Zulu (1964) - film review

In 1879, missionary Otto Witt and his daughter Margareta are attending a mass Zulu marriage ceremony in Natal when they learn that a British force of 1400 men has just been wiped out by an army of Zulu warriors.  Realising that similar such battles may be imminent, Witt returns to the missionary station at Rorke’s Drift and advises an immediate evacuation.  The British officer in charge of this outpost, Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead, is ready to retreat but he is overruled by his superior, Lieutenant John Chard, an officer in the Royal Engineers who had been overseeing the construction of a bridge.  Fearing that his men would be picked off if they attempted to flee, Chard gives the order for the soldiers to stay and fight.  It isn’t long before the Zulus make their appearance.  They are easily repelled but it is apparent that this first attack is intended merely to test the strength of their opponents.   Sure enough, the Zulus return in force a short time later, armed with rifles they acquired in their recent battle against the British.  It soon looks as if Witt’s prediction that every last man in the station will die is about to come true.  How can a contingent of one hundred soldiers hope to survive an onslaught from an army of 4000 Zulu warriors?

One of the evergreen favourites of British cinema, Zulu continues to impress and enthral with its stunning recreation of a remarkable military engagement of the David and Goliath variety.  This is the film that set Michael Caine on the road to stardom, even though the actor completely botched his screen test and expected to be replaced even after filming had commenced.  Heading the cast of superlative character actors is Stanley Baker, who co-produced the film with director Cy Endfield.  The latter made the film during his exile in Britain, after having been blacklisted in Hollywood for alleged involvement in Communist activities.  Zulu was the one major achievement of Endfield’s career, and what an achievement.  

Michael Caine’s acting ability proved to be the least of Endfield’s worries when he began shooting the location sequences in Africa.  The real worry was getting the Zulus extras to act as convincing warriors.  None of the Zulus had ever seen a movie and just couldn’t work out what they were being asked to do.  In the end, Endfield resorted to showing them an old Gene Autry western, and that seemed to do the trick.  The battle sequences in Zulu are amongst the most horrific of any war film, made all the more effective by the sharp editing and John Barry’s tension-building score.  

One of the main strengths of Zulu is its deliberate lack of bias.  Most films of this kind have us rooting for one side or the other (usually it’s the white, English-speaking side).  Here, we are led to sympathise with both sides in the conflict.  We are equally sickened by the killing of Zulu warriors and British soldiers alike – both represent the pointless extinction of a human life.  Whilst not overtly an anti-war film, Zulu makes no bones about the fact that war is an ugly business and is not something that we should ever seek to glorify for its own sake.  In 1979, a prequel to this film was released, Zulu Dawn, although this proved to be nowhere near as successful as the original.

© filmsdefrance.com 2009

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?