Talk:Zulu Dawn

NPOV
I'm deleting the phrase 'possibly because the British won' for two reasons - it is in my opinion POV, and because Zulu is the better film due to superior characterisation and a tighter story. Average Earthman 19:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll stick to my opinion about the film "Zulu" being aired on TV much more frequently than "Zulu Dawn." I've only seen the latter once in my area, but the former is on all the time. I believe, in fact, that too many people do not like a movie showing the Brits getting wacked by a bunch of spearmen. Stepp-Wulf 05:23, 18 March 2006 (GMT).

Zulu Dawn is frequently shown on British television and you should recall that Zulu STARTS with a description and images of the slaughter at Islandlawana. The film Zulu is fundamentally underpinned by the defeat of the British. In addition, Zulu portrays the Zulus as a brave and compassionate foe. Therefore, you are wrong: there is no objection to showing a British defeat. Let me guess - you think you are Irish? User:Kentish 18:24, 10 December (GMT)

@Rusty2005

You have mentioned: 'We don't need ... references to Zulus as "mocking"'

"...hold the Colours aloft mockingly" is original text from the Zulu Dawn movie script.

But you're right, of course it’s not NPOV. Discriminating Zulus was not my intention. Felix c 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Now to something completely different, you have edited Zulu Dawn in October 2006 as follows:

''Ken Gampu: Mantshonga. A leading general in the Zulu army, Mantshonga masterminds various schemes to confuse British forces, using scouts to gain intelligence on the lumbering British army, and small raiding parties to confuse British and Boer scouts on the whereabouts of Zulu impis. Mantshonga realises that the only chance he has of defeating the British invasion force is to overwhelm the British while they are exposed and vulnerable; and that an open battle between British and Zulu forces will result in a crushing Zulu defeat at the hands of British rifles, artillery, and Gatling guns. Mantshonga therefore keeps his impis hidden from the British, allowing the invaders to progress deep into Zululand, waiting for them to commit an error that will give the impis the opportunity they need to overwhelm the British before they have time to commit their technology to the battle. While chasing a Boer scout, Mantshonga instructs three of his warriors to allow themselves to be captured by the British, who eventually escape and advise Mantshonga on British weaknesses. In contrast to the British commanders, Mantshonga displays immense bravery, and is last seen leading his warriors into the débâcle of the British camp, where he is shot and presumably killed.''

Are you sure, this is correct? To my understanding, Mantshonga acts as Sir Henry Bartle Frere’s negotiator, meeting Cetshwayo, informing him about the ultimatum?

Here is an excerpt from the movie script:

MANTSHONGA: (...) "They are angry and send these demands. They say you rule in old ways that are wrong, that you kill your people without trial. The Great White Queen herself cannot kill her lowliest subject though she rules forty lands... "

BAYELE: "Kill the Traitor, Father"

(...) BARTLE FRERE, CHELMSFORD, CREALOCK & MANTSHONGA are now standing. BARTLE FRERE addresses the entire garden party.

You are mentioning: Mantshonga displays immense bravery, and is last seen leading his warriors into the débâcle of the British camp, where he is shot and presumably killed.

I think, the Induna who is shot by Private Storey is not Mantshonga! The Induna leading the attack on the camp is wearing a scalp lock, different to Mantshonga, who has a shaved head.Felix c 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing
I Have edited several character descriptions as many of them are incorrect and reflect poorly on the article, do not hesitate to ask me of any changes Emcee george (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

MISTAKE IN ZULU DAWN ARTICLE
The article several times refers to the Zambezi River as separating Zululand from Natal. The Zambezi, which is a long distance from the site, is Africa's fourth most important river. The actual river was the Buffalo, a pissant of a stream (as shown in both Zulu Dawn and Zulu). This is a little like locating the Missouri River in the Texas Panhandle. 196.46.106.86 10:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Mzee Mvuvi, Dar es Salaam

Historical accuracy section deleted
I deleted the "Historical accuracy" section as it is all unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYN. Please read the policies at those links before you respond. You can quote a reliable source who pointed out specific errors; not facts that you think contradict the film. See Ip_Man_(film) for an example of one way to do this. Barsoomian (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion is inappropriate and it makes it very hard to improve the text; instead please point out specific items that need sources, etc. quota (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Specific sections that need sources"? That's easy, ALL of it. I looked, I couldn't see single statement that wasn't just a bald, unsourced statement or WP:OR. If you want to work on it, here it is below. Please restore any items you can source while paying special attention to the admonishments at WP:SYN. But a better place for this might be IMDB. They don't care about sourcing. Barsoomian (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that over a year ago the section was marked, . A month later the tags were simply removed without any other changes made. No one could be bothered to "improve" it then or since.  If it's replaced without correct sources I'll take this to the WP:No original research/Noticeboard. Barsoomian (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical accuracy
The film generally avoids historical inaccuracies and is fairly true to the events of 22 January 1879. The costumes of the British soldiers are reasonably accurate, although the red coats are noticeably made of thin nylon, rather than the authentic material. The soldiers staining their pith helmets with tea to reduce the shimmering glare, a practice popular among British soldiers on tropical service, and unlike the film Zulu, which inaccurately depicted shining white helmets. The uniforms of the NNC are also accurate replicas, as are the costumes worn by members of the Royal Artillery and irregular cavalry units, such as the Natal Mounted Police. One notable inaccuracy in the film is that some of the rifles carried by British infantrymen are not Martini-Henry rifles as at the actual battle, but Martini-Henry cavalry carbines. In addition, as in Zulu, at certain points in the film, most notably toward the end as the camp is overrun, extras portraying British soldiers can be seen wielding Lee Enfield rifles not introduced until some time after the Battle of Isandhlwana. Colonel Durnford is shown using a Webley Mk VI .455 revolver which was not introduced until 1915 (36 years after the events depicted in the film), so the appearance in the film is an anachronism. 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 Durnford's 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.

Several events portrayed in the film are erroneous. These include:
 * Scenes early in the battle which depict British infantrymen clustered into tightly-packed firing lines. Recent research has revealed that British soldiers were very thinly spread, with a gap of two or three metres between each soldier.
 * As reported by Horace Smith-Dorrien, the British had difficulty unpacking their ammunition boxes fast enough and the quartermasters were reluctant to distribute ammunition to units other than their own and the lack of ammunition caused a lull in the defence.
 * The film portrays the artillery units being overwhelmed inside the camp; in reality, the field guns were attached to their limbers and attempted to escape from the camp, and almost reached the Natal border before being caught by Zulu soldiers.
 * Col. Pulleine is depicted as being killed while writing a letter in his tent. In fact, Pulleine was killed by a stray bullet while directing the battle before the fall of the camp.
 * Lt Melville is shown commanding a company of the 24th; this is erroneous. Lt Melville was the Adjutant and as such would not have commanded a company on the firing line.
 * The scene depicting Lts Melvill and Coghill's escape with the Union Jack is inaccurate. In the film, Lt Melvill carries the Union Jack unfurled, whereas in reality the Union Jack of the 24th Regiment was furled up inside its leather case. It is also unlikely that Melvill and Coghill rode together from the battlefield; instead they only met at the river itself. In addition, the scene in which Lt Vereker shoots dead a Zulu warrior in order to save the flag from Zulu capture is entirely fictional; in reality, Melvill was too exhausted to hold onto the heavy flag while trying to swim the river, and it slipped from his grip. It was later recovered, so probably was never touched by a Zulu.
 * The film does not portray the solar eclipse which occurred at 2:37 PM, near the end of the battle, interpreted by the Zulus as an omen of their impending victory.
 * During the battle, a large group of British and African soldiers led by Captain Younghusband rallied near the foot of the mountain, succeeding in holding off Zulu attacks for some time. When the soldiers finally ran out of ammunition Captain Younghusband went down the line and shook the hand of every man. They then executed a bayonet charge against Zulu warriors, led by a group of infantry officers wielding their swords. Zulu accounts state that the Zulus respected these soldiers' bravery and, having killed them, accorded them ceremonial honours usually reserved for fallen Zulu warriors. This event is not portrayed in the film. There are a number of conflicting reports as to Younghusband's charge, many of which are less dramatic than this one.
 * The film does not depict an event which occurred in the evening, when a large Zulu impi heading in the direction of Rorke's Drift passed within shooting range of Chelmsford's force returning to Isandhlwana. The two forces, wary of each other, shadowed each another for some time without making any attacks, and finally broke off after around an hour.
 * The rank and file soldiers' uniforms were made of a very poor quality thin cloth (presumably because of the weather) which was far too bright a red. The helmets were obviously moulded plastic with the tan effect flaking off in places.
 * During the shot when the camera looks down the firing line, on the line "Front rank, present...FIRE!", as British soldiers bring carbines to shoulders to unleash the first volley at the Zulus, it is clear that one of the soldiers is wearing a wristwatch, or bracelet, which soldiers would not have been wearing in the Victorian period.
 * The real Lt. William Vereker was an officer in Zikalhi's Horse at Isandhlwana. However, he was in no way connected to the escape of Melvill and Coghill. The third officer with Melvill and Coghill was in fact a man named Higginson, who escaped the battle, apparently deserting his brother officers. In reality Vereker's act of bravery on the battlefield was to surrender his horse to a native trooper in the knowledge that he had no chance of escape on foot, an act attributed to Colonel Durnford in the film.
 * The caption at the end of the film shows an out-of-context quotation from the British statesman, Disraeli, which would lead the uninformed viewer to believe that the Zulus overthrew the British Empire. "Who are these Zulus, who.... have put an end to a great dynasty?" The quote actually refers to the killing of Napoléon, Prince Imperial, the heir of Napoleon III, in this same war, who was killed on an ill-conceived scouting mission unrelated to the Battle of Isandhlwana.
 * The British firing drills used in the movie are not accurate historically. The commands "front rank, present...fire!" were not adopted by the British infantry until approximately a year later.  The historically accurate commands would have been "at 100 yards, ready...present!"  The yardage would be adjusted as needed by the section leader.  Each soldier would then present his rifle and count silently to himself for a count of three.  He would then discharge his weapon without any command to fire.  Generally, the volleys would have been slightly less crisp.  The British adopted a "fire" command soon after the onset of the Zulu war, whereby the section leader had final authority as to whether or not to release the volley, depending on if there was still a target present.  This stemmed from the Zulu tactic of skirmishing throughout their advance, often going to ground just as a volley was about to be discharged.


 * All you have to do is read the linked article Battle of Isandlwana, which is well-sourced. The information is almost all there, and there is no need to duplicate in in the film comparison.  By all means feel free to highlight parts you feel are not already covered in the primary article.  But please restore the text.  quota (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the text I deleted was sourced in any way. And you still are ignoring WP:SYN. I've mentioned it in edit summaries and quoted it above twice already. You can cite a named critic who has pointed out errors. You can't deduce them yourself by comparing the film with factual accounts. Barsoomian (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it crystal clear: "(WP:SYN) Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."