"The army doesn't like more than one defeat in a day." (Chard)
"Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfast." (Bromhead)
I've seen Zulu several times, and each time is different. Sometimes, I am in awe of the writing, sometimes the acting, sometimes the directing, sometimes the music, and most times the dramatic tension, but there is no escaping that Zulu is not subtle, tactful, politically correct, or moral in its presentation of the defense of Rorke's drift in South Africa or the massacre at Rorke's drift in 1879.
Zulu tells the story of the roughly 150 British soldiers who stood in solid defense of the Rorke's drift mission when it was under attack by more than 5000 Zulu warriors. The British soldiers are armed with pistols, rifles, and bayonets. The Zulu warriors have some rifles, but mostly spears and shields. The British soldiers are the protagonists and the Zulu warriors are the overwhelming antagonists. In short, Zulu is the glorification on film of 150 British soldiers slaying thousands of Zulus. I would not call it racially nuanced. It is at times horrific. (There may be an argument to made the character of the priest, who tells the defenders that God commands them not to kill and that they are all going to hell, is in someways a voice of reason in the pitched madness of racism, colonization, and battle...but I'm not sure of that.)
But the above is not the point of my review. What I would like to talk about is the cinematic and film making genius that is Zulu. There are very few films that have done battles well: The Seven Samurai, The Two Towers, etc. The trouble with filming a movie about a battle is that either A: the battle is anticlimactic because the heroes aren't "good" enough, the villains aren't "bad' enough or the audience's investment isn't strong enough; or B: the actual action sequences are incomprehensible, geographically confusing, or even worse devoid of tactics and therefore lose the audience's belief in the inherent danger of war.
Great battle movies make use of all the story telling and movie tools at their disposal. I consider the greatest of these is the ability to set and build an audience's anticipation. The battle itself just isn't exciting if you haven't built it up in your mind. Zulu does this in a number of interesting ways. First, the opening shot of the movie is the devastation and death that the Zulu's have wrought on the much larger British column of 1000 men. It immediately sets up the dichotomy that the British are the good guys and Zulus are the bad guys. It puts in the audiences mind the question "if 1000 soldiers were slaughtered by the Zulu, What chance do 150 have?", and it gives the Zulu power. They are a powerful enemy. Second, Zulu employs a steady information stream of terror to the audience. First, our heroes learn of the original massacre by the Zulu's. Then a little later, they get information as to the size of the Zulu force. Followed by the appearance of a small band of perhaps 30 mounted South Africans who choose to ride on and flee rather than join the defense. Suddenly, the Zulu force is spotted by look-outs and we as the audience must wait as our heroes hear the footsteps and war songs of the Zulu. And finally, the assault beings. The battle in Zulu is 100X more ferocious and exciting because of the time and care the film makers took in building up the tension of the situation.
Ratings
Zulus: See it: and be proud of the respect the movie has for you people's military prowess and tradition
Zulus: Skip it: (there is no real way to repay or unwatch the slaughter of your people.)
Michael Caine: This was you cinematic debut and my my my did you look young.
Young Filmmakers: See it and revel in how beautifully it is crafted.
History classes: See it. Use it to provoke thoughtful debate and learning.
On a scale from a happy hippopotamus like in Disney's Dumbo to an angry mama hippopotamus on a hot day and you are between her calf, I give Zulu 3.99999 out of 5 stars.
