Composite Score: 81.3

Starring: Stanley Baker, Jack Hawkins, Ulla Jacobsson, James Booth, Nigel Green, and Michael Caine

Director: Cy Endfield

Writers: John Prebble and Cy Endfield

Genres: Drama, History, War

MPAA Rating: NR

Box Office: estimated $8 million worldwide

Why should you Watch This Film?

                Zulu is a historic epic about the brave stand made by the British soldiers at Rorke’s Drift against a larger force of Zulu soldiers during the wars with the Zulus in South Africa. A relatively generic historic war story of a smaller group defeating a larger group, the film does offer some interesting additions to the war film genre. It features one of Michael Caine’s earliest roles, portraying the hesitant and unseasoned Lt. Gonville Bromhead. He is joined by solid performances from his commanding counterpart played by Stanley Baker and the outpost’s missionary portrayed by Jack Hawkins. The movie has big grandpa movie energy, reminding me of the films I watched out of my grandfather’s movie cabinets as a child during Christmas break.

Why shouldn’t you Watch This Film?

                Obviously, the subject matter of the film is problematic, in that it makes heroes out of a colonizing force in South Africa, which specifically instigated Apartheid, one of the most oppressive segregation institutions in world history. Separating the story from its history makes sense for a film made in the early 1960s but does not hold up well under the scrutiny of modern awareness. This is especially true when considering the treatment of the Zulu people. They are introduced in a massive marriage ceremony at the start, complete with topless tribeswomen and a chief not understanding Christian traditions. While this might be an accurate portrayal of the Zulu lifestyle, there is no exploration of the Zulu people as individuals, only as a monolith of native African society.

                The choice of subject is also problematic, as the historical event upon which it is based occurred on the same day that the Zulu soundly wiped out an even larger, less hospitalized British military force. The attack is framed as a sudden surprise to the British with little criticism leveled against the colonialist practices of the British and Dutch in South Africa. Even the African people working with the British at Rorke’s Drift are portrayed as lesser than their European colonizers. They listen to the words of missionary Otto Witt and flee when he warns them not to shed the blood of other humans, a decision painted in a negative light by filmmakers, despite its seeming reasonability.

                Finally, the film lacks much originality in the landscape of war movies. The British are outnumbered. A few of them die. Defenses start breaking down, and it looks like the British are going to lose. The commanders don’t want to work together at the start but eventually do, leading to a British victory. Even the portrayal of the enemy as generically other, non-English speakers is typical of a mid-20th century war film. The tropes fit, making it feel somewhat reminiscent of every other war film from the 1950s and early 1960s and definitely earning it the “grandpa movie” descriptor I gave it further up.

So wait, why should you Watch This Film?

                Certain aspects of the film help keep it slightly original within its highly formulaic framework. The introduction of the film in a Zulu camp with very little English dialogue for the first five minutes or so of runtime grasps the audience’s attention and offers a promise that perhaps this film is going to be different. While the treatment of the Zulu is primarily monolithic, the portrayal is not wholly stereotypical, showing actual cultural pieces of the Zulu society that would have been present within the film’s setting. Mid- to late-1800s warfare is rarely explored in films, so that in and of itself keeps this film somewhat unique in the genre. Perhaps a more interesting unique factor of the film is its lack of moral statements as a whole. Hardly any condemnation is leveled against characters nor are any highly praised – outside of the dutiful Lt. John Chard played by Stanley Baker. This lack of overall moral judgement, at least from a modern perspective, creates some of the films problems but also gives the film an almost documentary feel.

                The performances delivered by Michael Caine as the inexperienced and initially aloof Lt. Bromhead, Stanley Baker as the stoic and dutiful Lt. Chard, and Jack Hawkins as the devoted and passionate Reverend Otto Witt stand out from those of the rest of the film’s performers. Young Michael Caine first presents as an overpromoted, underqualified rich boy whose only merit is that of his family name. Throughout the film, we see Caine turn the character into a thoughtful and legitimately caring military commander tried by combat. Baker’s turn as Bromhead’s counterpart presents a fully realized foil (though not antagonist) to Caine’s character. Stoic and sure of himself, Baker’s Chard is virtually the only character that receives a fully positive moral judgement from the filmmakers, being presented as the model of a good British soldier. Jack Hawkins delivers a truly contrasting and scene-stealing show as Otto Witt, decrying the violence being perpetrated loudly, as a pacifist preacher would, before turning to an almost violent state of despondence and drunkenness when the British decide to stay and fight. His performance is so big in its movements and speaking that he steals what few scenes he shows up in from the other characters.

                Problematic and formulaic, Zulu provides some minor but interesting deviations from the war-epic genre and convincing performances from some of its lead characters to put together a decent offering on the list of Greatest Movies of All Time. It is certainly worth checking out, but not necessarily an immediate must watch. Enjoy it with a grain of sand.