+- RepairmanJack.com Forums (https://repairmanjack.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Other Topics (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Thread: Zulu, the Movie Historically Condemned (/thread-3920.html)
Zulu, the Movie Historically Condemned - saynomore - 09-21-2010
Here's a review of the 1964 movie, ZULU, that condemns it for its historical inaccuracy. I know the movie wasn't historically perfect, you know, a bit Hollywoodized, but nothing close to what this reviewer says. What do you think? Those of you familiar with the movie: Is he right? I think he is politicizing the film. Imagine what he'd do to the Godfather or The Alamo.
Anyway... would appreciate some feedback.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zulu/articles/287538/its_failure_to_present_any_kind_of__historical_context_ill_serves_the_indigenous_african_peoples_whom__endfield_presumes_to_honor/
AC
P.S. I'm on the plane tomorrow morning, heading for the big immigration reform meeting. Hope I have time for a stopover in New York. See you all back here on Friday. Gots to be back in time for my first day back at work on Saturday when the Fall quarter begins for me. As you may know, Governor Arnold closed the colleges down for the summer. SAD! I gained five pounds, dammit. :mad:
Zulu, the Movie Historically Condemned - flyingfox - 09-21-2010
Personally I enjoyed the film, not seen it in a few years, but it was a good film and in my opinion represented the Zulus in a good noble light, and also showed the struggles that the British had.
It showed how the church tried to interfere, sorry. Don't know if that happened or not, of course.
There was a small dispute between the two lieutenants as to how the battle should be fought, thankfully Bromhead, who did exist, lost out as Chard, I think, was the more senior and it was his plan to stay and fight. Well according to the film.
Oh, and the music is very good.
Lastly, for once, it showed the British in a good light as well, not many portray us in a favourable light, can't imagine why.
Zulu, the Movie Historically Condemned - Ken Valentine - 09-26-2010
saynomore Wrote:Here's a review of the 1964 movie, ZULU, that condemns it for its historical inaccuracy. I know the movie wasn't historically perfect, you know, a bit Hollywoodized, but nothing close to what this reviewer says. What do you think? Those of you familiar with the movie: Is he right? I think he is politicizing the film.Firstly, he is DEFINITELY politicizing the film. Just look at his ID at the end of his criticism: Louis Proyect, lnp3@panix.com on 02/18/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
He says that "John Prebble, creates a character named Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead."
He's wrong. Lieutenant Bromhead was an actual participant in the battle. But how Lieutenant Chard came to be in charge was not true to fact. Yes, he was an engineer, and yes, he was sent to Roarks Drift to (not as the movie said, build a bridge, but to) repair the "pont" which was actually a sort of ferry.
When Lt. Chard arrived, there were other troops and officers there, but the other officers and many off the troops were going to a place called Helpmakaar, and the commanding officer -- before he left -- looked in his book and seeing that Lt. Chard had seniority over Lt. Bromhead, he put Lt. Chard in charge -- even though he was an engineer.
Later, the British at Roarke's Drift were warned of a possible attack by other British troops who had escaped from the battle at Isandlhwana which was just a few miles away.
If you have seen the movie, you will remember the character called Color Sargent Bourne. This character was portrayed in error. There WAS a Color-Sargent Bourne in the battle, but he was NOT the mature and dignified man played by Nigel Green. He was actually the youngest man in the "outfit," (I think he was 24 years old) and was nicknamed "The Kid." He was also the last survivor of the British troops in that battle. He died in 1945.
And if you are curious as to what Lt. Bromhead looked like ten years after the battle, just look at Color Sargent Bourne as he was played in the movie -- he looked almost identical to Lt. Bromhead, they could have been twins.
The blogger says: "The British troops immediately begin setting up makeshift barricades out of sandbags and overturned carts."
My guess is that he hasn't watched the movie in quite a while. In the movie -- as in the battle -- the barricades were mostly made up of "Mealy" bags . . . Corn! And yes, wagons (not carts) were turned over to add to the barricades. And in the real battle, there were a lot of boxes set up as barricades as well. They contained rations of some sort (I don't remember what kind of rations or supplies .)
There was also a firing platform (a sort of pyramid) made of mealy bags which enabled some troops to fire down on the Zulu's from above --but that wasn't in the movie.
The character of Second-Assistant Commissary John Langley Dalton wasn't portrayed true-to-fact. In actuality, he was much older, larger, and more imposing, and had been a soldier before being assigned to the Commissary. And it was HE who actually came up with the idea of defending Roarke's Drift instead of packing everybody up and beetling off to Helpmakaar as Lt. Chard initially wanted to do. He told Lt. Chard that if they were caught on the road, they would be slaughtered -- which was true.
A few other discrepancies between the actual battle and the movie:
1. Surgeon Reynolds didn't receive the Victoria Cross for treating the wounded in the Chapel, he went out and treated the wounded where they fell -- right in the heat of battle.
2. Corporal Schiess didn't start the fight from the infirmary with an injured foot, his foot was injured during the battle, and he continued fighting.
3. The Dutch riders didn't leave because they didn't want to be involved in the fight, Lt. Chard urged them to go off to protect their homesteads and families.
4. The missionary, Otto Witt wasn't there with his daughter, (if he actually had a daughter) and he wasn't send off as a drunk. He left willingly, and sober.
5. Sargent Maxfield DID die in the hospital when it was burned, but not as the movie showed it. He was delirious however, and when Private Hook and others tried to get him out of the building, he fought them off.
6. The building that was used as a hospital was not set up for the purpose of a hospital, and most of the rooms inside it had doors to the outside, and none connecting them on the inside -- which is why the men in the hospital made the holes in the walls. So they could get out into the compound.
7. As I understand it, there weren't four thousand Zulu's in that battle, but around fifteen hundred. Still, the British were out-numbered by around ten-to-one.
8. Our Marxist blogger further states that,"At the finale, they are driven off because they are no match for the British rifles." Which is true to a certain extent, but the Zulu's had rifles as well. Some of them were old rifles, and some of them were rifles they had taken off of the dead troops at Isandlhwana. They sniped on the British troops from caves in the hills behind the Mission.
9. He further states, "Zulu scholar Magema Fuze points out, 'The Zulus died in heaps there, killed by those white men in the building. They went on killing them until dawn, and in the early morning the Zulus withdrew defeated, leaving behind heaps of dead on the ground.'"
This is also true, but what he may not realize (or is possibly ignoring) is that the Zulu's suffered from really bad Generalship. They didn't continue to throw themselves at the British voluntarily, they were ORDERED to do so. Late at night, after seeing so many of his troops being killed, the Zulu leader finally gave up and withdrew his forces.
First, the Zulu's attacked from one direction, and as this direction was on an open plain, where they had no cover, they were severely cut down.
They then were ordered to attack from the other side of the mission, where the mealy bags were placed at the edge of a sort of short cliff about four feet high. This made it nearly impossible for them to get over the barricades and inside the fortified area -- again . . . really bad generalship.
And THAT is where Corporal Scheiss won his Victoria Cross: Having been wounded in the foot, he continued fighting by hiding behind the mealy bags and jumping up and bayoneting Zulu's as they tried to climb over the top.
As an aside, except for a couple of instances, the rifles used by the British in the movie were the correct rifles -- you can see in a couple of scenes however, that a couple of soldiers had bolt-action rifles. There may not have been enough period-correct rifles to go around.
But the ammunition was not period-correct. The actual ammunition was a rolled brass cartridge with an iron rim, which looked like it was formed by using a pair of pliers -- really wrinkly. The ammunition seen in the movie was the "correct" ammunition, but in was made from drawn brass which didn't come into existence until some time in the early 1880's.
In the photo below, from left to right are
1. The .577 Snider, which preceded the .577 Martini Henry cartridge.
2. The original, wrapped, .577-450 Martini-Henry cartridge.
3. The drawn brass Martini-Henry cartridge which was produced from around 1883 to until 1950, and (later) mostly used on medium-sized African game.
4. The .303 British cartridge which replaced the Martini-Henry round around 1889.
Zulu, the Movie Historically Condemned - saynomore - 09-27-2010
Thank you for the responses. Had I seen that "Marxist" website, I wouldn't have mede such a big deal about it. Knowing that the guy had an agenda does account for the review.
Great background. That mealy pyramid would have made great cinema, but I can see how it would not fit the escalating action sequences involving the firing steps. With the pyramid, the Brits would have had the advantage from the get-go, and what the screenwriter seemed to be going for was a "chess match" series of battles, one side probing for weaknesses, while the other fortified their defences.
One last note: I seem to recall reading that the Zulu chief's son led the attack on the Mission without permission and took with him just over a thousand warriors, and that the chief recalled his warriors when he heard of the mounting casualties. Does this sound familiar?
AC
Zulu, the Movie Historically Condemned - Ken Valentine - 09-27-2010
saynomore Wrote:I seem to recall reading that the Zulu chief's son led the attack on the Mission without permission and took with him just over a thousand warriors, and that the chief recalled his warriors when he heard of the mounting casualties. Does this sound familiar?I have the history of the battle, and a biography of Chief Cetchewayo, unfortunately I haven't read them in some years, and they are currently packed up, awaiting the move to Colorado.
So my answer for now is; I don't know. But If I remember correctly, it was estimated that the number of Zulu's in the battle was around 1,500 instead of the 4,000 that was claimed in the movie.
Ken V.