• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

is Zulu (1964) pro or anti imperalist?

Is it not the British version of the Alamo? i haven't seen it since i was a kid so i couldn't tell you but i do remember liking it
 
Pretty much as I can remember.
Bloody good film.

Though through the eighties it was always on the telly over Xmas. So my brothers', my mum's and MY hearts used to collectively sink at this news. It's a long film and as kids - really not my bag

But fast forward into the late nineties - if it's on I watch it always! 😝
 

Wildebeest

Member
It is not considered to be pro imperialist or pro colonialist, as it attempts to treat the Zulu warriors as humanized enemy combatants with their own culture and values. It is more like a war story where the seriousness and capability of the enemy is played up like a Napoleonic war or World War film, in order to valorize the war heroes.
 
It's a nuanced film made about a complex subject produced before everything got consumed by the culture wars. I don't think it supports or condemns imperialism, it praises the bravery and warrior spirit displayed by both sides.

The British and the Zulus (and the Boers) were trying to expand their empires in the south east of Africa. They clashed during the Anglo-Zulu War which the British eventually won. However, as with many imperial wars at the time, the whole thing was a bit of a cluster fuck by the British. We were using rifles against leather shields so we should have won easily. Arrogance and incompetence put paid to that and the war, though brief, was far more costly from a British point of view than it should have been.

The film depicts the Battle of Rorke's Drift. The British had recently suffered humiliating defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana and the Zulus then marched on the guarded missionary outpost at Rorke's Drift. During the battle, 150 British soldiers defeated over 3000 Zulu warriors so it was rightly hailed as a great victory. More Victoria Cross medals (Britain's highest military honour for bravery) were handed out then that at any other battle. The battle became enshrined in British folklore forever more.

Because Britain industrialised before any other nation we found it comparatively easy to form such a vast empire. As such, we were often a bit embarrassed by the ease with which we were able to conquer the world and sought examples of 'against the odds' heroism to justify our position. The Charge of the Light Brigade, General Gordon in Khartoum and the Battle of Rorke's Drift were all the result of incompetence in one way or another. However, they all allowed us to say to the world (and ourselves) 'hey, look at brave little Britain staring death in the face and remaining stoic in the face of insurmountable odds'. The Second World War / Battle of Britain was a genuine example of this and helped to cement this quality as part of our national identity.

The film was made with the collaboration of the Zulu chief at the time and most of the African actors in it were real Zulus. As far as I'm aware they were happy with the way they were depicted and were well paid for their work.

To be honest, I find most of the film pretty boring. It drags on for hours with not much happening. You can get the message that they are trying to convey by just watching the final battle scene which is, in my opinion, one of the best ever filmed.

TLDR, just watch this:

 
Last edited:

Tams

Member
Can't it just be a great film?

And neither side comes out of it looking particularly good or bad; just fighting for survival (in different ways) and showing bravery.

It was before entertainment became so much about sending a message. And in doing so, actually ends up sending a pretty balanced one, if you bother wasting your time looking for one instead of just enjoying it.

Don't get wrong, they did want to send a message with the film. And they tried very hard to make it authentic and fair. None of this 'justice', 'recompense', etc., just fair.

But as already said, you only really need to watch the finale.
 
Last edited:

winjer

Member
It represents both sides in positive manner.
The British are the focus of the film, but the Zulu are portrayed as brave and powerful, a real threat to the British soldiers.
The Zulu aren't even described as being the bad guys. But rather as defending their own land.
 
Last edited:

Ionian

Member
Stunning film. Was shown yearly here.

Brutal and rightfully so.

So savage, watched as a child. numerous times.

A true classic, frightend the shit out of me as a kid.

Got me interested in war, I was a kid., brutal film for a kid.
 

cormack12

Gold Member
It's a nuanced film made about a complex subject produced before everything got consumed by the culture wars. I don't think it supports or condemns imperialism, it praises the bravery and warrior spirit displayed by both sides.

The British and the Zulus (and the Boers) were trying to expand their empires in the south east of Africa. They clashed during the Anglo-Zulu War which the British eventually won. However, as with many imperial wars at the time, the whole thing was a bit of a cluster fuck by the British. We were using rifles against leather shields so we should have won easily. Arrogance and incompetence put paid to that and the war, though brief, was far more costly from a British point of view than it should have been.

The film depicts the Battle of Rorke's Drift. The British had recently suffered humiliating defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana and the Zulus then marched on the guarded missionary outpost at Rorke's Drift. During the battle, 150 British soldiers defeated over 3000 Zulu warriors so it was rightly hailed as a great victory. More Victoria Cross medals (Britain's highest military honour for bravery) were handed out then that at any other battle. The battle became enshrined in British folklore forever more.

Because Britain industrialised before any other nation we found it comparatively easy to form such a vast empire. As such, we were often a bit embarrassed by the ease with which we were able to conquer the world and sought examples of 'against the odds' heroism to justify our position. The Charge of the Light Brigade, General Gordon in Khartoum and the Battle of Rorke's Drift were all the result of incompetence in one way or another. However, they all allowed us to say to the world (and ourselves) 'hey, look at brave little Britain staring death in the face and remaining stoic in the face of insurmountable odds'. The Second World War / Battle of Britain was a genuine example of this and helped to cement this quality as part of our national identity.

The film was made with the collaboration of the Zulu chief at the time and most of the African actors in it were real Zulus. As far as I'm aware they were happy with the way they were depicted and were well paid for their work.

To be honest, I find most of the film pretty boring. It drags on for hours with not much happening. You can get the message that they are trying to convey by just watching the final battle scene which is, in my opinion, one of the best ever filmed.

TLDR, just watch this:


Great Post. Enjoyed reading that. Thanks.
 

Tams

Member
Movies from the 60s era are still beloved.
michael caine GIF
 

IDKFA

I am Become Bilbo Baggins
It's neither. It doesn't praise the Empire, but at the same time it doesn't trash it either.

It's just a film about a historic battle the British won against the odds. Purely made because us Brits get still get hard for such battles, like Waterloo, Trafalgar or Blenheim for example.
 
Top Bottom