"No. Next question." "Is the film Noah racist?" "Is racisting to be white?" "Is it racist to defend yourself when attacked by black people?" "Is it racist to walk outside?" "Is it racist to be born?"
@@FirstLast-fr4hb, if you look at the population of the world, whites are a minority, everyone hates us yet the white working class are the only ones who can be accused of being "racist" especially by our own treacherous governments.
I call black people out in their racism all the time.Its interesting it only seems to be black people. Anyone else have a different experience? I've heard stories of white folks doing it down south but I dont live there.
Rob De Graaff they would make the zulus white or North koreans to ensure they dont offend anyone of another race *coughwhitehousedowncougholympushasfallencough*
I'm sort of conflicted about whether or not I actually want to see a remake. I want the remake to mock it but at the same time I feel that it would ruin my favourite film.
kiwizonfire, they can't remake classic films or TV series no matter how hard they try. Everyone remembers them as they were. "you're only meant to blow the bloody doors off" 😂😂
The first thing I remember about the representation of the Zulu Nation in the film is the opening scene. The Narrator (Sir Richard Burton) describes the attack at Isandlwana in a letter to Queen Elizabeth " The Zulus in overwhelming numbers launched a highly disciplined attack..". Such a statement is high praise from a nation whose military reputation is based on "Solid courage and Iron discipline" (Sir Arthur Wellesley re British Infantry). The next scene is of the Missionaries at Cetshwayo’s (Zulu King pronounced "Cash-why- ohh") Royal Kraal and we hear the missionary Otto Witt state that the Zulu "Are a great people" and that European women marry rich men but "perhaps Zulu girls are luckier because they get a brave man" (sorry paraphrasing). At no point are the Zulu insulted, denigrated or shown in a less than favourable light. British soldiers are shown to be worried about the upcoming battle with one young man actually shaking with fear. This is a human reaction to possible death and would be felt by warriors from any Nation at any time in history because it is perfectly natural and we see it displayed by both sides. In close up action shots most notably when Lt Chard is attacked by two warriors we see fear and hesitation on their face (not cowardice) they are young and inexperienced when Chard kills the first it is easy to feel empathy for the second having seen the same emotions on the faces of young British soldiers. The close shots reveal the Zulu warriors as human counterparts to the British both sides fighting a battle they hope to win, both sides hoping to survive in order to return home again. Historically this is very accurate as the Regiments that attacked Rorke's Drift were held in "Reserve" at Isandlwana having no part in the fighting as they were young inexperienced warriors. Prince Dabulamanzi (Dab-oo-luh-man-zee) kaMapende commanded them and wanted his share of the glory so against Cetshwayo’s orders he led them across the river to attack Rorke's Drift, Inexperience leading youthful inexperience. The overall presentation of BOTH sides in this battle is that of two highly skilled and professional forces fighting on a lonely battlefield in service to their respective Monarchs, giving all they have to achieve victory and hoping to survive the day. Being a "History Buff" I have watched dozens of WW2, WW1, Napoleonic and Roman "War Films" and find it a rare thing to see so BALANCED (although not perfect) a presentation of opposing sides in a Genre with a reputation for pandering to audiences. EXCELLENT VIDEO BTW. R:
Discipline and bravery are the main themes of the film. A zulu harasses the missionary's daughter and is killed, a while later she's harassed by the ill-disciplined soldiers who just laugh. The contrast is intentional.
Racist? The movie shows the Zulu in a positive light. I think it shows the bravery of the Zulu as what kind of person would attack a gun weilding soldier with a shield and spear? How brave one has to be to do that! Also it shows the ingenuity of the Zulu by using the British Weapons against them. HOW IS THAT RACIST?
Zulu is about two armies of warriors respecting each other’s fighting spirit and courage. It’s not exactly how things actually went down but it’s actually less racist than reality
Agreed! In fact, notice when some of the British soldiers and officers (including Bromhead, played by a young Michael Caine) actually denounced the Zulus as cowardly savages, several of the white soldiers(including those Afrikaners from the Natal regiment, if I'm right) put up a fierce argument defending and demonstrating their bravery and skills. So in my opinion, considering that this was made during the Apartheid era, the movie was no wehre near being racist byt rather, well ahead of its time.
Racist because it shows Africans underdeveloped and how they actually were at that time. Instead of realizing that it wasn't the age of internet and people can learn freely. But are rather stuck to their neck of the woods if not already part of a seafaring nation. Africa may have been that much inferior in tech. It does not take away that with the means they had they achieved a lot.
HistoryFan476ad no film is not racist at all it shows both sides as you said and at the end of the film it shows great respect to the British Soldiers and Zulu
I’m Zulu and I watched the movie skeptical and expected my culture to be portrayed as nothing but barbaric. It turned out to be one of the best movies I’ve ever watched. Very well balanced & very progressive even by today’s standards.
I agree even as a child I thought I don't know which side to support they both have their reasons. I've always wondered what the Zulus sing though? I have to say though war is horrible who wins?
The only offensive thing in the movie is portraying one of the British soldiers in a very negative light despite him being a model soldier. This actually led to his family walking out of the theatre because they were so upset.
Geralt of Rivia corporal hook was portrayed as idle and a drunk on the film . His family was angry because as you said he was a model soldier and was very brave fighting while wounded and saving many lives of other wounded men . For such he won the vc
What isn't "racist"? The cultural marxist elite denying our people from honouring our heroes & our dead for the sake of "diversity?" is completely racist.
Bookhead714, I did say "cultural" marxists. The capitalist/communist/zionist elite who want to wipe out the white working class because our sense of national pride and achievement doesn't fit in with their sick dystopian view of a one world state. A world overcrowded with coffee coloured mongrels with no sense of identity.
John Eric Edwards That’s not Marxism. And based on piecing together Urban Dictionary’s numerous highly biased definitions, that’s not what cultural Marxism is either.
No. The British and Zulus did not sing songs of praise at the end of Rorkes drift. Even though Europeans and Zulus did and do get on better than other tribes, the movie went out of its way to hire real Zulu extras and the great great grandson of Cetshwayo. It shows them in even more positive light.
Effective? Well... against firearms, the bravest and most skilled soldier with spear, mace and sword will be fallen just the same. Had they adapted to firearms, they would have been truly excellent.
@@Briselance There were some Zulu riflemen in the war but not enough to make a big impact in the war for the zulus. But imagine if they had the equipment equal to that of the average european army of that time. They would be the prussians of africa.
yes them marching forward spears in hand every step taken with care ready to strike at any moment like a leopod ,truly awesome and terrifying at same time.i of out ran a horse i can tell you if i seen that comming with just a martini henry.both sides had over large balls and had earnt them.
I come from South Africa and I have never met a Xhosa or Zulu person who thinks the movie "Zulu" is racist. The ones who had watched it actually enjoyed it because it is an awesome film. They show Zulu on SABC 3 or 2 at least once every year in South Africa. SABC is state subsidized television.
i live in south africa and i go to a school where their is a lot of zule or xhosa and more and i am friends with a lot them and they show in grade 4 they teach the history of the racist time of south africa
@@cebolenkosimbatha6492 No ways, Zulu warriors were trained in unarmed combat since they were kids while the average British conscript/soldier had next to no unarmed training. They would of been slaughtered without their guns. British movies do the same thing with everyone though, if it was British vs French it would be 10 frenchmen taken out for every one British soldier. Americans also do the same, one American platoon of soldiers taking out 100 taliban soldiers.
@@jasoncreamer5747 Of course they would have been slaughtered without their guns.... they would have been unarmed. Also those guns mounted bayonets, which were pretty nasty if used properly, as by Colour Sergeant Bourne. The large majority of British casualties were from gunshot wounds. The majority of Zulu mortalities were from bayonets. OK, this has to allow for the coup de grace administered to fallen Zulus, but for many it would have been the main cause of death. The British soldier was not easy meat in hand to hand fighting, even against Zulus. British troops overrun at Isandlwana were heavily outnumbered and surrounded (spears coming from all sides). In a confined space, head on, the bayonet could hold its own. Obviously, the average British soldier wasn't going to take out 4 or 5 Zulu, but neither was it going to happen the other way round. BTW, none of the British soldiers were conscripts..... The British army was a small, professional one until well into WW1. I presume that they had all had bayonet drill, especially due to their role in policing an empire.
I first saw this film on late-night television as a boy growing up in Appalachia, and it had a huge impact on me and my views of the world. The US was going through its Civil Rights conflict (I think the year was 1970), and racism surrounded me like a blanket. Yet I was deeply impressed by the bravery of the Zulu Warriors, and I would go so far as to say it weakened, rather than reinforced the racist messages all around me.
When I first watched this film as a kid me and my brother wanted to be zulus . We used to play zulus and redcoats . We were both sad the zulus didn't win in the end . Obviously as a 9 yr old I didn't know history or even know it was based on real events . But it inspired me to read books about zulus and Africa especially . So no I don't think it was racist
Careful what you say my friend - I said on youtube that as a kid all my male school chums wanted to be Shaft and the girls - including me - wanted to be his lady, and got a blistering attack from a POC who called me a 'racist', said I didn't deserve to have friends and accused me of stealing black culture. If she/he is reading this, I have my own culture, thank you very much.
@@Briselance, considering how the film shows near the end the horrific consequences of war, and how the main characters talk about their shame and disgust for having participated in it, I think it's safe to say the film was anti-war.
What a shame -- even as a child, without the benefit of social nuances, I still finished this movie feeling massive respect for both sides. I guess people who want to hate will always find something to hate :(
Daily reminder that Zulus weren't the indigenous people of South Africa; they were invaders themselves and actually committed genocide on the native tribes. The only Khoisan people who managed to survive did so with European help and protection.
Just as fine as the Allies were to firebomb the cities of Germany and drop nuclear bombs on Japan. Not saying that either side was right, but war is war. If this film is racist, then so would be one about Shaka Zulu or Genghis Khan. The movie doesn't glorify violence or colonialism, but simply showcases the true heroism and valor of average British soldiers. The people protesting it want to erase the very history of the event because they see all white people as guilty, regardless if they're a bureaucrat in a London office or a common rifleman who traveled across the world to make life better for his people, defending himself against desperate odds from crazed spear-wielding Africans. Hilbert even made a point to say how the film portrays bravery on both sides.
Rough comparison, considering how much the Anglo-Saxons mixed with the Britons, and essentially became the natives by mixing with them. Same thing with Normans later.
And you're obvioulsy avoiding the point. The whole point of Zulus being the invaders is that they are not innocent natives attacked by evil colonizers who want to steal their land, it's that for a large part of SA it was the other way around, the Boers were the first permanent settlers of many areas. If Natal is Zulu by right of conquest, then half of Africa is rightfully British.
When? Shaka practically established them as a kingdom in ~1820s, as they were only a small tribe before him. The Anglo Zulu war happened around 50 years later. A ridicilous claim. A lot of the land the British took from the Zulus, the Zulus had taken from the Boers a decade or two earlier.
Simple competition for land and resources. One can compare it with the Sioux invading the Plains from Minnesota. Only later to be defeated by the US Cavalry. It was indeed depicted as racist later. But now is handled in a more accurate fashion. I have always found Zulu to be relatively fair when compared to accurate events. And actual Zulus were consulted.
As always, well thought out. I've always enjoied the film (inaccuracies and all), and I think you've done an excellent job looking at it. If you, dear reader, haven't seen Zulu, I highly reccomend it.
I never liked how it falsified the mutual respect between the Zulus and the British soldiers at the end of the film with the Zulus singing and scampering off. I always didn't like how it didn't portray the fact that the Zulu king specifically didn't want his dudes to attack Rourke's Drift but they were insubordinate and did it anyway - jazzed off their recent and stunning victory. For the time period I think it went out of its way to present race in a way which - for the time - was very progressive.
Fuzzy Dunlop all good points mate yes it was very progressive even by today's standards . Would be better if as you said the dynamics of the Zulu command was explored better . The attack was a tragic mistake that left their homeland open to attack from a larger British force . Was mostly a tragic loss of life of experienced troops that zulus never recovered from .
Rourke's Drift was not a battle fought, on the Zulu side at least, by experienced troops. The Zulu Regiment that fought at Rourke's Drift had been held in reserve at Isandlwanda and as such had seen no fighting there. It consisted of mostly young and inexperienced soldiers, and the Regimental Commander, wanting to grab some of the glory for himself, and also possibly wanting to blood his regiment, attacked Rourke's Drift against orders.
But the Zulu King really didnt want an attack on rorkes drift. Isandlwana could be portrayed as self defense but an attack on a British fortification would act as an “excuse” to the British gov’t.
Not just that but you can argue that the British where at a bit of a disadvantage as well because they only had small arms and was extremely outnumbered by their Zulu opponent
Yes, and the irony is these kinds of backwards people like these leftists in Kent, are the people spreading far more hatred, racism, and sexism than they think they're remedying.
Asa Hamarrhjarta completely agree with you. They don’t even realise that they are responsible for these modern racial divides. Creating problems from nothing, just for the sake of it
Obviously, history is racist if the natives didn't win - it's called political correctness if you're a politician, lunacy or lying if not. Zulu is one of the great anti war films of all time.
I'm 6 years late but I love this movie. I don't really see it as an anti war film and not a fan of them, I do understand the realities of war but at the end of the day it is a movie, which entertains people. I enjoyed it thoroughly and because of that I don't really see it as a war film, but the end really makes it look like one, it reminds me of Waterloo. But oh well. Have a great day.
I found out years ago that Color Sergeant Frank Bourne (portrayed by Nigel Green in the film), one of the British soldiers from the actual war of Jan. 22-23 1879, was a direct ancestor of mine, on my father's side. By the way, the film showed the Zulus on a positive light. Only modern audiences will see it that way. The film was mostly historically accurate.
Interesting character, Frank Bourne. He was one of the youngest CS's in the army at only 25. He was, by all accounts highly rated and had a reputation for being a crack shot. Thanks for sharing.
1:55 'There were very few Welshmen present' - This is not true. Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the battle, 39 were Welsh. That's a significant chunk. The regiment had been based in Brecon since 1873 but was still called the 2nd Warwickshire and became the South Wales Borderers in 1881.
@@jamestodd1104 The narrator said "very few". 39 out of 122 is not very few. Not for a moment did I suggest it wasn't a mostly English regiment you fucking idiot
I mean you cn tell it in a racist way but i dont think its the case with Zulu. But most civil war and ww2 movies really whitewash and downplay the conflicts
Today’s remake of Zulu would have racially integrated British troops, despite historical inaccuracy. One of the officers would have to be gay and one of the enlisted men would be a transgendered woman. The mealtime scenes would be “sustainable” foods, recycling, and one man would be very fat to show no baby shaming. There would be a young child who would be a “mathematical genius” and Morgan Freeman would visit from the black warrior tribe and be a perfect gentleman, with beautiful diction. The battle would end in a tie and the sides would sing again, this time together. It would be beautiful - the way the left thinks life should be.
Racially integrated would be a problem. As the largest group of soldiers at Rorke's Drift were actually English, several English people who have commented elsewhere about this film are at pains to insist that there were virtually no Welsh involved in this battle. (In fact about one third of the troops were Welsh). The English still have difficulty at coming to terms with the Welsh who have been their neighbours for the last 1500 years. If they can't even get past that hurdle there would be zero chance in a remake of integrating troops whose ancestors may have come from a bit further afield.
Two goats [No pigs] because “Black” is very vague, just like “white,” and ignores the history, as to be expected of hyper-triggered socialist types. These people are obsessed with dividing people into groups. Notice how Hilbert talked about Zulus, Boers, and Brits, not just white people and black people, while the protesters complained about blacks vs. whites.
Fun fact, I first watched Zulu on the anniversary of the Battle of Rourke's Drift. I didn't wake up with the intention to watch it. but I saw that TheBritisher's Channel had a review of it so I thought "might as well watch it first"
Christ, it’s a historical movie - it almost makes you want to go back to the times where times were simpler and we did have to step on eggshells in our all inclusive multicultural society
Thank you for your job and analysis! I do believe as much as you that such a tag for an important film shouldn't be handed lightly and that the film deserves a fair judgement. I'm glad you gave it as such and I agree with most of you and wish to expand. One of the things that films also brings emphasis is not only on the bravery and physical capabilities of the Zulu men: It's also careful to remark that the Zulu were truly an organized and disciplined army with stablished tactics. It does take its time in the pre battle to highlight that Chard would have to outwitt the Bull formation if he wanted he and his men to see another day. I honestly believe that was the most brilliant aspect of the film: it managed that every virtue of either part heightened the strengths of the other, and intelligence was not left out. What merit would the battle would've had if the Zulu weren't less than a mighty, strong and brilliant army? Secondly, about the ending. It's not that I don't agree with your interpretation, truly art is subjective and all interpretations are valid. But I do want to highlight that final line: "I told you, I came here to make a bridge ". I always interpreted it in the sense that, in the call od duty, one is expected to act and decide on matters beyond of our capabilities and knowledge. Having Chard being a member of the Royal Engineers (and myself being next to get my Eng. degree soon) I do believe it's an aspiring thought for all kind of professionals, being civil or military, from all walks of life, to incoporate in our dily lives. Ultimately, I'm convinced that a good piece for art doesn't try to directly shove you their message, but rather allow you to reflect by yourself generate a whole range of conclusions. So, in the end, I thank you for that interpretation of the ending.
I think your comments are spot on, Hilbert. Especially when you compare it to the popular Westerns of the day, Zulu was incredibly even-handed. It's a war film and the Zulus are the antagonists, but they aren't vilified. They're shown as what they were: brave men fighting for their homeland against the British.
Brilliant analysis. Thank you. A small side note is that Chief Ketchwayo had given express orders for the outpost not to be attacked as it was outside Zulu territory (as you mention) and he didnt want to give the British an excuse to launch more attacks. There are also many reports from Zulus saying how proud of the film they were.
This is my favorite movie of all time. I'm sick of people saying everything is racist. They are the ones who are racist by attacking white European culture.
You can prove it’s not racist by the fact the man who plays the Zulu king is the Great Grandson of the Zulu king from the real battle. It’s just people being offended on other people’s behalf.
No definitely not as every time a character says something bad about the Zulu another character puts them in the wrong and the movie is also shown from the zulus point of view when they show a marriage ceremony.
One of filmdoms little jewels in the general genre of war, battles and courage under extreme duress. The film would have been marred had it attempted to personalize both Zulu encampment and the British one. One can infer broadly similar emotions among the Zulus, even as the film focused on the smaller British force. The latter made particularization of various British personalities and character traits more natural, and thus humanizing the conflict far beyond the hacking, wacking, spearing, stabbing and shooting events of battles. As I never researched this movie, Hilbert has been very helpful in setting forth the actual facts along side those selected for staging the struggle. Any dramatic license that doesn't severely undercut the film story was and is forgiveable. I agree that the concluding battle denouement lifted the film in a very satisfying way, putting a fine now on this valuable film. Since you can rarely make everyone happy with any finished product, the criticism to which Hilbert alluded largely constitutes an expected pose of virtue and a "nod" to the vanity which engenders such protestations. Well done, sir!
In the 1970s I was a seaman and had a girlfriend in Capetown, her parents originated from India. We were not allowed to be seen together so when we went out together we had to use back streets to go places. It was not only the police who would have arrested us but if the blacks had seen us together there would have been local 'justice'.
@@someguy8055 Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi (born 27 August 1928) is the person you mention. He is a South African politician and Zulu tribal leader who founded the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) in 1975, 10 years after "Zulu" was released. Throughout most of the apartheid era, Buthelezi was considered one of the foremost black leaders. He was Minister of Home Affairs of post-apartheid South Africa from 1994 to 2004. He played King Cetshwayo kaMpande (his own maternal great-grandfather) in the film.
I’m Zulu and it’s one of my favourite films of all time. The first time I watched it, I expected amaZulu to be portrayed as barbarians, as they usually do with Native Americans in Westerns. But instead, it was a very well balanced film and very progressive by a long margin for that time in history and even by today’s standards. It’s a classic here in South Africa. Even my kids will watch it.
My great, great, great uncle died at Rorkes Drift Pvt 801 Thomas Cole. The film has not much to do with what occurred. He caught a ricochet through the face while rescuing patients from the hospital building. He was portrayed in the film on his death bed asking "why"
At this rate the film Tora! Tora! Tora! will eventually be labeled as racist, despite the movie showing both perspectives (American and Japanese) of the attack on Pearl Harbor. These SJWs have no limits to their ability to be offended by anything.
In fact, the Japanese scenes in Tora! Tora! Tora! were not only filmed with Japanese actors but also it was directed by a Japanese Director, who, rumor has it, cast a number of individuals in Tora! Tora! Tora! simply because he was looking for funding another project and they were likely to help fund the project. I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest though.
There is a video on here with Stanley Baker's widow confirming that the Zulu extras were paid in Rand. She also confirms the story that the Zulu extras were shown silent movies (Chaplin, Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton) to show them what movies were all about. Lady Baker mentions that the consequence of that was the hilarious over-acting when the Zulus were 'killed' in the battle scenes. However, what no one really notices - except for someone below - was the dialogue. When someone says something racist or anti-black, there's another character there to contradict them: Witt, at the mass wedding in the Royal Kraal - his daughter thought that mass weddings were terrible, and Witt (Jack Hawkins) tells her that in Europe young girls were marrying rich older men all the time, and that these girls were, at least, getting a brave man. Schiess, in the hospital, arguing with one of the Joneses asks the Welshman how far they could march in a day, and tells him that the Zulus could run that distance and then fight a battle. Gert Adendorff, the Swiss survivor of Isandlwana, reports to Chard and Bromhead (Michael Caine) of the disaster, and that even the Native Troops had been killed. Bromhead/Caine exclaims "Cowardly blacks!", to which Adendorff forcefully explains that the native troops had died fighting on the British side. There are likely other instances, but those are the 3 that stuck out in my mind. Ther video points out that Zulu wounded were bayoneted, and Geneva Conventions etc. OK, there were no POWs taken at Isandlwana. In fact almost all of the dead British were mutilated, and some were tortured before being killed. Go and read up on the 5 Drummer Boys at Isandlwana. At Rorke's Drift, there was no capacity to tend to hundreds of Zulu wounded. Many of them would be in great pain with no hope of survival. The medical staff would likely not speak Bantu, and be unable to commmunicate with them. A coup de grace would be more humane and cause less suffering.
Also... the zulus were imperialists as well and carried out small genocides during the establishment of their kingdom. Its important to keep things in perpective always.
Hilbert I really need to ask, are you Dutch? Because I’ve noticed in many of your South African videos you are pronouncing Afrikaans words or Dutch words fluently. Especially you did made a Dutch version of one of your videos which made me wonder are you Dutch? Or did you take classes for several years?
zulu is one of i’d say a handful of old films which are showing the nonwhite/ indigenous people as worthy opponents instead of showing them as some savage people. i think that considering when this film was made it was extremely ahead of its time given the political nature in the mid 1900’s. i love this film because it gives both sides of the story and doesn’t sugarcoat the brutality of this conflict, and doesn’t portray the british as the liberators. there is no clear good and bad guy, they are both gray.
I always thought that "Zulu" was one of the greatest historical films ever produced, as not only does it portray the events therein with great accuracy- taking artistic liberties where needed- but it also creates that profound anti-imperialist question and allows one to capture that 'human experience'. Zulu blew me away the first time I watched it, and every other single time I had watched it. The lyrical contrast between the Zulu chants and the patriotic Men of Harlech left me joyful, and the salute as well as the 'butcher's yard' line had me thinking in somber. I completely agree with you, Zulu not only took the proper effort to depict the Zulus as they should be- an honorbound warrior-culture with immense tact and military capability- but discouraged any Imperial apologism. It also embodied the important message which was made plain: do not underestimate or unnecessarily demonise your enemies, they are just as determined and capable as you are. Beyond the movie, I loved the series of "Shaka Zulu", which provided another important look into the Zulu Empire and its history, as well as it's culture. Although, I would not say "Shaka Zulu" is as accurate as "Zulu". Nonetheless, the "Shaka Zulu" programme was wonderful and forwarded many philosophies and questions to Imperialism, warrior-culture, military rule, and mysticism- all of which I considered deeply as a result of watching the programme.
He does kind of have a point. Pretty sure every European before 1920 was racist, so how useful of a term is it? Unless I get evidence to the contrary I just assume a pretty nasty level of racism in most historical figures.
C Marshall oh I'm not offended and the film is a personal favourite, I'm just correcting the guy above me's misunderstanding of these people's problem with the event taking place.
In my opinion, this movie is not racist. Every derogatory comment made about the Zulu's is met with a rebuke. When Adendorff and Bromhead are discussing the column's defeat, they have the following exchange: Bromhead- "That's damned impossible, eight hundred men?" Adendorff- "Twelve hundred. There were four hundred native levies also." Bromhead- "Damn the levies man they're more cowardly blacks." Adendorff- "What the Hell do you mean cowardly blacks, they died on your side didn't they? And who do you think is coming to wipe out your little command, the grenadier guards!?" The movie treats both sides with the same level of respect, not favouring any race. Also, according to the information here- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_(1964_film) There were no such Apartheid laws preventing the native actors being paid.
no they did but the bayonets they have in this video belong to a french rifle that wasn't produced until practically 15 years later. im just a stickler lol.
Some of the rifles are also a later model than the one used in the 1879 Anglo-Zulu war. On a side note, my favorite line British officer: you don;t mind our help do you? Boer: its not your help that we mind. It is what you'll want for it after.
The only major inaccuracy I can think of is the Zulu king ordering the attack on Rorke's drift, when if I remember correctly he expressly forbade aggressive action into British territory to lend credence to his cause of acting in self defense in response to British aggression, on the world stage. However this order was apparently disregarded by one of his general's who saw an easy victory there.
Alasdair Jewitt, I don't think there was a "World Stage", during that time period. Because I don't think the League of Nations was a thing, unless we are basic negotiates to make favorable deal. I could be wrong but I think this was after the Zulu basically wiped out the Khoi, then attacked the Boers over a cow. So wouldn't Zulu be seen as the aggressors instead?
Hydrogen One no there was no league of nations at the time however I was implying other nations my have preferred and independent Zululand and the war and it's lead up where pre Berlin conference. The interest in a conquered Zululand was due the rich national resources and the desire to federate the region following the Canadian model and no doubt the fact that once independent white and black nations are under the yolk of the empire the region will be easier to administer The war itself was from what I recall instigated by the machinations of a British official (can't remember his name sorry) in south Africa without the backing of London.
Here th-cam.com/video/8LMPSxUzQ0U/w-d-xo.html or if it is blocked in your country, use 123movies.la if the site is also blocked, just try changing your dns server in your WiFi settings.
Wrong question. Is the film accurate? or Is the film entertaining? are proper questions. Plenty of people with chips on their shoulder are on witch-hunts looking for racism *anywhere* they can find it.
Zulu has to be one of the least racist films I have ever seen. It had some major issues with how they handled some of the British characters' characters but nothing racist
The film went FAR too light on the zulus, whose brutality and bloodlust were unmatched. If the Zulu existed today they'd be likened to the Hutu in the Rwandan Genocide as their "empire" was one giant tribal genocide machine against surrounding tribes, or in other words another Tuesday in black africa.
I love this film. It is quite a simple story. It just shows men from two different cultures in a shitty situation fighting with skill, courage and honour. The film represents the British but it does not take sides. I don't think it is racist at all.
By the sound of things the filmmakers were trying to create a more romanticised version of what really happened, to make *both* sides look more noble than they really were.
I'm a leftist I'm a socialist (libertarian socialist ) and a Marxist and I love this moive it's great not racists at all it show the Zulus in a great light
Walden 1301 first of all libertarianism has a socialist past i think it was first used by proudhon and even in a modern context he is libertarian in a sense that he supports social freedom
The movie, "Zulu" is not racist. Based on the actual battle at Rorke's Drift, the film shows the uncommon bravery of both the British Troops based at Rorke's Drift and the Zulu Warriors. Even though outnumbered by the Zulu, the British Troops stayed off attack after attack by the Zulus. At the end of the movie, it is shown that both sides had an uncommon respect for each other. Especially expressed by the Zulus as they withdrew and went back home, honoring the British Troops as "fellow warriors."
I agree that Zulu's not a racist film, and I loved the way the film did use real Zulus. I also loved the fact that the produces showed how brave the Zulus were both during the battle of Rourke's Drift, and how the Zulus saluted the British soldiers as fellow braves.
There seems to be so much anger towards SJW’s. They are wrong a lot, and their ideals are misplaced, but I’m glad that the young are so conscious of racial issues, and I’m sure they will mellow out with age, as most simply want inclusiveness in Western Society-they really don’t want to destroy it. I personally enjoyed the film when I saw it in the 80’s, and didn’t think there was anything racist about it at all.
Derrick Thompson I mean the main problem I have with them is that they don't stop to consider the consequences of their actions, and that sometimes things with good intentions can have bad consequences, like not regulating immigration, it might sound noble to allow people from war torn countries find refuge in our countries, but the problem is when you don't think about how you integrate these people into your countries society, because when migrant populations don't Integra into their new countries society it causes violence, from both sides and it creates an impoverished population if they can't find jobs and learn the local language. Whilst I believe it is noble to want to help those in need, we need to assess the realities and weigh the consequences of said acts.
I expect most people protesting agaist this have not seen the film, they just think an old film made about a subject related to British Imperial history must be racist.
Anyone who considers Zulu racist has not watched it, and has no knolwedge of history. The Zulus were a proud and brave people, and this movie shows that. It shows honor, respect, courage, bravery, and dedication by all persons - white and back. Who were the cowards? The Natal Native horsemen who arrived at the Drift, and then fled. The bad guys? An incompetent, arrogant Marshal (defeated at Isandlwhana, and white). So - racist? No. It showed the Zulus for what they were - brave, fit, intelligent warriors defeated only by technology. It showed the British for what they were in the age of Victoria - brave, outnumbered, and well served by NCOs and burdened by foolish senior officers.
The easy answer is no, it's a film set within a racist time period but the film itself is not racist. Its treatment of the Zulu is fair and balanced they are not paper-thin villains hell-bent on murdering people for no real reason they are portrayed as brave and honorable soldiers. These twenty right people need to actually watch the film.
"Is the Film "Zulu" Racist?"
No. Next question.
Is it possible to make hole to go even lower then the marania trench?
No the movie is not racist score another one for the ignorance brigade
"No. Next question."
"Is the film Noah racist?"
"Is racisting to be white?"
"Is it racist to defend yourself when attacked by black people?"
"Is it racist to walk outside?"
"Is it racist to be born?"
@@FirstLast-fr4hb, if you look at the population of the world, whites are a minority, everyone hates us yet the white working class are the only ones who can be accused of being "racist" especially by our own treacherous governments.
I call black people out in their racism all the time.Its interesting it only seems to be black people. Anyone else have a different experience? I've heard stories of white folks doing it down south but I dont live there.
The detachment of Zulus at Roarke's Drift were actually going against the Zulu King';s orders in attacking the Mission.
And it did not turn out good for them doing that
Can you imagine how much a remake of Zulu would suck?
Rob De Graaff they would make the zulus white or North koreans to ensure they dont offend anyone of another race *coughwhitehousedowncougholympushasfallencough*
I'm sort of conflicted about whether or not I actually want to see a remake. I want the remake to mock it but at the same time I feel that it would ruin my favourite film.
kiwizonfire, they can't remake classic films or TV series no matter how hard they try.
Everyone remembers them as they were. "you're only meant to blow the bloody doors off" 😂😂
And the movie would be with females only, because muh diversity, male privilege. Oh, and I forgot, all of them will be black, because muh raysisum.
Rob De Graaff political stuff aside, they'd probably make most of it cgi and stuff ruining it completely
The first thing I remember about the representation of the Zulu Nation in the film is the opening scene. The Narrator (Sir Richard Burton) describes the attack at Isandlwana in a letter to Queen Elizabeth " The Zulus in overwhelming numbers launched a highly disciplined attack..". Such a statement is high praise from a nation whose military reputation is based on "Solid courage and Iron discipline" (Sir Arthur Wellesley re British Infantry). The next scene is of the Missionaries at Cetshwayo’s (Zulu King pronounced "Cash-why- ohh") Royal Kraal and we hear the missionary Otto Witt state that the Zulu "Are a great people" and that European women marry rich men but "perhaps Zulu girls are luckier because they get a brave man" (sorry paraphrasing).
At no point are the Zulu insulted, denigrated or shown in a less than favourable light. British soldiers are shown to be worried about the upcoming battle with one young man actually shaking with fear. This is a human reaction to possible death and would be felt by warriors from any Nation at any time in history because it is perfectly natural and we see it displayed by both sides. In close up action shots most notably when Lt Chard is attacked by two warriors we see fear and hesitation on their face (not cowardice) they are young and inexperienced when Chard kills the first it is easy to feel empathy for the second having seen the same emotions on the faces of young British soldiers. The close shots reveal the Zulu warriors as human counterparts to the British both sides fighting a battle they hope to win, both sides hoping to survive in order to return home again. Historically this is very accurate as the Regiments that attacked Rorke's Drift were held in "Reserve" at Isandlwana having no part in the fighting as they were young inexperienced warriors. Prince Dabulamanzi (Dab-oo-luh-man-zee) kaMapende commanded them and wanted his share of the glory so against Cetshwayo’s orders he led them across the river to attack Rorke's Drift, Inexperience leading youthful inexperience.
The overall presentation of BOTH sides in this battle is that of two highly skilled and professional forces fighting on a lonely battlefield in service to their respective Monarchs, giving all they have to achieve victory and hoping to survive the day.
Being a "History Buff" I have watched dozens of WW2, WW1, Napoleonic and Roman "War Films" and find it a rare thing to see so BALANCED (although not perfect) a presentation of opposing sides in a Genre with a reputation for pandering to audiences.
EXCELLENT VIDEO BTW. R:
Big Banana good post except it's Queen Victoria. oops
Discipline and bravery are the main themes of the film. A zulu harasses the missionary's daughter and is killed, a while later she's harassed by the ill-disciplined soldiers who just laugh. The contrast is intentional.
Facts mean nothing to the easily offended libtards and milenials
Bad Robot OK Boomer.
Racist? The movie shows the Zulu in a positive light. I think it shows the bravery of the Zulu as what kind of person would attack a gun weilding soldier with a shield and spear? How brave one has to be to do that! Also it shows the ingenuity of the Zulu by using the British Weapons against them. HOW IS THAT RACIST?
AwesomePrussia27 gaming most zulu deaths came way of bayonet
@@historygeek7779 What were those bayonets on?
Wyatt & Morgan Co. they were glorified spears lol
Wyatt & Morgan Co. What are you talking about?
Well in my opinion it’s the British are the braver because they are fighting thousands of Zulus
"Don't you realize it's the current year?"
Racist my ass!
I wonder when people will realize they sound like dicks for saying that.
No, I've been hammered as fuck since Dec 31 and avoided all calendars!
Monsieur Z 3 weeks ago (edited) th-cam.com/video/sahAbxq8WPw/w-d-xo.html
Liz Rathburn no they sound like absolute idiots
Zulu is about two armies of warriors respecting each other’s fighting spirit and courage. It’s not exactly how things actually went down but it’s actually less racist than reality
no the film shows both sides fairly and as brave men. if you think that is racist well you live a real sad life.
Agreed! In fact, notice when some of the British soldiers and officers (including Bromhead, played by a young Michael Caine) actually denounced the Zulus as cowardly savages, several of the white soldiers(including those Afrikaners from the Natal regiment, if I'm right) put up a fierce argument defending and demonstrating their bravery and skills. So in my opinion, considering that this was made during the Apartheid era, the movie was no wehre near being racist byt rather, well ahead of its time.
HistoryFan476ad if you don't show black people as heroes and WHITE people as heartless nazi scum, you're automatically racist!!!!
Racist because it shows Africans underdeveloped and how they actually were at that time. Instead of realizing that it wasn't the age of internet and people can learn freely. But are rather stuck to their neck of the woods if not already part of a seafaring nation. Africa may have been that much inferior in tech. It does not take away that with the means they had they achieved a lot.
HistoryFan476ad no film is not racist at all it shows both sides as you said and at the end of the film it shows great respect to the British Soldiers and Zulu
true.
I’m Zulu and I watched the movie skeptical and expected my culture to be portrayed as nothing but barbaric. It turned out to be one of the best movies I’ve ever watched. Very well balanced & very progressive even by today’s standards.
I agree even as a child I thought I don't know which side to support they both have their reasons. I've always wondered what the Zulus sing though? I have to say though war is horrible who wins?
Crazy to think it was during the 60’s too
@@jameshill8493, filmed in South Africa, no less.
You should be proud of your ancestors courage in the battle. Which is exactly how the film portrayed your people.
The only offensive thing in the movie is portraying one of the British soldiers in a very negative light despite him being a model soldier. This actually led to his family walking out of the theatre because they were so upset.
Geralt of Rivia corporal hook was portrayed as idle and a drunk on the film . His family was angry because as you said he was a model soldier and was very brave fighting while wounded and saving many lives of other wounded men . For such he won the vc
What isn't "racist"?
The cultural marxist elite denying our people from honouring our heroes & our dead for the sake of "diversity?" is completely racist.
John Eric Edwards I don’t think you know what Marxism is.
Bookhead714, I did say "cultural" marxists. The capitalist/communist/zionist elite who want to wipe out the white working class because our sense of national pride and achievement doesn't fit in with their sick dystopian view of a one world state.
A world overcrowded with coffee coloured mongrels with no sense of identity.
John Eric Edwards That’s not Marxism. And based on piecing together Urban Dictionary’s numerous highly biased definitions, that’s not what cultural Marxism is either.
No. The British and Zulus did not sing songs of praise at the end of Rorkes drift.
Even though Europeans and Zulus did and do get on better than other tribes, the movie went out of its way to hire real Zulu extras and the great great grandson of Cetshwayo. It shows them in even more positive light.
Inaccurate, but for a reason.
Movies often dramatize events.
I watched Zulu as a kid and it made the Zulus look badass. Intimidating and awesome. Showed them as an effective and tough military force.
They were and known to all other tribes as 'the eaters of men'
Effective? Well... against firearms, the bravest and most skilled soldier with spear, mace and sword will be fallen just the same.
Had they adapted to firearms, they would have been truly excellent.
@@Briselance There were some Zulu riflemen in the war but not enough to make a big impact in the war for the zulus. But imagine if they had the equipment equal to that of the average european army of that time. They would be the prussians of africa.
yes them marching forward spears in hand every step taken with care ready to strike at any moment like a leopod ,truly awesome and terrifying at same time.i of out ran a horse i can tell you if i seen that comming with just a martini henry.both sides had over large balls and had earnt them.
They are hell fighter
I come from South Africa and I have never met a Xhosa or Zulu person who thinks the movie "Zulu" is racist. The ones who had watched it actually enjoyed it because it is an awesome film.
They show Zulu on SABC 3 or 2 at least once every year in South Africa. SABC is state subsidized television.
Jason Creamer oh. Hallo Afrikaanse broeder
i live in south africa and i go to a school where their is a lot of zule or xhosa and more and i am friends with a lot them and they show in grade 4 they teach the history of the racist time of south africa
I'm Zulu, I just don't think one British soldier can kill 4 Zulu warriors of that time without a use of a gun. It happened a lot in that film.
@@cebolenkosimbatha6492 No ways, Zulu warriors were trained in unarmed combat since they were kids while the average British conscript/soldier had next to no unarmed training. They would of been slaughtered without their guns. British movies do the same thing with everyone though, if it was British vs French it would be 10 frenchmen taken out for every one British soldier. Americans also do the same, one American platoon of soldiers taking out 100 taliban soldiers.
@@jasoncreamer5747
Of course they would have been slaughtered without their guns.... they would have been unarmed. Also those guns mounted bayonets, which were pretty nasty if used properly, as by Colour Sergeant Bourne.
The large majority of British casualties were from gunshot wounds. The majority of Zulu mortalities were from bayonets. OK, this has to allow for the coup de grace administered to fallen Zulus, but for many it would have been the main cause of death. The British soldier was not easy meat in hand to hand fighting, even against Zulus.
British troops overrun at Isandlwana were heavily outnumbered and surrounded (spears coming from all sides). In a confined space, head on, the bayonet could hold its own.
Obviously, the average British soldier wasn't going to take out 4 or 5 Zulu, but neither was it going to happen the other way round.
BTW, none of the British soldiers were conscripts..... The British army was a small, professional one until well into WW1. I presume that they had all had bayonet drill, especially due to their role in policing an empire.
Short answer, no, long answer NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
What evidence? The British were classed as great warriors by the zulu chiefs
You ever seen the movie and understood correctly?
I first saw this film on late-night television as a boy growing up in Appalachia, and it had a huge impact on me and my views of the world. The US was going through its Civil Rights conflict (I think the year was 1970), and racism surrounded me like a blanket. Yet I was deeply impressed by the bravery of the Zulu Warriors, and I would go so far as to say it weakened, rather than reinforced the racist messages all around me.
Zulu film makers: Fair wages good, racism bad ok?
South Africa in the 60s: Wait that is illegal.
In summary: those people in Folkestone who complained about a film they clearly never watched, were wrong
When I first watched this film as a kid me and my brother wanted to be zulus . We used to play zulus and redcoats . We were both sad the zulus didn't win in the end . Obviously as a 9 yr old I didn't know history or even know it was based on real events . But it inspired me to read books about zulus and Africa especially . So no I don't think it was racist
Careful what you say my friend - I said on youtube that as a kid all my male school chums wanted to be Shaft and the girls - including me - wanted to be his lady, and got a blistering attack from a POC who called me a 'racist', said I didn't deserve to have friends and accused me of stealing black culture.
If she/he is reading this, I have my own culture, thank you very much.
It's an anti-racist anti-war film
Anti-war? How so?
@@Briselance, considering how the film shows near the end the horrific consequences of war, and how the main characters talk about their shame and disgust for having participated in it, I think it's safe to say the film was anti-war.
@@occam7382
Very good point.
What a shame -- even as a child, without the benefit of social nuances, I still finished this movie feeling massive respect for both sides. I guess people who want to hate will always find something to hate :(
Daily reminder that Zulus weren't the indigenous people of South Africa; they were invaders themselves and actually committed genocide on the native tribes. The only Khoisan people who managed to survive did so with European help and protection.
Just as fine as the Allies were to firebomb the cities of Germany and drop nuclear bombs on Japan. Not saying that either side was right, but war is war. If this film is racist, then so would be one about Shaka Zulu or Genghis Khan. The movie doesn't glorify violence or colonialism, but simply showcases the true heroism and valor of average British soldiers. The people protesting it want to erase the very history of the event because they see all white people as guilty, regardless if they're a bureaucrat in a London office or a common rifleman who traveled across the world to make life better for his people, defending himself against desperate odds from crazed spear-wielding Africans. Hilbert even made a point to say how the film portrays bravery on both sides.
Rough comparison, considering how much the Anglo-Saxons mixed with the Britons, and essentially became the natives by mixing with them. Same thing with Normans later.
And you're obvioulsy avoiding the point. The whole point of Zulus being the invaders is that they are not innocent natives attacked by evil colonizers who want to steal their land, it's that for a large part of SA it was the other way around, the Boers were the first permanent settlers of many areas.
If Natal is Zulu by right of conquest, then half of Africa is rightfully British.
When? Shaka practically established them as a kingdom in ~1820s, as they were only a small tribe before him. The Anglo Zulu war happened around 50 years later. A ridicilous claim. A lot of the land the British took from the Zulus, the Zulus had taken from the Boers a decade or two earlier.
Simple competition for land and resources. One can compare it with the Sioux invading the Plains from Minnesota. Only later to be defeated by the US Cavalry. It was indeed depicted as racist later. But now is handled in a more accurate fashion. I have always found Zulu to be relatively fair when compared to accurate events. And actual Zulus were consulted.
I agree with you. It seems to me that the filmmakers made deliberate attempts to avoid racism
The movie made me think of the Zulu as courageous. Valiant and fierce, nothing else. Nothing but respect for the African warriors!
As always, well thought out. I've always enjoied the film (inaccuracies and all), and I think you've done an excellent job looking at it.
If you, dear reader, haven't seen Zulu, I highly reccomend it.
Quite right, we need more analysises of statements like these because its far too often people blurt "RACIST" without truely knowing anything
Kâzúm Rah another side effect is that it hurts claims of actual racism, making the whole thing counterproductive.
I never liked how it falsified the mutual respect between the Zulus and the British soldiers at the end of the film with the Zulus singing and scampering off. I always didn't like how it didn't portray the fact that the Zulu king specifically didn't want his dudes to attack Rourke's Drift but they were insubordinate and did it anyway - jazzed off their recent and stunning victory. For the time period I think it went out of its way to present race in a way which - for the time - was very progressive.
Fuzzy Dunlop all good points mate yes it was very progressive even by today's standards . Would be better if as you said the dynamics of the Zulu command was explored better . The attack was a tragic mistake that left their homeland open to attack from a larger British force . Was mostly a tragic loss of life of experienced troops that zulus never recovered from .
Rourke's Drift was not a battle fought, on the Zulu side at least, by experienced troops. The Zulu Regiment that fought at Rourke's Drift had been held in reserve at Isandlwanda and as such had seen no fighting there. It consisted of mostly young and inexperienced soldiers, and the Regimental Commander, wanting to grab some of the glory for himself, and also possibly wanting to blood his regiment, attacked Rourke's Drift against orders.
But the Zulu King really didnt want an attack on rorkes drift. Isandlwana could be portrayed as self defense but an attack on a British fortification would act as an “excuse” to the British gov’t.
That’s false, yes the force consisted of reserves, but they all had white paint on their shields, which was a sign of experience.
Not just that but you can argue that the British where at a bit of a disadvantage as well because they only had small arms and was extremely outnumbered by their Zulu opponent
I can’t believe this is an issue. Has the world lost its mind?
Toysintheattic, In many ways 'Yes', Due to Outrage Culture and PC Culture, being in the driver sit .
Yes, and the irony is these kinds of backwards people like these leftists in Kent, are the people spreading far more hatred, racism, and sexism than they think they're remedying.
Asa Hamarrhjarta completely agree with you. They don’t even realise that they are responsible for these modern racial divides. Creating problems from nothing, just for the sake of it
Not really the world, just 28 protesters.
@@depro9078 Probably more than 28 if you think about it.
My great grandfather fought and survived this battle. His uniform was on show at the Imperial War Museum in London for a while. Quality film too!
Your great Grandad was a brave man and so were the adversaries he did battle with that fateful day.
Woo now that’s a fame to claim
Obviously, history is racist if the natives didn't win - it's called political correctness if you're a politician, lunacy or lying if not. Zulu is one of the great anti war films of all time.
Anti-war film? Eh, not quite.
@@Briselance you are entitled to your opinion, ill advised though it may be.
Welcome to America, where this is the entirety of politics! The police still exist? So racist
I'm 6 years late but I love this movie. I don't really see it as an anti war film and not a fan of them, I do understand the realities of war but at the end of the day it is a movie, which entertains people. I enjoyed it thoroughly and because of that I don't really see it as a war film, but the end really makes it look like one, it reminds me of Waterloo. But oh well. Have a great day.
I found out years ago that Color Sergeant Frank Bourne (portrayed by Nigel Green in the film), one of the British soldiers from the actual war of Jan. 22-23 1879, was a direct ancestor of mine, on my father's side.
By the way, the film showed the Zulus on a positive light. Only modern audiences will see it that way. The film was mostly historically accurate.
Interesting character, Frank Bourne. He was one of the youngest CS's in the army at only 25. He was, by all accounts highly rated and had a reputation for being a crack shot. Thanks for sharing.
1:55 'There were very few Welshmen present' - This is not true. Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the battle, 39 were Welsh. That's a significant chunk. The regiment had been based in Brecon since 1873 but was still called the 2nd Warwickshire and became the South Wales Borderers in 1881.
So not many. It was a mostly English regiment.
@@jamestodd1104 The narrator said "very few". 39 out of 122 is not very few. Not for a moment did I suggest it wasn't a mostly English regiment you fucking idiot
@@Ycudyllcoch it’s very few. Sorry. This is an English regiment and an English triumph
@@jamestodd1104 lol get a life mate
@@Ycudyllcoch *gets spectacularly proved wrong*
LoL gEt A lIfE mAtE
*Das Wacist*
Gareth Bassett There actually was a disparaging remark against the Welsh in the movie.
Geralt of Rivia
Which was?
Autism Is Unstoppable no need for that. He was only asking a question
Yeah but hes welsh and im English so its law i have to call him a sheep shagger at-least once.
Uhhhhh, but did you hear the baritone on that Welsh choir? They had the voices of angels
No! It's historically accurate and shows respect between both sides
The guy who played Cetshwayo is named Mangosuthu Buthelezi (Mango-soo-too Boot-eh-lay-zee)
It's racist because it has black characters that are not perfect infallible gods.
And white men are not all evil
How is it racist if it tells the story of an actual event in history?
Stan Webb nah, it's anti Palestinian 😂 iceberg is a Jewish name obviously.
Stan Webb: And the ship was mostly Black :-)
I mean you cn tell it in a racist way but i dont think its the case with Zulu. But most civil war and ww2 movies really whitewash and downplay the conflicts
Having watched "Zulu" many times, I can assure you there is absolutely nothing racist in it.
Today’s remake of Zulu would have racially integrated British troops, despite historical inaccuracy. One of the officers would have to be gay and one of the enlisted men would be a transgendered woman. The mealtime scenes would be “sustainable” foods, recycling, and one man would be very fat to show no baby shaming. There would be a young child who would be a “mathematical genius” and Morgan Freeman would visit from the black warrior tribe and be a perfect gentleman, with beautiful diction. The battle would end in a tie and the sides would sing again, this time together. It would be beautiful - the way the left thinks life should be.
Racially integrated would be a problem. As the largest group of soldiers at Rorke's Drift were actually English, several English people who have commented elsewhere about this film are at pains to insist that there were virtually no Welsh involved in this battle. (In fact about one third of the troops were Welsh). The English still have difficulty at coming to terms with the Welsh who have been their neighbours for the last 1500 years. If they can't even get past that hurdle there would be zero chance in a remake of integrating troops whose ancestors may have come from a bit further afield.
Nationalist, war-like, theatrical maybe, not racist.
Why say Black, not African or Zulu?
Would it change the racial aspect?
Two goats [No pigs] because “Black” is very vague, just like “white,” and ignores the history, as to be expected of hyper-triggered socialist types. These people are obsessed with dividing people into groups. Notice how Hilbert talked about Zulus, Boers, and Brits, not just white people and black people, while the protesters complained about blacks vs. whites.
Fun fact, I first watched Zulu on the anniversary of the Battle of Rourke's Drift. I didn't wake up with the intention to watch it. but I saw that TheBritisher's Channel had a review of it so I thought "might as well watch it first"
Christ, it’s a historical movie - it almost makes you want to go back to the times where times were simpler and we did have to step on eggshells in our all inclusive multicultural society
You mean when the English were slagging off the Irish as there weren't enough people of other national origins in the UK for them to sneer at
Thank you for your job and analysis! I do believe as much as you that such a tag for an important film shouldn't be handed lightly and that the film deserves a fair judgement. I'm glad you gave it as such and I agree with most of you and wish to expand.
One of the things that films also brings emphasis is not only on the bravery and physical capabilities of the Zulu men: It's also careful to remark that the Zulu were truly an organized and disciplined army with stablished tactics. It does take its time in the pre battle to highlight that Chard would have to outwitt the Bull formation if he wanted he and his men to see another day. I honestly believe that was the most brilliant aspect of the film: it managed that every virtue of either part heightened the strengths of the other, and intelligence was not left out. What merit would the battle would've had if the Zulu weren't less than a mighty, strong and brilliant army?
Secondly, about the ending. It's not that I don't agree with your interpretation, truly art is subjective and all interpretations are valid. But I do want to highlight that final line: "I told you, I came here to make a bridge ". I always interpreted it in the sense that, in the call od duty, one is expected to act and decide on matters beyond of our capabilities and knowledge. Having Chard being a member of the Royal Engineers (and myself being next to get my Eng. degree soon) I do believe it's an aspiring thought for all kind of professionals, being civil or military, from all walks of life, to incoporate in our dily lives. Ultimately, I'm convinced that a good piece for art doesn't try to directly shove you their message, but rather allow you to reflect by yourself generate a whole range of conclusions. So, in the end, I thank you for that interpretation of the ending.
I think your comments are spot on, Hilbert. Especially when you compare it to the popular Westerns of the day, Zulu was incredibly even-handed. It's a war film and the Zulus are the antagonists, but they aren't vilified. They're shown as what they were: brave men fighting for their homeland against the British.
Brilliant analysis. Thank you. A small side note is that Chief Ketchwayo had given express orders for the outpost not to be attacked as it was outside Zulu territory (as you mention) and he didnt want to give the British an excuse to launch more attacks. There are also many reports from Zulus saying how proud of the film they were.
The respect shown by the zulú Warriors at the end of the film gives me the chills. Its a great film. One of my favourite war films
The irony is that the film was not racist, but the race based protest was indeed racist.
"28 woke idiots". Fixed that for you Hilbert.
Great video! Thanks for educating me. Will you be at Alnwick Castle this weekend for the Napoleonic Reenactment?
Will it be on TH-cam for me to enjoy?
This is my favorite movie of all time. I'm sick of people saying everything is racist. They are the ones who are racist by attacking white European culture.
And a year later the country fucked m8
You can prove it’s not racist by the fact the man who plays the Zulu king is the Great Grandson of the Zulu king from the real battle. It’s just people being offended on other people’s behalf.
No definitely not as every time a character says something bad about the Zulu another character puts them in the wrong and the movie is also shown from the zulus point of view when they show a marriage ceremony.
One of filmdoms little jewels in the general genre of war, battles and courage under extreme duress. The film would have been marred had it attempted to personalize both Zulu encampment and the British one. One can infer broadly similar emotions among the Zulus, even as the film focused on the smaller British force. The latter made particularization of various British personalities and character traits more natural, and thus humanizing the conflict far beyond the hacking, wacking, spearing, stabbing and shooting events of battles. As I never researched this movie, Hilbert has been very helpful in setting forth the actual facts along side those selected for staging the struggle. Any dramatic license that doesn't severely undercut the film story was and is forgiveable. I agree that the concluding battle denouement lifted the film in a very satisfying way, putting a fine now on this valuable film. Since you can rarely make everyone happy with any finished product, the criticism to which Hilbert alluded largely constitutes an expected pose of virtue and a "nod" to the vanity which engenders such protestations. Well done, sir!
Watching Zulu as a child and again as an adult gave me a lifelong respect for the Zulus and a desire to eventually learn their language.
In the 1970s I was a seaman and had a girlfriend in Capetown, her parents originated from India. We were not allowed to be seen together so when we went out together we had to use back streets to go places.
It was not only the police who would have arrested us but if the blacks had seen us together there would have been local 'justice'.
Maybe someone should track down a real Zulu/Swazi, show them the movie, and ask them if they think it's racist.
EDIT: racist was misspelled.
A Zulu chief acted in the movie and when he got interviewed he defended the movie claiming its not racist
@@someguy8055 Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi (born 27 August 1928) is the person you mention. He is a South African politician and Zulu tribal leader who founded the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) in 1975, 10 years after "Zulu" was released.
Throughout most of the apartheid era, Buthelezi was considered one of the foremost black leaders. He was Minister of Home Affairs of post-apartheid South Africa from 1994 to 2004. He played King Cetshwayo kaMpande (his own maternal great-grandfather) in the film.
I’m Zulu and it’s one of my favourite films of all time. The first time I watched it, I expected amaZulu to be portrayed as barbarians, as they usually do with Native Americans in Westerns. But instead, it was a very well balanced film and very progressive by a long margin for that time in history and even by today’s standards. It’s a classic here in South Africa. Even my kids will watch it.
@@zuluuyasabeka9303 neat!
My great, great, great uncle died at Rorkes Drift Pvt 801 Thomas Cole. The film has not much to do with what occurred. He caught a ricochet through the face while rescuing patients from the hospital building. He was portrayed in the film on his death bed asking "why"
The simple answer is no
Every time a critisism of the zulu is said by a character a counter argument is presented
No, it's not racist
At this rate the film Tora! Tora! Tora! will eventually be labeled as racist, despite the movie showing both perspectives (American and Japanese) of the attack on Pearl Harbor. These SJWs have no limits to their ability to be offended by anything.
In fact, the Japanese scenes in Tora! Tora! Tora! were not only filmed with Japanese actors but also it was directed by a Japanese Director, who, rumor has it, cast a number of individuals in Tora! Tora! Tora! simply because he was looking for funding another project and they were likely to help fund the project. I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest though.
Actually Asians and Asian-Americans are often the ones getting screwed by liberal policies. Look up what’s happening in the NY schools right now.
There is a video on here with Stanley Baker's widow confirming that the Zulu extras were paid in Rand. She also confirms the story that the Zulu extras were shown silent movies (Chaplin, Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton) to show them what movies were all about. Lady Baker mentions that the consequence of that was the hilarious over-acting when the Zulus were 'killed' in the battle scenes.
However, what no one really notices - except for someone below - was the dialogue. When someone says something racist or anti-black, there's another character there to contradict them:
Witt, at the mass wedding in the Royal Kraal - his daughter thought that mass weddings were terrible, and Witt (Jack Hawkins) tells her that in Europe young girls were marrying rich older men all the time, and that these girls were, at least, getting a brave man.
Schiess, in the hospital, arguing with one of the Joneses asks the Welshman how far they could march in a day, and tells him that the Zulus could run that distance and then fight a battle.
Gert Adendorff, the Swiss survivor of Isandlwana, reports to Chard and Bromhead (Michael Caine) of the disaster, and that even the Native Troops had been killed. Bromhead/Caine exclaims "Cowardly blacks!", to which Adendorff forcefully explains that the native troops had died fighting on the British side.
There are likely other instances, but those are the 3 that stuck out in my mind.
Ther video points out that Zulu wounded were bayoneted, and Geneva Conventions etc. OK, there were no POWs taken at Isandlwana. In fact almost all of the dead British were mutilated, and some were tortured before being killed. Go and read up on the 5 Drummer Boys at Isandlwana. At Rorke's Drift, there was no capacity to tend to hundreds of Zulu wounded. Many of them would be in great pain with no hope of survival. The medical staff would likely not speak Bantu, and be unable to commmunicate with them. A coup de grace would be more humane and cause less suffering.
Also... the zulus were imperialists as well and carried out small genocides during the establishment of their kingdom. Its important to keep things in perpective always.
Hilbert I really need to ask, are you Dutch? Because I’ve noticed in many of your South African videos you are pronouncing Afrikaans words or Dutch words fluently. Especially you did made a Dutch version of one of your videos which made me wonder are you Dutch? Or did you take classes for several years?
zulu is one of i’d say a handful of old films which are showing the nonwhite/ indigenous people as worthy opponents instead of showing them as some savage people.
i think that considering when this film was made it was extremely ahead of its time given the political nature in the mid 1900’s.
i love this film because it gives both sides of the story and doesn’t sugarcoat the brutality of this conflict, and doesn’t portray the british as the liberators.
there is no clear good and bad guy,
they are both gray.
I always thought that "Zulu" was one of the greatest historical films ever produced, as not only does it portray the events therein with great accuracy- taking artistic liberties where needed- but it also creates that profound anti-imperialist question and allows one to capture that 'human experience'. Zulu blew me away the first time I watched it, and every other single time I had watched it. The lyrical contrast between the Zulu chants and the patriotic Men of Harlech left me joyful, and the salute as well as the 'butcher's yard' line had me thinking in somber. I completely agree with you, Zulu not only took the proper effort to depict the Zulus as they should be- an honorbound warrior-culture with immense tact and military capability- but discouraged any Imperial apologism. It also embodied the important message which was made plain: do not underestimate or unnecessarily demonise your enemies, they are just as determined and capable as you are. Beyond the movie, I loved the series of "Shaka Zulu", which provided another important look into the Zulu Empire and its history, as well as it's culture. Although, I would not say "Shaka Zulu" is as accurate as "Zulu". Nonetheless, the "Shaka Zulu" programme was wonderful and forwarded many philosophies and questions to Imperialism, warrior-culture, military rule, and mysticism- all of which I considered deeply as a result of watching the programme.
I am brown dude And I am fine with seeing racist films but is Zulu Racist NO!
I don’t think so, it’s just a historical movie, we need to stop judging history from today’s standards.
You can't call something racists if it happened long ago
and again we see the actual fascists coming out to have a wank
He does kind of have a point. Pretty sure every European before 1920 was racist, so how useful of a term is it? Unless I get evidence to the contrary I just assume a pretty nasty level of racism in most historical figures.
They're not criticizing the existence of the film their criticizing its modern showing in a public space which is a completely different debate.
C Marshall oh I'm not offended and the film is a personal favourite, I'm just correcting the guy above me's misunderstanding of these people's problem with the event taking place.
What exactly would be wrong about showing this movie in a modern public space=
In my opinion, this movie is not racist. Every derogatory comment made about the Zulu's is met with a rebuke. When Adendorff and Bromhead are discussing the column's defeat, they have the following exchange:
Bromhead- "That's damned impossible, eight hundred men?"
Adendorff- "Twelve hundred. There were four hundred native levies also."
Bromhead- "Damn the levies man they're more cowardly blacks."
Adendorff- "What the Hell do you mean cowardly blacks, they died on your side didn't they? And who do you think is coming to wipe out your little command, the grenadier guards!?"
The movie treats both sides with the same level of respect, not favouring any race. Also, according to the information here- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_(1964_film) There were no such Apartheid laws preventing the native actors being paid.
the fact that the henry martini rifles have lebel bayonets hurts me deeply lol
natureman494, Did they not have bayonets?
no they did but the bayonets they have in this video belong to a french rifle that wasn't produced until practically 15 years later. im just a stickler lol.
Its good to have stickers they can point out details others miss.
Some of the rifles are also a later model than the one used in the 1879 Anglo-Zulu war.
On a side note, my favorite line
British officer: you don;t mind our help do you?
Boer: its not your help that we mind. It is what you'll want for it after.
These protesters are those who know historicly nothing about that war and that time. Good review sir, keep up the great work.
The only major inaccuracy I can think of is the Zulu king ordering the attack on Rorke's drift, when if I remember correctly he expressly forbade aggressive action into British territory to lend credence to his cause of acting in self defense in response to British aggression, on the world stage. However this order was apparently disregarded by one of his general's who saw an easy victory there.
Alasdair Jewitt, I don't think there was a "World Stage", during that time period. Because I don't think the League of Nations was a thing, unless we are basic negotiates to make favorable deal. I could be wrong but I think this was after the Zulu basically wiped out the Khoi, then attacked the Boers over a cow. So wouldn't Zulu be seen as the aggressors instead?
Hydrogen One no there was no league of nations at the time however I was implying other nations my have preferred and independent Zululand and the war and it's lead up where pre Berlin conference. The interest in a conquered Zululand was due the rich national resources and the desire to federate the region following the Canadian model and no doubt the fact that once independent white and black nations are under the yolk of the empire the region will be easier to administer The war itself was from what I recall instigated by the machinations of a British official (can't remember his name sorry) in south Africa without the backing of London.
FYI: The League of Nations was an outgrowth of World War One that actually failed in its mission to end future wars, such as World War Two.
"Dabulamanzi kaMpande, give me back my legions!"
Alasdair Jewitt, Thank you for clarifying.
Where can I rent/buy this movie online? Cannot find it anywhere?
Here th-cam.com/video/8LMPSxUzQ0U/w-d-xo.html or if it is blocked in your country, use 123movies.la if the site is also blocked, just try changing your dns server in your WiFi settings.
great video and a great film
Bottom line is, if you’re a racist, you think Zulu is racist. If you’re a normal human being, you think it’s a great movie.
People who bang on about racism are inherently racist ☆ lock them up in Lalaland, along with cyclists who invade pedestrian zones.
And people who walk on the cycle track
Wrong question. Is the film accurate? or Is the film entertaining? are proper questions. Plenty of people with chips on their shoulder are on witch-hunts looking for racism *anywhere* they can find it.
Where is the poll?
Zulu has to be one of the least racist films I have ever seen.
It had some major issues with how they handled some of the British characters' characters but nothing racist
The film went FAR too light on the zulus, whose brutality and bloodlust were unmatched. If the Zulu existed today they'd be likened to the Hutu in the Rwandan Genocide as their "empire" was one giant tribal genocide machine against surrounding tribes, or in other words another Tuesday in black africa.
That is also true - the movie was about one battle, not one people.
I’m black and watched this movie a couple days ago. Loved it - it’s not racist at all
When were the good people of Folkestone ever consulted or even consented to their community being "changing and richly diverse"?
I love this film. It is quite a simple story. It just shows men from two different cultures in a shitty situation fighting with skill, courage and honour. The film represents the British but it does not take sides. I don't think it is racist at all.
these was the o.g morally ambiguous war film, it blew my mind as a kid... i had to ask my dad "so wait, who are the bad guys?" and he just said "war"
By the sound of things the filmmakers were trying to create a more romanticised version of what really happened, to make *both* sides look more noble than they really were.
I'm a leftist I'm a socialist (libertarian socialist ) and a Marxist and I love this moive it's great not racists at all it show the Zulus in a great light
Taylor Cooper socialism and libertarianism are fundamentally different
Walden 1301 look up libertarian socialist on Google . in Europe libertarian is a leftist thing
Walden 1301 first of all libertarianism has a socialist past i think it was first used by proudhon and even in a modern context he is libertarian in a sense that he supports social freedom
Huh? Is a libertarian socialist just a non authoritarian socialist? I'm actually curious how this works.
Anyone of any political bent can and should enjoy this film. It is one of the best war movies ever made.
The movie, "Zulu" is not racist. Based on the actual battle at Rorke's Drift, the film shows the uncommon bravery of both the British Troops based at Rorke's Drift and the Zulu Warriors. Even though outnumbered by the Zulu, the British Troops stayed off attack after attack by the Zulus. At the end of the movie, it is shown that both sides had an uncommon respect for each other. Especially expressed by the Zulus as they withdrew and went back home, honoring the British Troops as "fellow warriors."
Short answer... no!
I agree that Zulu's not a racist film, and I loved the way the film did use real Zulus. I also loved the fact that the produces showed how brave the Zulus were both during the battle of Rourke's Drift, and how the Zulus saluted the British soldiers as fellow braves.
Not racist
Historically accurate
Will people stop calling everything racist when it isn’t?
98% Of People Say It's Not Racist, 1% Say It Is... That's Only 99%...
NO
This movie had every opportunity to be racist and didn't
There seems to be so much anger towards SJW’s. They are wrong a lot, and their ideals are misplaced, but I’m glad that the young are so conscious of racial issues, and I’m sure they will mellow out with age, as most simply want inclusiveness in Western Society-they really don’t want to destroy it. I personally enjoyed the film when I saw it in the 80’s, and didn’t think there was anything racist about it at all.
Derrick Thompson
I mean the main problem I have with them is that they don't stop to consider the consequences of their actions, and that sometimes things with good intentions can have bad consequences, like not regulating immigration, it might sound noble to allow people from war torn countries find refuge in our countries, but the problem is when you don't think about how you integrate these people into your countries society, because when migrant populations don't Integra into their new countries society it causes violence, from both sides and it creates an impoverished population if they can't find jobs and learn the local language.
Whilst I believe it is noble to want to help those in need, we need to assess the realities and weigh the consequences of said acts.
I expect most people protesting agaist this have not seen the film, they just think an old film made about a subject related to British Imperial history must be racist.
Also the 20 dislikers are SJWs
Why?
So they're all unattractive nerds hey????
Anyone who considers Zulu racist has not watched it, and has no knolwedge of history. The Zulus were a proud and brave people, and this movie shows that. It shows honor, respect, courage, bravery, and dedication by all persons - white and back. Who were the cowards? The Natal Native horsemen who arrived at the Drift, and then fled. The bad guys? An incompetent, arrogant Marshal (defeated at Isandlwhana, and white). So - racist? No. It showed the Zulus for what they were - brave, fit, intelligent warriors defeated only by technology. It showed the British for what they were in the age of Victoria - brave, outnumbered, and well served by NCOs and burdened by foolish senior officers.
Guys its 2019 almost anything is OFFENSIVE
The easy answer is no, it's a film set within a racist time period but the film itself is not racist. Its treatment of the Zulu is fair and balanced they are not paper-thin villains hell-bent on murdering people for no real reason they are portrayed as brave and honorable soldiers. These twenty right people need to actually watch the film.
Hilbert is slowly getting redpilled. This is hilarious.