Tag: Pieter Gerhardus Swanepoel

The film ZULU starring Stanley Baker, Michael Caine and Jack Hawkins was one of the biggest box-office hits of all time in England. It ‘premiered’ in 1964 and for the next twelve years it remained in constant cinema circulation before making its first appearance on television. It has since become a Bank holiday television perennial, and remains beloved by the British public. Some pommies watch it every Christmas, year after year. You know, Tell me lies, Tell me sweet little lie-ies.

The film premiered on 22 January 1964, 85 years to the day after the 1879 event it commemorates – the snotklap of Isandlwana (ignored) and the defence of Rorke’s Drift (faked into a glorious victory).

Very few people know though, that it had its REAL, ACTUAL WORLD PREMIERE in our lounge at 95 Stuart Street, Harrismith, Vrystaat in late 1963. Count yourself as one of a very tiny privileged minority who’s “in the know”!

True! If an amateur snippet can count as a premiere. Say it can!

Here’s what happened:

Back in late 1963 my old man showed us a movie he and Mom had filmed with his state-of-the-art 8mm cine Eumig camera.

Whirr whirrr whirr – those of you who watched them will remember the noise of the projector. Also maybe Thuk! Oh shit! Eina! as the film broke and had to be re-threaded in the projector and a finger touched its super-hot bulb. .

..

He and Mom had been to Royal Natal National Park about 50 miles from Harrismith down Oliviershoek Pass to film the filming of the film ZULU.

What I remember seeing in our film was a lot of standing around, some dust and a lot of be-feathered (dead ostriches) and be-leathered (dead leopards) Zulu warriors charging at some umLungus in funny red coats, falling down in a cloud of dust and then getting up laughing, walking back and doing it all over again. And again, And a building burning.

Mom remembers being asked to stop filming, and then once the knobs saw it was just a tiny 8mm camera, being asked to stay politely out of the way. They continued filming the filming.

~~oo0oo~~

snotklap – defeat, but humiliating, embarrassing, obvious, best not spoken of; usually hugely altered in the telling (y’know, ‘there were millions of them and the two of us only had pea-shooters’)

umlungus – pale people; forked tongues

~~oo0oo~~

Thanks to the huge success of the film – which was longer than the seven or so minutes we saw in our lounge – the Battle of Rorke’s Drift has entered British folklore. Of course its main success was due to its ignoring the massive same-day British defeat at Isandlwana and portraying the defence of a hospital as a massive victory, and not mentioning the war crimes that the Poms committed.

New Film about The Film (maybe . . )

Now a New Film is being shot this year (2019/2020) by Henry Coleman which might just include some of the ole man’s 8mm footage! See all about that here.

Remember always, though, to take the British ‘jingo’ version of the battle with a very large pinch of cerebos salt.

~~oo0oo~~

The background story of the film Zulu, 54 years on

Firstly, a bit of the Real History. The lesson here is always to be skeptical of ‘official’ histories.

On 22 January 1879, at a remote mission station in Natal, South Africa, 157 men, mainly British soldiers (the number is usually downplayed, sometimes “under 100”) held off wave after wave of attacks by “some 3,000 to 4,000 Zulu warriors” (the number is certainly exaggerated – your son’s rugby opposition was always MUCH bigger than your boys, right?). Remember who wrote about the battle – jingoist reporters for jingoist newspapers in a little country that thought it was a mighty empire. A defeat couldn’t be tolerated. The toffs had to be placated, not least the Queen who had a medal named after her.

Although the Zulus had some old-fashioned muskets and a few modern rifles, most of their warriors were only armed with spears, with hide shields for protection. The Battle of Rorke’s Drift lasted 10 hours (often stated as ‘over 12’), from late afternoon till just before dawn the following morning. By the end of the fighting, around 365 men lay dead. Fifteen (or maybe seventeen) British inside the barricaded buildings they had defended, and around 350 Zulu soldiers outside them. Plus many wounded Zulu men, most of whom were murdered after the battle!

The defences are almost always characterised as ‘biscuit boxes and bags’ and paintings show the British defenders hugely exposed and vulnerable. A photo taken soon after the battle looks very different to those descriptions and paintings. I haven’t seen a painting showing soldiers firing through holes in a stone wall. Is there one?

Historically the battle was a minor incident, which had little influence on the course of the Anglo-Zulu War. It might have – should have – remained a footnote in the history books or an anecdote told at regimental dinners had it not been for:

• 1. The fact that there had been a truly epic defeat at Isandlwana earlier the same day. This defence of a hospital half-heartedly attacked by men ignoring their leaders order to go home after Isandlwana, needed to be a cover-up; Needed to be hailed as a victory – and then an epic victory. In truth it was actually simply a non-defeat. It bears repeating: The mighty British army was EPICALLY DEFEATED by the Zulu army earlier that day and the British press did NOT like having to admit that. Refused to admit that. Possibly to reinforce the cover-up, the bloke in charge – LORD Chelmsford – wasn’t blamed. Was he even reprimanded for his epic mismanagement and lack of leadership?
• 2. The crazy number of Victoria Crosses and other awards that were dished out for this ordinary defensive battle – mainly as propaganda figleaves because of the prior resounding defeat earlier that day. Not all those possibly deserving some recognition got VC’s; and some who definitely should not have, did get VC’s. In fact the truth of the battle was far more sordid than the glorious accounts a desperate British government and press wanted to portray. This made-up story and image of valour and nobility in the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879 turned to shame when documents were uncovered which show that Rorke’s Drift was the scene of an atrocity – a war crime, in today’s language – which Britain covered up. In the hours after the battle senior officers and enlisted men of a force sent to relieve the garrison killed hundreds of wounded Zulu prisoners. Some were bayoneted, some hanged and others buried alive in mass graves. More Zulus are estimated to have died in this criminal slaughter than in true combat, but the executions were hushed up to preserve Rorke’s Drift’s image as a bloody but clean fight between two forces which saluted each other’s courage. The Zulu salute in the film was FAKE. Made-up. Never happened. A blatant lie.
• 3. And then, and especially, this battle became super-famous because many years later a film – ZULU – depicted the defence as a heroic victory. It wrote a story dramatically depicting British heroism, including nothing of the massive defeat earlier the same day, and none of the war crimes committed the next day. It dramatised a new story and has kept it in the public mind ever since. This film of falsities elevated a fake narrative and burnt the lies into the memories of a nation.

~~oo0oo~~

A better depiction of why Rorkes Drift was exaggerated is told here:

Oops, BBC won’t embed the video but you can find it. Also look for better, more honest accounts on history sites. You may have to search. Myths can get embedded. If what you’re reading says ‘Glorious’ keep looking.

~~~oo0oo~~~

The Film:

The story behind the film’s making. Most of this account taken from talks by Sheldon Hall, Sr Lecturer, Stage and Screen Studies Sheffield Hallam University.

The filmmakers

The principal artists responsible for Zulu were hardly Establishment figures. Screenwriter John Prebble was a former Communist Party member who had volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War. His co-writer, the American director Cy Endfield, had fled Hollywood in the early 1950s after he was named as a Communist during the McCarthyite witch-hunts. Endfield’s production partner and the film’s main star was Stanley Baker, a life-long supporter of the Labour Party.

All three were committed to progressive causes, but their motives in making Zulu were not political. It is not an anti-imperial diatribe any more than it is a celebration of colonial conquest. Its main purpose was frankly commercial, but Baker also saw the story as a chance to pay tribute to his Welsh homeland. This certainly explains the strong emphasis on the Welshness of the private soldiers – one of the many fictionalised elements of Zulu that have created a myth around the battle.

Filming under Apartheid

Update hot off the press: More drama in 2025! A sort of “cease and desist” letter in my comments from Stanley Baker’s eldest son! See below . .

The producers had to keep their political views in check when they made the decision to shoot the film in South Africa, then in the grip of Apartheid. There were strict, legally enforced guidelines regarding the degree of freedom permitted to the cast and crew. It was impressed upon the 60-odd British visitors that sexual relations with people of other races would result in possible imprisonment, deportation or worse. Warned that miscegenation was a flogging offence, Baker is reported to have asked – in glorious Pom tradition – if he could have the lashes while ‘doing it’. The authorities were not amused.

The main filming location was at the foot of the spectacular Drakensberg Mountains in the Royal Natal National Park, a popular tourist spot distant from any large township. But a number of incidents brought home the realities of the oppressive regime. Chatting to John Marcus, one of several professional black stuntmen employed on the film, assistant editor Jennifer Bates invited him for a drink in the bar/canteen that had been built on site for the crew. Marcus pointed out that he was forbidden by law to mix socially with whites and could not enter.

In his autobiography, Michael Caine recalls an incident in which a black labourer was reprimanded by an Afrikaans foreman with a punch in the face. Baker sacked the foreman on the spot and made clear that such behaviour would not be tolerated. Caine swore never to make another film in South Africa while Apartheid was in force, and kept to his word.

Introducing Michael Caine

Keeping watch over the tightly budgeted film was production supervisor Colin Lesslie. “I am very glad to be able to tell you,” he wrote at one point to the Embassy Pictures’ chief in London, “that in my opinion and from the little he has done so far, Michael Caine as ‘Bromhead’ is very good indeed. When he was cast for the part I couldn’t see it but I think (and hope) I was wrong.” This must have been a common reaction.

Not quite an unknown, the 30-year-old Caine was already making a name for himself on television but was becoming type-cast in working-class Cockney parts. Casting him as a blue-blooded officer in his first major film role represented a considerable risk, but it was one that paid off.

Thousands of ’em?

The soldiers were played by real soldiers – eighty national servicemen borrowed from the South African National Defence Force. And most of the Zulus were real Zulus. A mere 240 Zulu extras were employed for the battle scenes, bussed in from their tribal homes over a hundred miles away. Around 1,000 additional tribesmen were filmed by the second unit in Zululand, but most of these scenes hit the cutting-room floor.

Living in remote rural areas, few if any Zulus had visited a cinema and television would not reach Natal until thirteen years later. The crew rigged up a projector and outdoor screen, and the Zulus’ first sight of a motion picture was a Western. From then on, the “warriors” had a better idea of what they were being asked to do. Responsible for training and rehearsing them were stunt arrangers John Sullivan and Joe Powell. “The Zulus were initially suspicious of us in case we were taking the mickey,” says Powell, now 91. “After a couple of days they realised we weren’t and got into it. After that you couldn’t hold them back.”

Contrary to stories, the Zulus were not paid with gifts of cattle or wristwatches but received wages in Rand. The main corps was paid the equivalent of nine shillings per day each, additional extras eight shillings, and the female dancers slightly less again. Associate producer Basil Keys remarked: “There is no equality of pay for women in the Zulu nation!”

Buthelezi’s tribute

For the opening sequence depicting a mass Zulu wedding, 600 additional background artists were brought in, including nightclub performers from Johannesburg, to play the principal dancers. During breaks in filming, they twisted and jived to modern pop records played over Tannoys, with director Cy Endfield among the crew members joining them.

The small but key role of King Cetshwayo was given to his direct descendant, the present-day Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The wedding dance was choreographed by Buthelezi’s mother, a tribal historian, and supervised by stuntman Simon Sabela, who later became South Africa’s first black film director.

History and politics

Like all films, Zulu is of its time and captures the mood of its time more profoundly than is often realised. A conservative view would see it as a hymn to gung-ho heroism, to flag-waving patriotism and the glory days of the British Empire. In fact, by 1964 the sun was already setting on the empire and undoubtedly Zulu stirred a lot of nostalgia for it. For some, that explains its appeal.

But look again. The knowledge that colonialism was in its dying fall is there in the film. The script is filled with a sense that the soldiers are in a place they don’t belong and don’t want to be. The indigenous people are not disorganised savages but a disciplined army. And the young lieutenant, played by Caine, who had earlier dismissed the enemy as “fuzzies” and the levies on his own side as “cowardly blacks”, now declares himself ashamed at the “butcher’s yard” he has brought about.

A modern awareness of racial representation means that Zulu has undoubtedly “dated”. If the film were to be remade today, as internet rumours continually suggest, it would certainly be done differently. But the absence of individuated black characters doesn’t make it racist. Though told from the British point of view, it shows that viewpoint change from dismissive contempt and naked fear to respect and even admiration. The famous (and entirely fictional) salute the departing Zulu army pays to the garrison survivors is returned with their – and our – gaze of awe and wonder.

Adapted from an article in Cinema Retro No 28 (c) Sheldon Hall 2014

Sheldon Hall is a Senior Lecturer in Stage and Screen Studies at Sheffield Hallam University. See an expanded second edition of his book ‘Zulu: With Some Guts Behind It – The Making of the Epic Movie’ – Tomahawk Press.

Some interesting facts about the movie:

1. It was not shot at Rorke’s Drift

Cy Endfield’s epic military marathon about the Battle of Rorke’s Drift was actually shot 90 miles south-west of Rorke’s Drift in the Royal Natal National Park in the KwaZulu Natal province of South Africa. It had the far more mountainous and picturesque Drakensberg Amphitheatre as backdrop, rather than the low hills like the Oscarberg at the real site of the battle.

Below see the movie backdrop, the Drakensberg Amphitheatre (left) – and the real backdrop, the Oscarberg (right):

2. Many of the Zulu extras had never seen a motion picture

Many of the Zulus who were hired as extras for the film had never seen a motion picture prior to filming and were unsure what to expect. With this in mind, director Cy Endfield and Stanley Baker, who played Lieutenant John Chard, set up a projector in order for them to watch a western, starring Gene Autry. Then the Zulus probably said “Ah, so its all bulldust?” and acted accordingly. 

3. The real Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead was extremely deaf…

Played expertly by Michael Caine, this snobbish character was described by Lieutenant Henry Curling, who fought alongside Bromhead at Rorke’s Drift, as “a stupid old fellow, as deaf as a post.” Major Francis Clery, who spent time with Bromhead after Rorke’s Drift, described him as “a capital fellow at everything except soldiering”, while his commanding officer said in private that Bromhead was “hopeless.” Still, political face-saving at the time saw Bromhead awarded the Victoria Cross. 

4. Michael Caine initially auditioned for the role of Private Henry Hook

This was Michael Caine’s first major film role and, although he eventually put in an exceptional performance as Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead, he was crippled by nerves and beaten to the role he initially auditioned for, that of Private Henry Hook, by James Booth. Interestingly, Caine was also unable to ride a horse so a member of the filming crew took his place in the scene where he crosses the stream on horseback at the beginning of the film. This explains why the camera pans down on to the horse.

5. Private Henry Hook was badly portrayed in the film

In the film, Private Henry Hook (James Booth) is placed under arrest for insubordination. He is seen lounging around in the shade and trying to pilfer free booze as his comrades prepare for battle in the stifling heat. In reality, Private Hook was an exemplary soldier and teetotal, who was also awarded the Victoria Cross for his gallantry. Hook’s daughter walked out of the film’s premiere in disgust at this inaccurate portrayal.

6. Eleven British soldiers were given a Victoria Cross; Twelve had been nominated

Colour Sergeant Frank Bourne (played by Nigel Green in the film), requested a commission rather than the Victoria Cross. He was duly granted this wish and went on to become a Lieutenant Colonel. When he died in 1945, he was the last surviving British soldier from the battle.

7. Mangosuthu Buthelezi played his great grandfather Zulu King Cetshwayo kaMpande in the movie

Mangosuthu Buthelezi was the chieftain of the Buthelezi clan of the amaZulu when he played the role of Zulu King Cetshwayo kaMpande in 1964. Buthelezi went on to found the Inkatha Freedom Party and was the leader of the former KwaZulu bantustan. He has also held positions in the new, legitimate SA government and parliament. In fact, the Zulus “won back” the whole of the Zulu kingdom in South Africa’s first legitimate elections in 1994.

Now Buthelezi himself has a very interesting grandchild! She sings.

~~oo0oo~~

Thuk! Oh shit! Eina! – gosh;

umLungus – paleface; speak with forked tongue; in Africa as well as America;

~~oo0oo~~

I’ll add a link to the 8mm movie footage the old man took on the film set in the ‘berg as soon as I can. A new movie about the making of the film is in the offing and we have offered this seven minutes of behind-the-scenes footage to Henry Coleman the film-maker. As we have undertaken not to use the footage till after his premiere, we have forfeited a chance to repeat our 1963 scoop!! Darn!

Here’s his trailer on Vimeo.

2025: I have finally added our 8mm home movie, as Coleman’s movie seems to be stuck, and Baker is mumbling.

And oops, it’s underwhelming!

~~oo0oo~~

2025 and no sign of Coleman’s movie yet. Recently I received a sort of “cease and desist” in this post’s comments from An Important Figure! See below:

~~oo0oo~~

Please be on notice that Henry Coleman no longer has the permission of the family of Stanley Baker to produce his proposed documentary Zulu and the Zulus nor to use the 16mm behind the scenes film print he holds, which is the property of Diamond Films.

~~oo0oo~~

Upon the downfall of his government the year after the great defeat at Isandlwana, and soon after the death of the Prince Imperial Louis-Napoleon, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli asked In parliament – showing that he and his generals had not bothered to do their homework and learn about these African people – “Who are these Zulus? Who are these remarkable people who defeat our generals, convert our bishops and who on this day have put an end to a great dynasty?”.