Talk:Zulu (1964 film)/Archive 1

Puzzling
There is another thing puzzled me when I saw it in the scene where Chard and Bromhead try to find out who is senior. They ask each other the date on their commission i.e. their appointment as 2nd lieutenant. But surely a conflict in seniority between 2 lieutenants would be decided by their promotion to lieutenant? PatGallacher 17:19, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * It does seem like they misused the term "commission" here. It is tough to say for sure which event was being referred to, though, as the dates they both read off do not represent either their initial commissioning, or promotion to Lieutenant. Bromhead was commissioned first (though he purchased it), but Chard was promoted to Lieutenant first. Delbert Grady 18:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fellers! This was a movie- not a PBS historical reconstruction. In the conversion of facts to the short story (by John Prebble) which led to the screenplay, everything was subordinate to the dramatic effect, not historical purity. When I think of how hard Cy and Stanley worked to get this production green lighted, you need to keep one thing in mind. Joe Levine wouldn't even read "The Battle of Rourkes Drift"- the first screen play, but bought the same screen play, now entitled "Zulu", because he recognised that a sign with only four title letters would dominate the billboards and newspaper ads. for the movie. Cy and Stanley became friends during "Hell drivers". "They are the princes" said Cy, about big name film stars. "You have to appreciate their power in the business" "Zulu" was made for three reasons-to make money- get Cy back into the big leagues, and turn Stanley into a leading man, instead of a character villain he had become typed as. Oh, how do I know? Because Cy told me- and I was the producers assistant- working in between Stanley- company partner and leading man, and Cy- company partner, and writer/director.Ian Fawn-Meade (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Zulu (film) is a film class staple. Why, I don't know. It has something to do with Four Feathers, the original. Costume pictures were very important in the development of The Language of Film.--McDogm 02:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"This was Michael Caine's first major film role. He watched the rushes, but was so nervous that he was sick, and never watched rushes again."

No.There were no rushes screened. This is anecdotal only. We were shooting with 35mm film running left to right in the camera to create a 65 mm image. All Johnny Jympson got back to the location were ungraded, squeezed dailies that looked awful, even on the moviola (editing) When we first saw the image projected in 65 mm we were all stunned by the power of the pictures.

I have read that Cy told Michael his test was terrible but he had to hire him because of time. I was at the party where Cy told Michael the good news- and I recall that he was totally overwhelmed. He had terrible problems getting onto a horse, and this was the only time I ever saw him nervous about anything.Ian Fawn-Meade (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?--193.195.185.254 06:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rushes are the industry term for the raw footage that was recently shot, developed, and "rushed" back to location to be viewed by the director and crew (now called "dailies"), so a new actor could understandably be nervous about seeing his own performance. Delbert Grady 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushes Orbtastic 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

public domain
In July an anon IP added the catergory "Category:Public domain films" - Is this correct? If so hy? Jooler 23:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Pity that this film is in the public domain as portions of it are showing up in other work, completely unattributed. The Zulu battle chants were sampled and used in Gladiator during the barbarian/Roman battle scenes, and sci-fi writer SM Stirling lifts a few scenes, character names and dialogue from the film in his novel, "On the Oceans of Eternity". Gnorville 13:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Gnorville


 * Repeat - Is this correct? If so why? Jooler 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not correct. MGM currently holds the option on reproduction rights.  I think the anon IP who added that might have been confused because -- like many public domain films -- Zulu has been released numerous times on VHS and DVD by different publishers.  In this case, it's simply because the distro rights are split between several parties and repro options are awarded haphazardly.  In the US, many authorities label the film as PD, but this isn't strictly accurate.  Why they aren't policing sampling or reference, I can't answer.  Perhaps they are, perhaps the ownership situation makes it difficult to build a court case.  The public perception would also make proof of malicious intent a little difficult. -Edit: I have removed the category, with explanation.  If someone feels I am incorrect and can offer proof please feel free to correct me. Canonblack 15:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Caine miscast
The film is something of a feature on British TV with most reviewers making a point of Caine being miscast as the upper class officer. The American Western mode has something to do with both the Director and Screenwriter being US. The project was something of a labour of love for Baker as star and producer and launched a rather unlikely career for him as a leading man following its success. I seem to remember there are some dodgy politics about the financing of the film to do with Rhodesia but any better info?

The full story of the making of ZULU is in a book 'ZULU - With Some Guts Behind It' by Sheldon Hall ISBN 0-953-1926-6-0 Tomahawk Press

Cast + plot
Surely we need details of who plays what, and a summary of the plot before launching into factual errors and trivia ? -- Beardo 00:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done :-)  Rusty2005 23:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed all the trivia as a word-for-word copy off IMDb. I am not sure whether our "Historical errors" section is originally based on their "Goofs" section. Someone else can work that out. But it has been marked as "wants a cite" since November. If no-one finds one, it might as well be removed. Telsa (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

US public domain?
If this film is in the US public domain, I'd expect it would be on Google Video already, as well as on several other websites that publish PD material. Yet, this is not the case. Does anyone have more information on this? - Plasticbadge 03:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was in the public domain in the US for a while, but had its copyright restored, as noted in the article. The copyright restoral, under the GATT treaty, may be found here: http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr5141.html 69.110.235.152 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies section
We really need all these claims properly sourced. garik 12:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Appropriate references should be found, and someone with expertise should remove items that cannot be sourced. Some of the more generic-sounding items should also be better explained. But apparently this has been an issue for several years already? Perhaps it is time to remove this section as no one seems interested enough to fix it. 71.61.185.156 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should. I'll paste it here for future visitors to play with:

Historical inaccuracies

The film contains a number of factual errors, including:
 * 1) The Swedish missionaries (the Witts) were not at the Battle of Rorke's Drift. Witt, his wife and infant daughter (Witt is depicted as a widower with an adult daughter in the film) were 30 km away.  They had put Rorke's Drift at Lord Chelmsford's disposal.
 * 2) Witt is inaccurately portrayed as mentally disturbed and a drunk.
 * 3) The 24th Regiment of Foot is described as a Welsh regiment: in fact, although based in Brecon in south Wales, its designation was the 24th (The 2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot. It did not become the South Wales Borderers until 1881. Of the soldiers present, 49 were English, 32 Welsh (18 of whom were from the county of Monmouthshire - not then classed as a "Welsh" county), 16 Irish and 22 others of indeterminate nationality.
 * 4) The song "Men of Harlech" features prominently as the regimental song; it did not become so until later. At the time of the battle, the regimental song was "The Warwickshire Lad". There was no "battlefield singing contest" between the British and the Zulus.
 * 5) Gonville Bromhead was partially deaf, a disability not mentioned in the film.
 * 6) Many of the men, including Bromhead and Chard, had full beards at the time of the battle. The film depicts them as largely clean shaven, with some sporting carefully-tended mustaches or sideburns.
 * 7) The British infantrymen of the Anglo-Zulu War did not wear sparkling white pith helmets. They were stained a tan color (with tea or coffee) without helmet plates, and the bright scarlet uniforms were always covered in dust making them appear brown.
 * 8) The seniority of Chard over Bromhead (measured by their dates of commission) was three years, not three months as in the film. Also, there was no dispute over command. Lieutenant Chard was left in charge, due to seniority, by Major Henry Spalding well before the battle. Spalding rode off to get reinforcements, but his motives have been questioned.
 * 9) Private Henry Hook VC is depicted as a rogue; in fact he was a model soldier who later became a sergeant; he was also a teetotaller. While the film has him in the hospital "malingering, under arrest", he had actually been assigned there specifically to guard the building.
 * 10) Conversely, Corporal William Allen is depicted as a model soldier; in fact, he had recently been demoted from sergeant for drunkenness.
 * 11) Colour Sergeant Bourne is depicted as a big, hardened, middle-aged veteran; in fact, he was of smaller stature and, aged 23, the youngest colour sergeant in the British Army. He was called 'The Kid' by his men. Sergeant Bourne would not have worn medals on his duty uniform, and the medals used in the film appear to be of World War I issue. Moreover, Green's costume has the chevrons on the wrong arm.
 * 12) The role of Padre George Smith ["Ammunition" Smith] is completely overlooked.
 * 13) The building of defensive ramparts and initial defence of Rorke's Drift was in fact organised by Acting Assistant Commissary James Langley Dalton. His distinction was rewarded with the VC presented a year after the battle. The film gives most of the credit to Lieutenants Chard and Bromhead. The real Dalton had retired as a Quartermaster Sergeant after 22 years of service in the British Army before joining the Commissariat and Transport Department.  The film, however, portrays Dalton as something of an effete character, who does little that might be called heroic. This makes his award of a VC seem something of a mystery.
 * 14) The column of British irregular cavalry seen briefly in the film was actually at Rorke's Drift. However, Chard ordered them to leave after finding that they had little ammunition of their own.
 * 15) The uniforms of the Natal Native Contingent are inaccurate;
 * 16) NNC troops were not issued with European-style clothes.
 * 17) The real Sergeant Maxfield, as in the film, was delirious with fever. However, he was too weak to leave his bed and was stabbed to death by Zulus while the other sick and injured were being evacuated from the room.
 * 18) Private Cole was assigned to defend the hospital, not the perimeter.
 * 19) Cole was killed when he ran out of the hospital alone, possibly due to claustrophobia. Since he was killed by a bullet to the head, his last words in the film are unlikely to be authentic.
 * 20) Corporal Christian Ferdinand Schiess was significantly younger than the actor who portrayed him. At the time of his death in 1884 – five years after the battle – he was 28 years old.
 * 21) Private Hitch was shot through the shoulder, not the leg.
 * 22) None of the rifles used by the Zulus were taken from dead British soldiers after the Isandlwana, as NNC Lieutenant Adendorff in the film suggests. In truth, most of the firearms used by Zulu troops were obsolete Brown Bess muskets, purchased decades earlier from German traders. In addition, the Zulu impis that attacked Rorke's Drift had not participated in the Battle of Isandlwana, and so had not had the opportunity to glean rifles from the battlefield.
 * 23) The ending is somewhat fictitious. There was no Zulu attack at dawn on January 23, 1879, which in the film led to the singing of "Men of Harlech". There was only sparse fighting with a few remaining Zulus. The Zulus did not sing a song saluting fellow warriors, and they did not depart peacefully. They departed at the approach of a British relief column.
 * 24) The story of the black Natal Native Contingent troops' desertion is true. However, as Witt was 30 km away at the time, he was not responsible for their departure. They left of their own will, with Stephenson and his European NCOs. These deserters were shot at and one of the NCOs, Corporal Bill Anderson, was killed.
 * 25) The film omits the killing of wounded Zulus by British soldiers after the battle. There has been speculation that several hundred may have been bayonetted, clubbed or shot in the battle's aftermath. (This was common practise if a small force prevailed over a much larger one, as it would have been unable to guard all the prisoners.)
 * 26) The officers are shown using Webley Mk VI .455 revolvers which were not introduced until 1915 (36 years after the events depicted in the film) instead of the Beaumont-Adams revolvers that Bromhead and Chard actually used. However, the British officer of the time was allowed to use any sort of sidearm he wished, as long as it fired .455 ammunition. Officers often privately purchased Webley top-break revolvers (in 1879 not yet officially adopted for service) somewhat similar in appearance to the Mk VI Webley. These Webley models had been put on the market during the 1870s - such as the Webley-Green army model 1879 or the Webley-Pryse model. So the Webley model Mk VI was not yet developed when the film was set, but the design is typical of Webley revolvers of the period and can be seen as an example of artistic licence.
 * 27) Several men can be seen using Lee-Enfield Mk. I bolt-action rifles instead of the historically correct Martini-Henry. Apparently, they ran out of .450/577 blanks during filming - close observation shows that, in many cases, the actors are simply dry-shooting the empty Martini-Henrys and simulating the recoil, with the gunshot sound effect dubbed in later.
 * 28) Surgeon-Major Reynolds is played by Patrick Magee as a middle aged South African. He was, in fact, a thirty-five year old Irishman. During the Battle of Rorke's Drift, Reynolds went round the barricades, distributing ammunition and tending to wounded there, something that is not shown in the film.
 * 29) Whenever a Zulu falls to the bullets from Martini-Henry rifles in the film, they drop dead with small wounds visible and with only little trickles of blood (Seen when 612 Williams shoots a Zulu in the hospital who is in the act of stabbing Private Hook). But wounds inflicted from the heavy .45 ins lead bullets would create massive gaping holes and much tissue damage. Presumably, the film-makers would not wish to show this to an audience at the time.
 * 30) The attack on the mission station was not ordered by King Cetshwayo, as we are to believe in the film. Cetshwayo had specifically told his warriors not to invade Natal, the British Colony. The attack was led by Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande, the King's half-brother, who slipped away with his men during the British massacre at Isandlwana mountain.
 * 31) During the period when the mission station is fortified, the wagons used in the barricades are seen to be tipped over onto their sides. In reality, they remained upright, and the gaps between were plugged with biscuit boxes and mealie bags (Chard placed them in position like this so that any attacking Zulus would have to climb over the wagons to engage the British soldiers standing behind it, thus giving the redcoat time to shoot that Zulu).
 * 32) Captain Stephenson, and his detachment of cavalry, claim to have come from "Durnford's Horse" when they ride up to the mission station. In reality, they were members of the Natal Native Horse, mainly composed of black riders, who had survived the Battle of Isandlwana and had ridden to Rorke's Drift to warn, and aid, the garrison there.
 * 33) All the characters in the film pronounce Bromhead's name as it is spelt. In reality it was pronounced 'Brumhead.'
 * 34) Both Chard and Bromhead are portrayed as being intelligent and able officers. In reality Chard was widely regarded as inefficient if not actually incompetent, and had a reputation for laziness. Bromhead was a popular officer within the 24th, aquiring the nickname 'Gunny,' however he never seems to have been trusted with any meaningful responsibilities. It was for this reason that his company was selected to guard Rorke's drift, a position it was never imagined would be attacked. Much of the credit for the defence of the mission station must in fact go to Dunne and Dalton of the comissariat department.

garik (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous misquote
In the UK mention of this film is often followed by someone doing a Michael Caine impression and saying "Don't throw bloody spears at me!". I've yet to see the film but know that this is not in the film. Does anyone know/remember the origin of this impression? And, should it be included in the article as a popular misconception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zulu film poster.jpg
Image:Zulu film poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zulu2052020small.jpg
Image:Zulu2052020small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:D zulu.jpg
Image:D zulu.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies section (redux)
The size of this section was overwhelming the article, so I moved it into a subarticle Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tissue damage?
The article states:


 * Whenever a Zulu falls to the bullets from Martini-Henry rifles in the film, they drop dead with small wounds visible and with only little trickles of blood (as when 612 Williams shoots a Zulu in the hospital who is in the act of stabbing Private Hook). But wounds inflicted from the heavy .45 ins lead bullets would create massive gaping holes and much tissue damage. Presumably, the film-makers would not wish to show this to an audience at the time.

In short, I doubt it. In spite of its heavy caliber, it's unlikely the Martini-Henry would inflict particularly catastrophic wounds. The combination of a very heavy bullet and inefficient black powder makes for relatively low muzzle velocity (only 1200 feet per second, a speed rivaled by several modern pistol calibers), which reduces wounding potential significantly for a number of reasons.

I don't know how to add a "citation needed" tag because I've been too lazy to find out so far, but I definitely want to see some kind of source on this. This popular idea that firearms produce terrifically violent wounds is simply not borne out in real life in most cases. Under normal circumstances, the most horrific wounds inflicted by small arms produce A) no exit wound, B) a small entrance wound, and C) a large permanent cavity inside the target. Such an injury is decidedly not photogenic, as we see in modern cinema, but that does not mean that a more subdued depiction of injuries--as we see in Zulu--is somehow less accurate. J.M. Archer (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So tagged. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool beans. :) Next time I'm bored, I'll see if I can find some evidence for the kind of damage done by weapons of that sort. Unfortunately, I think I'm going to find that tissue damage done by surgeons attempting to help rather eclipses tissue damage done by the weapon itself, so my first instinct--to look for information about period veterans--is probably not going to bear fruit. J.M. Archer (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've been looking and looking and I can't find anything to support claims of externally horrific damage resulting from this sort of gunshot wound. Modern .45ACP (pistol) ammunition produces similar velocities with a similar diameter and no one is claiming that a 1911 will blow "gaping holes" in anyone. I would never claim that a large caliber bullet will not do substantial tissue damage, but I see no reason to believe that such damage would appear substantially different from what is seen onscreen, nor can I find any evidence that the filmmakers would A) have known of the bullets' tendency to create "massive gaping holes," or B) have acted to conceal this information from the audience.

On the downside, I also have found no descriptions of the sort of damage done by the Martini-Henry round. I have found documentation relating to internal damage, but apparently no one of the period--or following this period--found the external effects of the cartridge to be noteworthy. Either it just didn't look impressive, or they didn't find it to be particularly out of the ordinary.

Our best bet to get any definitive information on this is probably to contact active hunters and ask for sources on tissue/trophy damage caused by the modern equivalent of such a cartridge--though it may be difficult to find any written information on this sort of thing.

I would point out, though, that the very fact that information on this is so very difficult to find in 2009 suggests to me that the filmmakers would not have been aware of the effects of the Martini-Henry's cartridge when they made the film, so--even assuming that the cartridge would have particularly horrific effects (an unsupported assertion that I am not prepared to accept)--they could not have been engaged in concealing any such information from the audience.

J.M. Archer (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, I was gonna edit the paragraph in question and remove the most egregious bits of description. However, once that material is excised, there really isn't much left of it--and certainly not enough to make it clear why it's included on the list. I'm just gonna take it out. If someone wants to stick it back in, they can let their fingers do the walking as far as source material is concerned; after like two months, I've come up dry.

J.M. Archer (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)