rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Zulu film

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:55 pm

,
What have i started Forum ???? , Rich can i say i am not looking for a PERFECT film regarding Zulu , i never have . All i am asking is for a more accurate PORTRAYAL as i think i said earlier in this topic . Back in 1964 the film in question was a fantastic piece of entertainment and still is , i have watched it well over 100 times in my life and still get a buzz, ( depending on what version / production we see ). I never watch it on ITV because of the breaks etc . Unless someone threatens me verbally or by any other means Sheldon i take no offence at all about comments levelled against me on this forum .

Back in 1964 the knowledge of things c 1879 was at best scarce , not so the case today in films or knowledge . The remake of the Alamo i reckon is good but as good as the 1960 version ? , not for me to say . Surely film makers can make us as near to 100 % " happy " with a remake of events on Jan 22 nd 1879 , NOT PERFECTION Rich but closer to the actual happening( s ) as is viable on film , did they not do this on the remake of the Alamo ? .

Having the men in torn and dirty uniforms , correct rank insignia and where feasible actors looking at least something akin to the man portrayed is not to much to ask is it ? . In Zulu the portrayal ( as i see it ) of JAMES LANGLEY DALTON borders on the criminal as i see it ! , that lovely piroette when he gets shot is something else ! .

We have many folk in 2007 able to strike a balance in any remake of Zulu or Zulu Dawn, they made a very good effort with the Alamo , why not " our " film as well ? . Nit picking it is called in some eyes but a taste for accuracy in others , unless we get a TALIBAN Prime Minister we still be able to go to the cinema and watch tv .

I have stirred the bee- hive with a large stick it seems but i was never labelled faint - hearted in my life . The challenge has been mooted at , over to you Holly or even Bollywood and lets see if you can make a film of the events of Jan 22nd 1879 which will keep us all happy , over to you Sheldon & Mike , " Sapper " Mr. Green

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:09 pm

Very good Sapper...I think I see your point. But may I say this? You say you want an "accurate portrayal". Well, there are a bunch of versions of the "Four Feathers" by various directors and writers. Really, the story is the same right but the "portrayals" are different. Last fellow who did it I believe was an Indian, right? I'd say he had an approach to the film which was decidely "Indian" which reflects his background. I just think we can go on and argue this accuracy business until doomsday. Films aren't made in a vacuum. They are made by people with visions and opinions guiding their approach to the material. Nothing wrong with that but it essentially asks the question is any film an "accurate" portrayal of the events it is presenting?

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:18 am

A couple of basic points - first nobody has ever filmed A E W Mason's book the Four Feathers. Korda made a film he wanted to make and the others have made versions of his film, not of Mason's book. All they have done is steal his title, the names of his characters and his central premise about feathers and cowardice. If the plot of the novel was a piece of history, then it would not have been told at all. Just like Zulu does not tell the story of the Defence of Rorke's Drift.

Let's imagine....

So, we are going to make a historical epic. Let's make a few choices. Take costume. We are going to have some British soldiers. They will need uniforms - we now have a choice. For the same price we can turn out our extras in a historically accurate uniform, or alternatively, a historically inaccurate uniform. Choose Rich. Which will you have choice a. or choice b.

Alright let's make an Alamo film. There is a mission (still preserved down there in San Antonio de Bexar) which we'll have to have. And we know there is a big walled compound. This will be an expensive set. We'll have to copy the mission - but while we are down there having a quick look and taking a few happy snap some know-all we are talking to lets slip that the facade was different in 1836 - no pointy bit at the top apparently. OK Rich what shall we do? Make a set with a pointy facade or a historically accurate one without a pointy bit (which by the way will actually be easier and cheaper?) Again a. or b. You decide?

OK. Let's go to South Africa and make a film about a load of blokes winning the VC. This is real history and these are real national heroes. Time for another choice.

a. Say to your people, 'Before we go out there to SA get out and about and find out as much as you can about these men. I want to see photos of them. I want to know what they got the VC for. Why were these guys singled out? What made them special? Tell me more. We've got a duty to these guys and to the history of which they are a part. I don't want to tear the proverbial out of this, but I don't want to be shallow or superficial or comprehensively wrong.

b. Say instead - not to worry, we've got this magazine article. That'll do. That's gives us their names and jobs - nobody's any the wiser. We can make the rest up as we go. Right. Let's get filming. What about that Bromhead feller - what did he get the VC for - well it doesn't really say in the article Cy - hell not to worry - Michael get up there on the roof - really go for it up there - shoot at anything that moves and see if you can't work a nice forward roll into your routine.

Which one Rich? Of course if it were 1964 then option a. would be seen as a bit eccentric by your luvvy cinema pals, whereas if it were 2007, you could never get away with option b. As ever context is everything. More on the real naughtiness of Zulu in the native-bashing context later.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:14 pm

Mike

There's a great deal of sense in what you say, but could there be such a thing as 'acceptable accuracy', meaning accurate to a certain degree that would please historians, as well as audiences ?

It's a difficult question, I know.

Say, for instance, most of the previous inaccurate details are addressed, would it be considered 'okay', to also add aspects ?

For example, even though I'm an enthusiast, the books and details I know of Isandlwana, means that I couldn't deny knowledge of what happened, who people were, what they wore, weapons used, etc., as the information, in fact the whole event is available to hand.

However, the possibility of adding, for instance, new characters, perhaps different weaponry, around at the time, but may not actually have been present during the battle, would they be annoyingly jarring to the eye ?

The introduction of a reporter, an adventurer, or several individuals, perhaps also weapons available around about the time of the AZW, other additional scenes, not detracting too much from the real historical facts.

In short, is it possible to add more, as well as the subject being discussed of what is missing too ?

Coll

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:43 pm

Coll

O yes - I am very much in favour of a middle way - of course a writer could and should add in their own fictional characters (as Bernard Conwall does to the story of the Peninsular War for example in the Sharpe books). So, for example, an Isandlwana screenplay with fictitious black troopers of the NNMC in the cast would be perfectly acceptable. What I am taking exception to is when people go out of their way to misrepresent something which is a historic given (the good character of Pte Hook being a ready example).

Hence my point about costume - you have to have costumes - so why would you spend money on manufacturing inaccurate ones as opposed to accurate ones. It can only come about through sloppiness, casual disregard for history, ignorance, inattention to detail, failure to consult the experts; such things are unprofessional in any walk of life. I think filmakers strive to avoid such howlers these days in a way that they didn't really care about in the 1960s.

Take something like the gunfight at the OK Corral - in the 60s you have Burt (your hero of course) and good ole Kirk (as Doc) chasing the baddies around a corral, of several acres, for what seems like ages. But nobody would dream of portraying it like that now - I can think of three recent productions where the actor Earps have been made to look like the real life Earps - long moustaches, black coats etc, and the gunfight is reduced to the minute and a half it really lasted, inside the confines of the tiny space that was the real OK Corral. This serves to preserve bona fide history in the national psyche - score one up to the popular arts for once.

I don't quite know what anybody is arguing about - unless Shedon is not very familiar with the real Defence of RD and is genuinely unable to tell quite how wide of the mark Zulu really is. [I'm coming back to this later as promised]. What I'm arguing is that we have so much more history of 1879 freely available in 2007, than we did in 1964 that the movie of that year is now a smouldering ruin, 43 years out of date. So much so that its only merit now is as a movie of a certain vintage. Just as we now scoff at 'They Died with their Boots On', so they'll scoff one day at Zulu. But there has to be a comptetent remake first. The sooner the better.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:56 am

,
As i see it Forum there is a case for a MORE ACCURATE version of events of Jan 22nd 1879 be it of the events at Isandlwana / Rorke's drift or mayhaps BOTH ! . Many valid points have been raised about this item and one thing is obvious , the remakes go someway to getting the facts more presented on film than perhaps the original ( s ) did . The trick as i see it is to differ between documentary which by it`s very name points towards FULL ACCURACY and as film where the desires of the film makers " adjust " the facts to make cinematic presentations . We now have the FOUR FEATHERS coming into debate . I am not overtly familiar with this to be honest but there has been a remake , is this closer to the story than the orginal ? .

Take " Breaker Morant " No 4 on my list of best films , as far as i am aware accuracy in that film did not spoil the story but rather enhanced it as i see it , many fine perfomances were acted as i recall , what about the series / film " Anzacs " , was that accurate ? . If it was did it mar a good portrayal of events in Gallipoli ? .

" Zulu " albeit fine is getting a bit aged and at most anniversaries of Jan 22nd 1879 there is something going on either in the UK or in South Africa so why not a modern version of " Zulu " closer to what actually happened with of course cedence to the film maker if he were to make this film today

We don`t have to be right on the button about EVERYTHING but i am sure some anorak ( like me ! ) would glean through each frame to find inaccuracies and comment on them . You will have to go very far to better the 1964 production but if Italy now runs the England football team then anything is possible i guess ! .

I wonder how the descendants of men who fought in the Zulu War would feel about a more accurate but still exciting version of Zulu or Zulu Dawn ? . I know as an interested party i would love to see a remake which would not only keep Sheldon or Mike happy but as many others as well , can we see Driver Robson RE at least please Mr Filmaker and perhaps " Ammunition Smith ? , after all they were at the trading post that day were they not ? . " Sapper " Mr. Green

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:53 am

Of course another danger is that while the 1964 version of Zulu was a reflection of views and circumstances at that time, any remake would fail into the same trap. With majority rule in South Africa being a mere 13 years old, there may be a tendency to go the PC route and affect what you would do in 'the cold light of day'.

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:46 pm

Sky Classics tonight at 9 - Zulu followed by Gunfight at OK Corral - how spooky is that?!

M

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:15 pm

Despite Mike's protestations, filmmaking is rarely a matter of simply choosing between two black and white options. Let's take his example: the costumes in "Zulu". Many films made on limited budgets (as it was, back in 1963) don't in fact make all their costumes from scratch: they hire existing ones from costume houses like Bermans and adapt them to fit. So if the uniforms aren't quite right, blame it partly on faulty research but also on the need to keep costs low!

As for the 'story' itself, Endfield and Baker did not decide to make a film about Rorke's Drift and then choose the first magazine article they came across as their source of reference. Never having previously been aware of the battle (as many, if not most, people weren't before the film itself made it better known) they came by chance across an article which told a story they thought would make a good film. So the writer, John Prebble, was commissioned to adapt his article into a screenplay. The research he had done for it was adequate for the scale of the article (7000 words). Aside from confirming certain elusive details like the identity of the eleventh VC holder (Dalton - a detail which was not mentioned in the mostly primary and contemporary [19th century] sources that Prebble had initially consulted), further research was deemed less important than dramatisation, as Endfield and Baker wanted a movie, not a museum exhibit. At which point, the writer's (and director's) creative license kicked in and they embarked on that third, 'middle' way - sticking to the basic outlines of the battle while freely inventing and embellishing the details (eg, creating some new character names while inventing characterisations, actions and dialogue for the the historical figures).

All creative artists do this when dramatising history: there is no photographic or documentary record of what each defender said and did in every moment of that 12-hour battle, so the filmmakers had to invent these things! They did so not with a history book in front of them but with a movie screen in mind - and if in this case the film distorted the public's idea of the event being represented, without it most of them would not have known about the battle at all, this website would not exist, and we would not be having this (very stimulating) discussion! As for myself, I've read enough histories of the battle to have a fair idea of what the film invented and what it retained; you can check out what I've read from the bibliography in my book, and if you look further on you will see the sources that Prebble consulted while writing his article in 1957-8.

I'm intrigued, though, that Mike is so keen to criticise adaptors of Mason's "The Four Feathers" and to make the point that "If the plot of the novel was a piece of history, then it would not have been told at all." But of course the novel, like its various adaptations (beginning in 1929 and followed by at least four others, Korda's being the second version), is not history but historical fiction, which embellishes historical settings and incidents with fictional characters and a fictional plot - not unlike "Zulu"! And if there is a theoretical discussion to be had about whether it is ever possible to produce an 'accurate' representation of history (eg, whether sticking to the facts alone is even feasible, let alone advisable), it is equally important to have a debate about whether it is ever possible to 'film a book', films and books being such totally dissimilar artworks. One is a story told in words, the other in images and sounds; they can't be made to match up even if filmmakers took the book as a script.

One thing is certain, however: whether they are adapting novels or historical events, filmmakers - like novelists and playwrights and painters - follow their creative instincts, not the book of instructions. They invent, imagine, rework, create, embroider, embellish, etc, etc. If they are to remain artists, not curators, they could not do otherwise.

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:16 pm

,
While i would not deem to differ in opinion with Sheldon regarding the mechanics of film making we must remember that the film was made in the 1960`s with all it`s limitations both financial and others , no matter what costumes , tunics , weapons are portayed , " anoraks " like myself will shoot ANY film full of holes if seen . We are looking at a HYPOTHETICAL film made in 2008 and the restrictions and protocols of 1964 don`t apply today . There is more money available , better costumes , greater knowledge , different political climates and a host of others that i could mention but i am sure the astute amongst us will think of many more . No -one can be held to task by making comparisons , after all is that not what debate is all about ? , a divergence of opinion could result in a far better production of Zulu & Zulu Dawn if made today under present conditions be what they may . It is said that Citizen Kane is the best film made in some quarters , The Shawshank Redemption another and so on .

Yes Sheldon , nothing is BLACK and WHITE anymore but many shades inbetween . I am sure there is scope for an updated and as close to what did happen film in the wings . We have the people, the knowledge and inclination i think so those who are in the frame so to speak , pull those strings and lets see another ( updated ) version of THE FILM , " Sapper " Mr. Green

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:33 pm

PS Mike, when you get round to answering my question about which IMPORTANT facts "Zulu" gets wrong, could you check out John Prebble's original article, as reprinted in my book, and let me know your opinion on its historical veracity as compared to the film itself? Thanks!

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:40 pm

PPS If all film versions of the gunfight at the OK Corral - of which there are many, including the 1957 one of that title and my all-time favourite Western, John Ford's "My Darling Clementine" (1946) - stuck closely to the historical facts of the incident, how quickly would we get bored with seeing the same action restaged in exactly the same way time after time? The attraction of watching different versions is partly to see what new twist, inflection or interpretation each successive film manages to work on the stock situation. Even the more 'accurate' recent versions differ in significant respects, and aren't necessarily to be preferred to earlier, more freely imaginative ones like Ford's. Oh, let's be blunt: "Tombstone" (1993) isn't a patch on MDC and anyone who disagrees is blind to the art of the cinema!!

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:19 pm

'Tombstone' and 'Wyatt Earp', I consider to be very good films, historically and film-wise. I've also seen the other versions.

Val Kilmer and Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday were great, especially the former, as I do recall reading that Doc whistled a tune on the way to the gunfight, which Kilmer copies.

What I found, was with both of the recent versions appearing almost at the same time, although not unique, in the fact they covered the same event, they did create a vision in my mind (more a pipe dream, which I mentioned ages ago) the chance of two AZW-related films being released almost at the same time, whether both about the same battle, Rorke's Drift or Isandlwana, or each covering one of these specifically. One - Isandlwana. Other - Rorke's Drift.

What debates we could have then ! Very Happy

I don't consider myself blind to the art of cinema. I know what I like, that's all.

As I said previously, "People expect things." now, and I'd have to say, as an amateur screenwriter hoping to do right - "Ain't it so." Wink

Coll

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 pm

Sheldon,

I echo Coll's comments, I do not consider myself blind to the art of cinema either. However, I can only deduce from your comments regarding John Ford's My Darling Clementine that you are blind to historical facts! You state that it '...stuck closely to the historical facts of the incident...' Where?

Victor Mature's Doc expires in the film as a consequence of the gunfight, rather than without his boots on six years later from tuberculosis.

Walter Brennan's character of Old Man Clanton played no part in the gunfight 26th October 1881, as in reality he had died in the August of that year.

Tim Holt's Virgil Earp is killed; whereas Virgil Earp survived the ambush that was set for him and finally died in 1905.

I could go on but I don't wish to bore you with the composition of the Clanton Gang on the day in question.

For the realism and for not straying too far from the historical facts Tombstone would rate as my first option. Wyatt Earp comes in equal second place with The Hour of the Gun. Next in my list would come The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and My Darling Clementine would bring up the rear. But that's my opinion.

For what it is worth my favourite western is another of John Ford's The Searchers.

John Y.

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:29 am

One of the things that has always drawn me back to Victorian era literature is the sense of melodrama almost always imparted in published period works. As the era also saw the beginning of 'mass market' literary and theatrical presentations I wonder if we can credit it with the early development of what led to 'life imitating art'. As much as we decry the lack of historical accuracy in military subject film, one tends to forget that the roots of that inaccuracy are also reflected in the works of de Neuville, Lady Butler et. al., going back as far as cave painting perhaps. The path of most successful artists and craftsmen in any medium has always been to give the public what it wants, not what one thinks it wants, by adapting one's vision accordingly. There have of course always been those relatively few whose vision proved sufficiently compelling to force a modification of what the public likes. However the 'bread-basket' public has never shown any particular interest in historical accuracy, 'a ripping good yarn' is all they ask in return for their coin.

Let's face it, no one in their right mind is going to drop a cool hundred mill to produce a film with the historic accuracy we few would like to see as the expense involved in research and reproduction would never even be noticed by the public at large, would not advance the story-line one iota and thus would offer no return on the investment required. Besides that, what's the last successful film you've seen without a love interest? (All that springs readily to my mind is the decades-old "Lawrence of Arabia", which didn't even include a single scene with a woman in it, as far as I recall.) [One could of course work in Miss Colenso and Col. Durnford or perhaps the wives carried on the strength and present in PMB, but how to accurately portray that?]

Now in a few years when the price of producing good CGI comes down to the home computer level we can each make our own films by incorporating this forum, Google Earth, Photo Shop, and the 'CGI DNA' of any actors we please!

[Then again satellite photos would be of limited use due to the natural erosion which has since occurred, so even we couldn't portray the battle accurately!]

MAB