Film Review: Zulu (1964)

Stanley Baker's 'Zulu' is a film I grew up watching once or twice a year in Britain and for all that time: it is still fresh and highly enjoyable. It is one of those films that manages to be fascinating but yet doesn't bore the viewer. It is a simple enough tale: less than 200 men of the British 24th Regiment of Foot fight and win against the might of thousands of bloodthirsty Zulu warriors.

It is one of those films that has almost become embedded in the British psyche and I remember Zulu as a quintessential Christmas film to be watched with the family along with such classics as 'The Great Escape'. It is a film that is remarkable not least for being one of Michael Caine's (one of my favourite actors) first films and also for the fact that it was a low budget film where all the extras were either serving South African soldiers or members of the Zulu nation.

It might be because of this realistic setting and also the fact that some of the descendants of those who really were at the battle of Rorke's Drift were in it that the film has a certain realism that is not eclipsed by time. The battle scenes themselves are ahead of their time with some innovative camera work and no lack of focus on the fact that it is two sets of humans who are fighting here and that nobody wants to die.

This is particularly evident in the hand-to-hand combat scenes where Stanley Baker (as Lieutenant Chard), Michael Caine (as Lieutenant Bromhead) and their men fight off the Zulu warriors in-spite of being heavily outnumbered. This focus on the humanity of the Zulus is part of the film's agenda, which is to be commercially successful by re-enacting a classic moment in British history while also seeking to push leftist notions of the equality of man and how Apartheid was supposedly 'evil'.

I remember watching Stanley Baker's commentary on the film some years ago and being struck by the fact that he described himself and the production crew as being 'leftists' who wanted to help the Zulus out against the 'evils' of Apartheid. As such Baker as ascribing to the fanciful notion that human beings are not animals like any other and are somehow 'unique' and/or 'special', which was then - as now - being propounded by (often jewish) leftist anthropologists.

This leftist focus is also evident towards the end of 'Zulu' when Bromhead describes his feelings to Chard in terms that one would expect from a peacenik rather than a soldier on campaign: he 'feels ashamed'.

The logical question to this little bit of political spiel is: why would a soldier who has just saved his skin and those of his men by fighting heroically against all the odds feel 'ashamed'?

If anything he should feel a strident pride in what he has done: he has saved his life and those of the men dependent on his ability and judgement as a commander.

That is triumph and not a tragedy as the film directly suggests.

For all this political message 'Zulu' is a truly European film since I cannot find any jews in the production or writing team whatsoever: even the actors and actress are - as far as I can see - non-jewish Europeans. It is as such a fine example of what European cinema can do when it is not chained down by the degenerate desire fostered among the people by jewish film moguls, jewish film and cultural critics as well as by the ever increasing hedonism being fostered in our people by jews, leftists and liberals.