rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Zulu film - Colour Sgt Bourne's medals
AlanTB


Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Staffordshire
Reply with quote
Does anyone know what the two medals Clr Sgt Bourne is wearing throughout the film? I'm guessing that the second one is the Ashantee Medal of 1874, but what is the first? Any suggestions?
Alan

_________________
Alan Busby
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Alan

He (the real Bourne) was only 24 in Jan 1879 so if it was the Ashanti medal which Nigel Greene was wearing, it was just for a bit of fun, as Bourne himself first went overseas only in 1878. I think there is a note somewhere on the site or (much) earlier on the forum as to what the medals Greene wore were.

I seem to recall that whoever's job it was to organise some gongs for Greene, they just got hold of whatever looked faintly military, one of them being from well after 1879 if I recall correctly, but someone else will know for certain. I'm pretty sure they were no more accurate than the proverbial milk-bottle tops! Sheldon will know ...

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
Peter,
I don't, but you're probably right! Like the uniforms and weapons, the medals used in the film were generic rather than designed to catch the eye of the specialised observer. All part of creative license - if Bourne was going to be shown as twice his real age, why bother to get the gongs right?!
Sheldon
View user's profileSend private message
Jeff Dickinson


Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 38
Location: Baltimore, United states
Reply with quote
The first medal is the 1897 Army Temperance Medal, India. The face showing two female figures one sitting the other standing with a pitcher. They are framing a Palm like tree in center. The reverse reads Watch and be Sober Army Temperance Association 1897. The ribbon is not from that medal though. The second as you said is the Ashantee 1874. Hope this helps, Jeff
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
The Scorer


Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 338
Location: Newport
Reply with quote
This is a point that has always intrigued me ... would C/Sgt Bourne and the others at RD have been wearing the medals themselves during the battle?

I know that during the Napoleonic Wars it was a Naval tradition that the Captains and Admirals on board ship wore their brightest and most gaudy uniforms - which is why many of them became targets and were shot - but is the same true for the army?

Question Very Happy
View user's profileSend private message
Medals .
Sapper Mason


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 333
Location: ANGLESEY
Reply with quote
Very Happy,
Alan , wearing medals on Jan 22 1879 at Rorke's drift was only " on " in the film , it just would not have happened of course and look at the dates of these medals as well ! . Enough anoraks out there have picked up on this over the years ! . Just look at his rank , he is shown as a L / Sgt for one thing with a pristine uniform and tunic , and a Shako plate on his helmet , no sign of the brass 24 th on his shoulders ........ need i go on ? . If they ever remake " Zulu " i hope they pay more attention to fact & detail , and please film - makers , FRED HITCH was shot in the shoulder and not in the leg , Cpl Allan was a small ( in stature ) man and so on , thanks , " Sapper " Wink
View user's profileSend private message
The Scorer


Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 338
Location: Newport
Reply with quote
Thank you; that's another question answered!

Very Happy
View user's profileSend private message
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
Sapper,
With all due respect, what (historical) difference does it make whether Allan was tall or short, dark or fair, thin or fat, etc? It's hardly material to the role he played in the battle (unless the Zulus can be shown to have had a particular interest in attacking, say, short, stout, blond-haired men from the North East...).
Similarly, the location of Hitch's wound is not exactly a major issue for either historians or filmmakers: of all the first-hand eyewitness accounts of the battle I've read, only one thought to mention where Hitch was wounded - Hitch's own. There is a difference between important facts and unimportant facts, you know!
Sheldon
View user's profileSend private message
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
'Zulu' has been discussed at great length, many aspects dealing with accuracy, and how it would be nice to get a new film with these areas given a bit more attention-to-detail.

Nothing will take away what 'Zulu' is to all of us.

However, as 'Zulu Dawn' would be the prime example of a huge amount of inaccuracies, so much so, that several (excluding myself) don't rate it very highly.

I'm afraid such aspects do need to be addressed more in any newly-considered film(s) of one or both of these battles.

Much is known now of just about everything concerning the AZW, down to the smallest item, that it wouldn't be right not to correct them, with the information now being at hand.

Look at the recent (disastrous) drama/documentary series where Rorke's Drift was presented extremely poorly, to a point of outrage.

If, hopefully, these engagements are going to be made again for the big screen, it would only be right to give it the best shot and show them in their true form - the participants and attention-to-detail.

Another chance may never arise.

Too many inaccuracies (including those considered unimportant) can affect the film's credibility as the portrayal of an actual historical event.

Coll
Pardon ???
Sapper Mason


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 333
Location: ANGLESEY
Reply with quote
Rolling Eyes ,
Dear Sheldon , when a film or documentary is made regarding historical facts i think the least we can expect is ACCURACY ! . Why not show HITCH with his leg blown off , Cpl Allan with a green beard and so on . I don`t know if the Zulu have a particular " thing " against Geordies be they short and fat or tall and thin . ZULU is so full of errors i am sure this forum finds new ones every week Sheldon . Yes HITCH was wounded but hang on , was it not in the shoulder as opposed to the leg ? . Each time we see the HISTORY CHANNEL on TV i hope the programmes show ACCURATE portrayals of events rather than ficticious ones .

Stanley Baker played the role of a Royal Engineer but did he personally go to Brecon for research ? , they chose " MEN OF HARLECH " to sing rather than " The Warwickshire Lad " , the list is endless Sheldon . If they ever make ZULU again lets hope it is a tad more accurate in presentation , who knows we might see Driver Robson RE as Chards batman in the re-make and then the man who plays Chard could tell Bromhead , " I`ll get my man to clean your kit " , at least it would be more accurate , " Sapper " Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
View user's profileSend private message
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
Yes, I KNOW there are a lot of inaccuracies, but you're missing my point: they are almost all very MINOR inaccuracies, which would only concern sticklers for minute detail (like yourself!) who collect facts as if they were stamps. If Chard didn't think it worth mentioning where Hitch was wounded, why should it concern dramatists whose job is not that of a museum curator?!

History Channel-type documentaries are one thing; drama is quite another. Almost any historical film you care to name will be full of such minor errors because filmmakers have larger issues in mind than memorialising every last tunic button. So, I might add, do historians, who try to distinguish between issues of greater or lesser importance. The In the Great Scheme of Things, none of what you mention really MATTERS!
View user's profileSend private message
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
I think that few would deny Zulu is a great film. The very fact that it embellished the story to create a magnificent piece of theatre contributed to its immortality.

The dawn attack - as blatant a mistruth as you could wish to find - provides a powerful climax. Had it stuck religiously to the truth, it would have been all the poorer.

I'm writing this off the cuff without checking Sheldon's opus, but I don't think Baker and co ever claimed the film was "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Let us celebrate the film for what it is, for we would all be the poorer without it.

Peter
View user's profileSend private message
GlennWade


Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 151
Location: Swansea
Reply with quote
'Hollywood tells stories, not History' I believe is the old mantra.

Glenn

_________________
Tell it in England those that pass us by, Here, faithful to their charge, her soldiers lie.
View user's profileSend private message
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Hmm

Slightly perverse thinking perhaps. In fact in the 'great scheme of things', it is films which don't matter - not a jot.

I think the point is this. That Zulu could not be made like that now - the awareness of the real history is now simply too widspread. It would be ripped apart. In 1964 (a very long time ago) it was a different matter. I grew up on this thing and loved it and no doubt, in my childish way, regarded it as gospel. But now, as a much more mature gentleman, able to form opinions of my own, I think it is like it is because, at the end of the day, it is just a badly researched film. Most of them are.

I watched the John Lee Hancock (I think he's called) version of the Alamo the other day. It got slated by film critics but actually is a really worthwhile attempt to tell the real story of the Alamo (and the big personalities involved) accurately. It bears no resemblance to the Wayne version (also slated by critics) which is broadly contemporaneous with Zulu. Perhaps the most notable bit of charlatanism (there is tons of it) in the Wayne version is to portray the final attack as occuring in broad daylight with bugles, drums and trumpets to herald the assault. In fact the Mexican came silently out of the pre-dawn and the battle was substantially fought in the dark. At least Hancock puts this across, though perhaps with rather too many thatched roofs on fire for the obvious movie-making reason - oh and I fancy, some historically dubious illuminating rockets - though of course I am not an expert on mexican military capability in the 1830s!!

There is not a single moment in the Wayne film that could bring a tear to the eye or otherwise stir the emotions - yet there are bits of the new Alamo which are particularly good bits of cinema and convey a good deal of emotion - I particularly call to attention the close-ups on the faces of Crockett and four companions as they stand at bay inside the chapel. Marvellous.

So I hope that the Alamo shows the way ahead - a historical howler in the 1960s followed by a historically competent remake in the modern age, which is also a much better movie.

You make good historical films, like any sort of film, with light. angles, emotion, music, the right words and rhetoric, and so on. You don't need to mess about with the history in order to do so. I am uneasy at the suggestion that history should ever be casually disregarded. We all recall the hurt that 'u-571' did to the pride and honour of our naval veterans. At the same time history comes in layers - and there comes a point when history buffs can be too picky for their own good.

But let me say this - the internet (as an enabler to book searches and ready acquistion from amywhere in the world) has made it relatively easy to get things right, down to very acute levels of detail. With the extraordinary budgets now devoted to movie-making, it seems to me that there is little excuse for not devoting a tiny percentage of the whole to employing small teams of half-decent historians to help the costume department, to inform dialogue, to advise on tactics, firepower, realism in combat etc etc. It is easy to get right - what possible incentive could there be to get it wrong. They are doing this more and more now - but it was not the norm when Zulu was made (on a relative shoestring of course).

The defence of Rorke's Drift in Zulu - a casually paced tea party. The defence of Rorke's Drift in real life - a hellish, awful, relentless bloodbath.

In forty years of studying history (I started young!) - I have learned this - that real history is far more compelling than anything screenwriters and novelists can dream up in their imaginations. Film the history - it's a much better story.


Regards

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
In terms of what matters in the scheme of things, Mike's claim that films don't matter at all, taken to its logical conclusion, would imply that other cultural artefacts (books, music, paintings, art of all kinds) are equally irrelevant to life and to society (except as petty amusement). They aren't, and only a complete philistine would think so. (I'm sure it's not what Mike meant, but I'm not entirely clear what he did mean!) What needs to be understood is how and why they're important - not in quite the same way as history, the sciences, and so forth, but significant nonetheless as an expression of the way human beings have interpreted, represented and responded to their world and, indeed, expressed themselves. But let's not get into platitudes...

I think my point about what does and does not matter may have got lost. I did not mean to imply that history doesn't matter or that films are somehow more important than history. My point was that what matters most IN HISTORY is often misunderstood by people who cannot distinguish between matters of greater or lesser relative importance. An obsession with the details of uniforms and other minutiae is not a serious concern for history but a concern with trivia. Of course serious historians acknowledge the importance of getting facts right, but they are not preoccupied with them for their own sake - they recognise that larger issues are at stake.

Let me try to explain my taking an example from "ZULU" of something that could be seen as a major misrepresentation of history rather than a superficial mistake. The early scene involving King Cetshwayo implies that he knew about and endorsed the attack on Rorke's Drift, rather than it being contrary to his orders against crossing the river and attacking an entrenched position. That, and the absence of any contextualisation for the battle of Isandlwana, could be taken to imply that the Zulus, and the king particularly, were the aggressor in the Ango-Zulu War (rather than Bartle Frere and the British). This is a serious and substantial issue, and if someone wanted to attack the film along these lines I would not be able to mount much of a defence: it would be a valid point against it. (ZULU DAWN acknowledges this omission/distortion by trying to make up for it - not altogether successfully.)

But most people who criticise the film don't deal with issues of this sort at all; instead they nit-pick at trivia like uniforms, appearances, etc, which any serious historian would dismiss as irrelevant to substantive historical interpretation. This is not, of course, to dispute the obligation of historians themselves to get their own facts right - but films should not be judged by this same high standard, as they are not in the museum and education business! "ZULU" was well-enough researched for its purposes - to provide dramatic entertainment rather than a museum exhibit or substitute for a history lesson.

Sorry to go on at such length, but I hope I've made myself a bit clearer. On a more minor note, I'd also take issue with Mike's claim that nothing in the 1960 version of THE ALAMO can provoke emotion - there are quite a few scenes which do, and not just for this viewer! And I eagerly await the debates over whether or not Davy Crockett really wore a coonskin hat on the final day of the battle, whether his shirt was blue or red, and whether he looked more like John Wayne or Billy Bob Thornton...
View user's profileSend private message
Zulu film - Colour Sgt Bourne's medals
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 10  

  
  
 Reply to topic