The African Alamo

Now over 50 years old, "Zulu" can feel a bit dated as both an historical epic and a war film, especially in its one-sided narrative construct that gives us the British perspective without much of a counterpoint from the other side of the battlefield. Nevertheless, the movie tightens the knot effectively by building suspense in the first half and fatiguing the viewer with its unending onslaught of combat, bloodshed and death. Among the observations our CineVerse group offered on this film are the following:

REGARDLESS OF THE FILM’S HISTORICAL ACCURACY, IS THE MOVIE RACIALLY INSENSITIVE TOWARD THE NATIVE AFRICANS, OR DOES IT GIVE CREDENCE TO BOTH SIDES IN THE CONFLICT?
• It shows the native customs and traditions of the Zulu people early on, including topless females, much like a National Geographic magazine piece; this demonstrates at least an attempt to be objective and sensitive.
• The movie does a decent job of contrasting the Zulu system of command with the British military system and the traditions that each share, like tribal chants vs. barked out orders, and a trading of songs across the battlefield
• However, you could make a case that the picture later characterizes the Zulus as raving, dehumanized villains who are appear to be “coming to get the white man.” The dark-skinned warriors also often seem to fall and die easily like so many tin soldiers. They seem to suffer so many losses in terms of sheer body count, that it’s easy to get desensitized by the death and violence depicted on screen.
• We are never given any explanation for why the Zulus attack the British outpost or any reason to sympathize with the Zulus. Arguably, an opportunity is missed here to show point of view from the opposite side – what the Zulu tribal leaders and their warriors are thinking, strategizing, and feeling. Many war films show both sides and contrast the viewpoint of the faction we may be rooting for with a perspective of their enemy, often resulting in a deeper, more enriching narrative.
• History tells us that British colonialism and their efforts to invade and colonize African countries and the government-supported system of apartheid obviously angered and emboldened natives like the Zulus to fight back and defend their territories.

IS THIS AN ANTI-WAR FILM SHOWING THE HORRORS OF BATTLE, OR TO THE CONTRARY DOES IT GLORIFY WAR?
• While the body counts are high among the Zulus, we don’t see much raw carnage, blood and guts and graphic violence, which would obviously occur in a real battle.
• The film’s theme seems to focus on the importance of bravery in battle and standing firm against insurmountable odds.
• This almost serves as a British soldier recruitment film, because we see military ingenuity and strategy at its best with very few relative casualties on the British side.

HOW WOULD THIS MOVIE HAVE BEEN A BOLD, DARING PICTURE FOR 1964 AUDIENCES?
• In America, this was a tense period between whites and blacks preceding the Civil Rights Acts and the marches and assassinations to follow.

HOW DO YOU THINK A NATIVE AFRICAN OR EVEN AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WOULD VIEW THIS FILM TODAY?
• It could really anger them, or possibly it could be viewed as a curiosity piece showing how popular culture bends the historical truth.

WHEN THE NAMES OF THE BRITISH DEAD ARE READ ALOUD AT THE CONCLUSION, WHAT DO YOU FEEL?
• Arguably, there is not enough character development to feel true loss or sympathy.

WHILE “ZULU” IS OFTEN CLASSIFIED AS A WAR MOVIE, DOES IT REMIND YOU OF ANY OTHER FILM GENRES OR PARTICULAR FILMS?
• The Western: cowboys or the cavalry vs. Indians;
• “Bridge of the River Kwai”: Proper British soldiers outnumbered and doing their duty, performing bravely in the face of extreme odds.
• “The Naked Prey”