part of southeast Asia by the Japanese, who used forced labor of POWs and local civilians, but the film story is otherwise purely fictional.

The film centers around a British engineer unit being held in a Japanese POW camp. The Japanese are building a bridge to help move supplies to their combat forces in Burma. The camp commandant (played by Sessue Hayakawa) has been ordered to have the bridge completed on a strict schedule, so he orders the British officers to help with the construction, an order the British senior officer (played by Alec Guinness) will not follow, as it violates the Geneva Convention, a point of little concern to the Japanese commander. You know how those regulations hamper people from being mean, ruthless, exploitative and nasty; after all, it's dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest, just ask Donald Trump or the Koch brothers. You can't have a bunch of regulations messing up that philosophy. Anyway, the refusal by the British officer to comply with the commandant's order brings harsh solitary confinement for the officer, but after a battle of wills, the commandant releases the British officer with the understanding that the British will help get the bridge built. The British officer turns into a collaborator, his feelings soothed by his belief that he is keeping his men's morale high, as well as getting his men far better treatment than before. Further, he sees the bridge as a chance to demonstrate that the British engineers are better than their Japanese counterparts, providing a boon to British pride. The fact that he is urging his men to build a bridge to aid and abet the enemy is lost on him, so blinded is he by fanaticism. He becomes so obsessed with building the best bridge possible, you'd think he were in charge of such a job in the heart of London.

Unknown to the British officer, a small group of Allied commandos are nearby as the bridge is about to open and allow passage for the first Japanese supply train. The group's assignment is to blow up the bridge. On the night before the train is to cross, the commandos set explosives in place at the base of the bridge and run the wire to the detonator. When daylight comes, the wire is exposed to view by a drop in the water level. This draws the British officer's attention and he points it out to the Japanese commandant. Together, they go down to the river to investigate. As they draw near to the plunger-type detonator, the commando designated to blow the bridge kills the approaching Japanese officer. This brings cries for help to the Japanese soldiers from the British officer, who still doesn't get it, and this results in the death of the commando by Japanese gunfire, just after he told the British officer he is there on orders to destroy the bridge. Another commando (played by William Holden) tries to get to the plunger, but he too is killed. Now the officer suddenly awakens to the reality of his collaboration as he asks, "What have I done?" If you haven't seen the movie before, you'll have to watch it to find out the ending.*

Fanaticism blinds people, even patriotic people who mean to do right. True nations have people with common goals, who make efforts to work together for the betterment of all, instead of paying heed to fanatical ideologies, with plenty of greed and egomania thrown in.   

* The film, while highly acclaimed, did get some knocks from people in Britain, who felt it disparaged them, as the officer in the movie did collaborate with the enemy. Remember, this movie originally came out not all that long after World War Two, when most war veterans were still very much alive, and when feelings about the war were still very raw. The main thing to remember is, the movie is fiction, and as some former British soldiers from those times noted, any such British officer in real life would have been "taken care of" by British soldiers in the camp themselves. I see the overall theme as being applied to far beyond war or a movie.

Photo is of the 2000 Sony Pictures Home Entertainment DVD release

WORD HISTORY:
Bridge-This noun goes back to Indo European "bhruw," which meant "(wooden) beam," and also "log;" and might actually have been the reverse originally; that is, "log" to "beam." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "brugjon," with the meaning "structure of wood built to allow passage over a gap or waterway." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "brycg," which meant "bridge." Later this became "brigge" before the modern version. Common throughout the other Germanic languages: standard German has "Brück," Low German Saxon has "Brügg(e)," Dutch has "brug," West Frisian has "brêge," Danish, Swedish and Norwegian have "bro," and Icelandic has "brú."