The 1964 movie “Zulu” presents a dramatic retelling of the Battle of Rorke’s Drift during the Anglo-Zulu War. However, its historical accuracy is limited by several key distortions and simplifications in the portrayal of events, characters, and settings.
First, the film inaccurately depicts the geography and environment of the battle site. The mission station and nearby hills appear larger, closer, and taller than they actually were. The chosen filming location prioritized dramatic scenery over historical fidelity. Additionally, the battle occurred during the rainy summer season with dense vegetation, yet the film shows dry grass and calm water. The river crossing should have featured a raging torrent, not a shallow pool.
Several key figures also suffer from misrepresentation. Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead was not an incompetent upper-class twit as shown. Although partially deaf, he actively prepared defenses before the leader, Lieutenant Chard, returned. Lieutenant Chard himself is central to the defense but often overshadowed in the film’s narrative. Lieutenant John R. DeWitt is wrongly portrayed as a drunkard and pacifist who incited mutiny; in reality, he left before the battle to protect his family, and his wife’s character is fictional. Sergeant Hook is unfairly labeled a thief and malingerer, while historical records depict him as a model soldier. Colour Sergeant Bourne, known for his youthfulness and small stature, is not fully captured in the film’s portrayal.
The timeline and motivations around the defense are oversimplified. The decision to hold the mission station was pragmatic, not pure heroism. Attempting to retreat with wounded on ox wagons would have led to near-certain slaughter in the open. Furthermore, native levies did desert but on their own accord alongside their officers, not due to British cowardice. The claim that Zulu warriors used rifles captured from the Battle of Isandlwana at Rorke’s Drift is incorrect; they did not employ such weapons in the latter fight.
The film’s depiction of the Zulu perspective is notably biased and simplistic. It portrays Zulus as unthinking savages attacking out of bloodlust, which distorts their strategic and political motivations. No context is given about the British invasion force’s aggression, particularly the devastating defeat at Isandlwana. This omission obscures the fact that the British sought to diminish Zulu power in the region.
Throughout the film, white characters frequently narrate or interpret Zulu actions, reinforcing a Eurocentric perspective. A memorable but inaccurate scene implies King Cetshwayo personally ordered the attack on Rorke’s Drift. Historically, Cetshwayo aimed to display strength while avoiding escalation. His strategy involved seeking a ceasefire and portraying himself as a victim of British aggression. The attack at Rorke’s Drift was carried out against his orders, led by General Dabulamanzi, who acted independently. This complexity is lost in the cinematic narrative.
Other historical details also suffer. The popular song Men of Harlech never spontaneously emerged from a sing-off after the battle, contrary to the film’s depiction. Additionally, the distance between Rorke’s Drift and the Zulu capital Ulundi is understated; it was not a short wagon ride away as implied.
In summary, while “Zulu” vividly captures the drama of a small force defending against overwhelming odds, it alters facts for narrative effect. The environment, character portrayal, battle motivations, and Zulu perspective are simplified or distorted. These changes create a compelling story but reduce historical precision.
- The battle site is geographically and environmentally misrepresented.
- Key officers like Chard, Bromhead, and Hook are inaccurately depicted.
- War motivations and native levy desertion facts are oversimplified.
- The Zulu perspective and political context are largely omitted or biased.
- Other details including song use and distances lack accuracy.
How Historically Accurate is the 1964 Movie “ZULU”?
The 1964 classic film “Zulu” offers a stirring retelling of the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, but its historical accuracy is quite flawed in many respects. So, what exactly did the film get right and where did the creative liberties take a stroll off the traditional facts trail? Let’s dive deep into the mists of 19th-century South Africa, and sift fact from fiction in this iconic movie.
First up, anyone expecting a documentary-style reenactment of the battle site might want to recalibrate. The filming location was chosen for its dramatic hills and vistas, not for geographical accuracy. The real mission station and surrounding hills were a lot smaller, closer together, and lower in elevation than the cinematic setting suggests. Imagine thinking you’re watching the real battleground but instead, you’re treated to a kind of movie magic topography. This means the grand, sweeping shots of the terrain are beautiful but misleading.
Interestingly, the movie also missed the mark on the environment’s specifics during the battle. The film shows dry, dead grass and a calm river – quite the serene backdrop for a brutally intense battle scene. But in reality, the battle took place in the middle of the summer rainy season. Thick, lush vegetation surrounded the area. Also, the river crossing would have been more like a frothing torrent than a gentle splash pool. The filmmakers picked aesthetics over climatology — and that’s an easy one to miss unless you’re a historian or meteorologist with a keen eye.
Misrepresented Characters: The People Behind the Battle
The film’s portrayal of key figures borders on caricature in some instances. Take Lieutenant Chard, the film’s star. The movie breathes life into him as the ultimate stoic leader who singlehandedly orchestrates the defense. Real life? Chard was certainly capable, but other officers played crucial roles that the film conveniently glosses over.
Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead is depicted as a somewhat bumbling aristocrat. Reality paints him as far more competent. Though he did have some hearing difficulties, Bromhead was proactive and even started preparing defenses before Chard had fully arrived from what the movie whimsically calls “mud pies.” The film’s comedic portrayal is charming for cinema, but it veers away from real history.
Captain William Witt and his devoted “Miss DeWitt” subplot? Pure fiction. Witt was neither a drunken mutineer nor dismissive pacifist causing strife with native levies. And there was no Miss DeWitt present at the mission—no love interest lurking in the background to spice up the plot. Films do this all the time—adding personal drama for emotional engagement—but it’s good to know where history draws the line.
Other characters, like Lieutenant John Chard’s ally Dalton, don’t get their due credit in the movie, sadly overshadowed or simplified. Meanwhile, Colour Sergeant Bourne’s youthful stature is replaced with a more imposing screen presence, sacrificing reality for cinematic effect.
The Storyline: Facts Twisted and Real Decisions Misunderstood
The film glorifies the defenders’ choice to stay at Rorke’s Drift as a shining example of British courage and determination. In truth, the decision was more strategic than heroic. It was not a gallant stand but a grim necessity; leaving wounded and sick behind was not an option, as the survivors alike would have faced slaughter across the open landscape. This key context adds a dose of reality missing in the movie’s romanticized heroism.
The desertion of native levies also gets an oversimplified or wrong portrayal. The movie implies their desertion was sudden or even shameful. Actually, these units left together with their white NCO and officer, who was tragically shot dead while fleeing. This adds nuance to loyalties and the chaos of the event that the film doesn’t fully explore.
For those thinking the Zulus equipped themselves with rifles captured from the British at the earlier disastrous battle of Isandlwana, think again. The film doesn’t clarify that the Zulus did not use rifles in the defense at Rorke’s Drift. They relied on traditional weapons. This omission implies a false level of firepower parity on screen.
The Zulu Perspective: An Oversimplified Narrative
One of the biggest shortcomings of “Zulu” is its treatment of the Zulu people and their motivations. The film depicts them as rampaging, bloodthirsty savages attacking for no reason. This portrayal strips them of political agency and ignores the complex context that led to the conflict.
The lead-up to the battle at Isandlwana, where a British invasion force sought to impose Cape Colony influence and dismantle the Zulu military, is entirely absent in the movie. Hence, viewers miss seeing the Zulu defense as a fight for survival and sovereignty rather than mindless aggression.
Additionally, King Cetshwayo’s political strategy comes off misrepresented. The film suggests he ordered the attack on Rorke’s Drift, but that’s historically inaccurate. Cetshwayo aimed to show military strength to negotiate a peaceful ceasefire, maintaining his image as a victim of British aggression. Only Dabulamanzi, the commander at Rorke’s Drift, defied orders and launched the attack. This subtle but critical political nuance disappears in the film’s simpler narrative.
Outside of storyline choices, the film’s narrative device of white characters interpreting Zulu dialogue and thoughts for the audience comes off as patronizing and outdated by today’s standards. It reinforces a one-sided view instead of a balanced cultural insight.
Other Fun Historical Curiosities
- As thrilling as the morning sing-off might be, singing “Men of Harlech” immediately after the battle is pure invention.
- The movie places Rorke’s Drift as a neat afternoon wagon ride from Ulundi, which isn’t geographically accurate.
Final Thoughts: Should We Trust “Zulu” as History?
As a war epic, “Zulu” delivers tension and courage with cinematic flair. But as a historical record, it is best approached with a hefty grain of salt. Its inaccuracies in geography, character portrayal, events, and cultural context are significant. The film selectively bends truth to craft a stirring British military tale at the expense of Zulu representation and complex realities.
History buffs will find it a fascinating peek, but they must supplement “Zulu” with scholarly accounts to grasp the full picture. The movie’s simplifications highlight how film, by nature, balances storytelling with fact. It’s a vivid, emotional experience — just not a fully reliable history lesson.
So next time you watch “Zulu,” perhaps ponder this: could the real story, with its contested motivations and complex people, be even more compelling than the simplified screenplay? History is rarely black and white, and this is just another reminder to dig a bit deeper.
How accurate is the film’s portrayal of the battle site at Rorke’s Drift?
The movie uses a dramatic location that is much smaller and closer than the real site. The hills and terrain in the film do not match the actual geography of Rorke’s Drift. The environment is less realistic, chosen for visual impact.
Does the film accurately depict key British officers like DeWitt and Dalton?
No. DeWitt was falsely shown as a drunkard and pacifist, and Dalton’s important leadership is completely left out. The film distorts their real roles and characters significantly.
How truthful is the film about the Zulu forces and their motivations?
The movie oversimplifies and misrepresents the Zulus as savage attackers. It ignores their strategic political goals and fails to show that Rorke’s Drift was attacked against King Cetshwayo’s orders.
Did the film correctly show the role of native levies during the battle?
Partially. The levies did desert, but they left voluntarily with their white officers. The film doesn’t explain these details and simplifies their withdrawal.
Is the famous song “Men of Harlech” historically accurate in the film?
No. The movie shows it sung spontaneously the morning after the battle, which did not happen historically.
Are there any inaccuracies related to the timeline or distances in the film?
Yes. For example, it incorrectly implies that Rorke’s Drift was only a short wagon ride from Ulundi, whereas it was much farther away in reality.
