Zulu is one of those enormously flawed films that nevertheless manages to be so entertaining as an action film that it attracts a sizable coterie of devoted fans. It does basically for British pride what the Alamo provides for Anglo Texans, Saving Private Ryan for American veterans, and the defense of Helm's Deep for the self-esteem of Elves, Hobbits, and the Men of Middle Earth. As stated by one British reviewer, "This is one achievement no one can take away from us." One wonders, however, what precisely that achievement was. I'd sum it up as the senseless sacrifice of, first, 1200 British soldiers on January 22nd, 1879 at Isandhlwana in an ill-advised and poorly planned effort to expand British colonialism from Transvaal into Zululand; followed by the loss of more men during the holding action at Rorke's Drift on January 22nd/23rd; followed by the slaughter of countless Zulu tribesman on July 4th, 1879 at Ulundi, thus enabling the British to gain control of virtually all of the former Zululand by 1887.

It is true, as some reviewers point out, that this film pays a fair amount of respect to the courage, fitness, and tactical discipline of the Zulu warriors (provided one overlooks the ease with which they end up skewered on bayonets during the hand-to-hand combat, despite being muscular, robust, fit, and expert spear carriers). There's no particular reason that the Zulu warriors deserve to be glorified any more than the British imperialists. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Zulus had perfected a warrior-centered mentality that enabled them to dominate all of the other tribes of South Africa, from Zambesi to the Cape Colony. It began with the chieftain Tshaka and continued on down through a string of successors, including Umpanda (who ruled for more than thirty years) and Cetywayo, who took over in 1874. For the typical non-Zulu African tribesman, there was not a lot to choose between being dominated by the Zulus and life under apartheid. Zulu is not about good guys and bad guys, but simply two groups of testosterone-muddled warriors from different cultures, each wanting to dominate and economically exploit weaker and more peaceful groups of people, as has been mankind's main story throughout history. And history reveals that the British, together with the Boers, defeated the Zulus, which is why the Zulu tribesmen who served as extras for the film could not even go to see the film that was made, due to the policies of apartheid. Yes, indeed, the heroic defense of Rorke's Drift was quite an accomplishment and helped make the world a better place.

The Story: This film's story was based on a real incident from history. The film's version of the story is accurate enough in the broad historical facts but highly inaccurate in many of the particulars (see below). The story opens with a pair of Swedish missionaries, father and daughter, attending a tribal ceremony, presented in National Geographic style, with plenty of high-stepping, feather-trimmed warriors and lovely bare-breasted ebony beauties. It's a mass-marriage ceremony and the two Caucasian guests are Reverend Otto Witt (Jack Hawkins) and his sexually-repressed daughter, Margareta (Ulla Jacobsson). In the midst of the colorful proceedings, news arrives that Zulu warriors have annihilated a column of 1200 British invaders at Isandhlwana. The Witts quickly depart, to carry warning to the small detachment of about 150 soldiers at Rorke's Drift, attached to the Witt's mission. They're sure to be next unless they pull out.

The unit at Rorke's Drift is a rather poorly disciplined unit under the command of Lt. Gonville Bromhead, a British aristocrat who acquired his commission by hereditary privilege. He's a bit vain and primarily interest in hunting, taking little interest in the activities of his soldiers. Also on hand at the site is Lt. John Chard (Stanley Baker), an engineer, who acquired his commission by his skills. He'd been sent to Rorke's Drift to supervise construction of a bridge and would otherwise be among the dead at Isandhlwana. When word comes about the massacre, Chard instinctively discontinues the work on the bridge and rallies the men back to the central compound. Chard and Bromhead, having the same rank, must therefore compare seniority dates, as military types are taught to do, and Chard proves to be the senior officer by just a couple of months. Though Bromhead is a bit jealous about surrendering his command to Chard, he also understands that he's had no combat experience and presumes that Chard has. They quickly settle their differences and begin working together on the common endeavor.

Word comes that the unit is to hold their position. Bromhead would prefer to scatter the men in the hills, but Chard insists they will defend their present position. Chard begins organizing the preparations for defense, which include perimeter fortifications and an interior redoubt. They are able to acquire some background information about Zulu tactics from an experienced Boer cavalryman. We also meet some of the men who will be involved in the battle, including the reliable and experienced Colour-Sergeant Bourne (Nigel Green), the youthful Private Hitch (David Kernan), and the undependable malingerer Private Henry Hook (James Booth). The Witts prove to be a menace to the efforts of Chard and Bromhead. Otto Witt encourages the blacks that work for the soldiers to flee for their lives and in the name of God. He also encourages the soldiers to do the same, but without effect. He finally has to be locked in a stockade, but even then manages to get drunk and continue to hurl invectives at the soldiers as they work. Chard finally has to have both Witt and his daughter sent off in their carriage, with Witt declaring vehemently that they are all going to die. Obviously, this does little for morale.

The approach of the 4000 Zulu warriors on the modestly fortified position held by just 150 British is full of tension. The defenders of Rorke's Drift can feel the earth tremble and hear the steady rhythm of the warriors beating their swords against their shields, long before the first head comes into sight. Then, of course, comes the terrible onslaught, one wave after another throughout the day and night. The defenders hold the outer barricade for several attacks and later have to pull back to the redoubt. Hundreds of Zulus are slaughtered as well as perhaps half of the defenders. Even the walking wounded help to man the barricades. The Zulu warriors engage in a lot of chanting and war dancing to psyche themselves before each charge and, rather improbably, the predominantly Welsh defenders counter with a few choruses of Men of Harlech.

Themes: Although at least one critic claims that Zulu has "a strong critical, antiwar streak," the fact is that the film is far more about glorification of warfare under the usual guises of "heroism" and "courage." Certainly, there is the requisite pissing and moaning after the battle about the senseless loss and the butchery of it all but that really only serves to heighten the glory of the sacrifice made by the men. The only antiwar voice in the film is that of Otto Witt, who, despite his surname, is presented as a witless pacifist, drunkard, and Bible-cliché spouting fanatic. When this film was made in 1964, it was still a year or two before the Vietnam antiwar protests had kicked into high gear, beyond the most radical core of leftists, in American or Europe. It was neither fashionable nor profitable, in 1964, to question blind patriotism, colonialism, or the white man's imperative. Many of the facts of the real story were changed specifically to add to the sense of valor and respect for the warrior code. For example, the tribute supposedly paid by the Zulu warriors to their British warrior counterparts at the end of the film never happened. The reality is that soldiers always hate enemy soldiers, once they've seen a few of their comrades slaughtered. That's how disparaging terms like "gook" come into existence. Soldiers don't sing hymns of praise to the bravery of their enemy after a stalemate. The real Otto Witt was one of two ministers who fought bravely with the soldiers at Rorke's Drift, but in the filmed version, the entire Christian admonition against killing is embodied in Witt as craven lunacy. The reality is that this film is one of those gung-ho, boys-own war films designed to excite the aggressive fantasies of arm-chair heroes everywhere.

Then there's the issue of racism. The film's apologists are at no small effort to declare the film not racist on the grounds that the Zulus are presented as worthy adversaries, with intelligent tactics and great courage. There is emphasis given to the superior fitness of the Zulus (who can run thirty miles in a day and then go immediately into battle). By and large, these points of supposed positive portrayal only operate as such to the extent that one buys into the warrior mentality discussed above. Yes, the Zulus are presented as being equally pigheaded in their combativeness as the British. Small complement! Racism, however, is a much more subtle issue and not obviated by simply throwing a few bones at an ethnic group in the form of grudging respect. What's far more important as a factor in racism is that viewers are being encouraged to identify and root for the small number of brave white defenders as they slaughter countless non-white opponents, who are given no identity as individuals. That most viewers of this film don't understand that they are being taught racism by it is a testament to how thoroughly inculcated most people are with racial bias. We are invited to empathize with the people most like ourselves without regard to the real political or moral rightness or wrongness of their situation. Hundreds upon hundreds of black men slaughtered by whites, who are given heroic stature and sympathetic personalities, just can't be viewed as a blow for racial harmony, no matter how hard one tries to apply a positive spin.

Then, one also has to consider the cumulative effect of there being countless war films that present conflicts from the Anglo and/or white perspective but precious few that adopt a Black, Arab, Native American, or Southeast Asian perspective (to name just a few of the underrepresented viewpoints). Cumulative practices are every bit as important in promoting bias as are individual instances. For example, gay characters in films turn out to be deranged, foolish, or killed with disproportionate frequency. It would be hard to argue that any one such instance represents bias, but the overall pattern certainly does. In my considered opinion, Zulu is one of those films that promotes both racist perspectives and a dangerous public tolerance for militarism.

Production Values: This film's director, Cy Endfield (1914-1995) fought in the Army Signal Corps during World War II, yet was nevertheless blacklisted after being identified as a Communist before the aptly named House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). He had to move to England, where he worked under various pseudonyms to evade persecution. His best pre-HUAC Hollywood films were The Underworld Story (1950) and The Sound and the Fury (1951). His finest British films were this one and Sands of the Kalahari (1965). He wrote the script for the film Zulu Dawn (1979), which was a prequel to Zulu. By 1979, it had become fashionable to question the political purposes underlying colonialism and warfare, so the prequel has a more genuinely antiwar tone, though it is also less artistically successful.

I mentioned some of the inaccuracies in Zulu already, but there are other egregious ones as well. The entire Welsh theme is largely fabricated. The actual unit was mainly English. Only twelve percent of the soldiers were from Wales. The name of the Regiment was the Warwickshire Regiment and wasn't renamed the South Wales Borderers until two years after the defense of Rorke's Drift. Private Henry Hook received one of the eleven Victoria Crosses and was in no way the malingerer or thief depicted in the film. The Zulu leader Cetsewayo was not present at Rorke's Drift and had specifically ordered his officers not to attack the British in entrenched positions. It was one of his headstrong sons responsible for the slaughter of countless Zulu warriors. The script has all of the stock elements of the "defense of the fort" genre and is a bit too predictable and routine in that sense.

The film's great strength (and the reason I'm awarding it four stars despite its many deficits) is the dramatically thrilling action scenes. It's a wonder that Endfield accomplished so much with a budget of just $2 million. Some of the actors were shot entirely in studios in London because Endfield couldn't afford to send them all to Africa! The film was shot mainly in the Royal Natal National Park in South Africa, about sixty miles from the actual location of the historical incident. The landscapes are not only appropriate, but also cinematically appealing. About five-hundred actual Zulu tribesmen were enlisted for the battle scenes and paid with wristwatches. Although they have no lines of dialog, they hold their own as actors in the magnificent battle scenes. Since 500 Zulus were not enough for some of the scenes, additional Zulus were fabricated and mounted on the hillsides. There are times when the hand-to-hand combat is noticeably fake, however, and there's none of the gushing blood that would be the staple of such scenes if filmed today. The Zulus are spectacularly decked out in feathers and beads, short spears and shields. Endfield does a nice job preparing viewers for the battle scenes by acquainting us with the terrain, fortifications, and strategic issues.

Although the monophonic soundtrack of the original film limits the quality of the soundtracks of current DVD versions, there are a couple of positives in relation to the sound, as well. Richard Burton acts as narrator, near the end, reading his lines with perfect inflection and clarity. The background music is stirring and the Zulu chants are entertaining and presumably authentic. The singing of the Welsh soldiers is a cheery bit, though highly implausible.

There are some excellent performances from the white guys as well. Stanley Baker had the requisite command presence for the role of Lt. Chard. His other best work was in The Cruel Sea (1953), Richard III (1955), The Guns of Navarone (1961), and Accident (1967). I thought Michael Caine even better as Lt. Bromhead. Though its commonplace to deride Caine as an actor, most reviewers concede this as one of his better performances. He has appeared elsewhere in such films as The Ipcress File (1965), Alfie (1966), The Italian Job (1969), Get Carter (1971), The Man Who Would Be King (1975), A Bridge Too Far (1977), Educating Rita (1983), The Whistle Blower (1986), Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Death Becomes Her (1992), The Cider House Rules (1999), and Austen Powers in Goldmember (2002). Jack Hawkins was unhappy with his role and his work in this film and I can't say as I blame him. His character could have been given less screen time and the film would have been the better for it. Hawkins also appeared in The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Ben-Hur (1959), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), and Lord Jim (1965). Nigel Green was very solid as Colour-Sergeant Frank Bourne.

Bottom-Line: There have been quite a few different DVD versions released for this film, but they differ widely in appeal. What you most want to ensure is that you select one that provides the widescreen or letterbox format. One such product in America is the MGM DVD. I understand that there's a Region 2 DVD for this film with a variety of worthy extras, including a fine commentary track. You don't get those extras on the MGM product, but you at least get an excellent transfer, fully restored and enhanced for widescreen television sets.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Fit for Friday Evening
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age