Issue/Publication: Epinions.com

Web Links

 Pros: Great story, superb photography and editing, absorbing Colonial history lesson.

Cons: ZULU DAWN is essentially a "man's picture." Best seen in theater or on Widescreen video.

The Bottom Line: ZULU DAWN (Hickox, 1979) is an underrated epic historical masterpiece, long in the shadow of its better known bookend: ZULU (Enfield, 1964). Even more germane to "the war on terror."  

On January 22, 1879, two and a half years after American General George Armstrong Custer lost his entire 7th Cavalry Command of 600-odd in a Native American attack, a British-led force of 1800 lost 1745 of their expedition to an attack by the Zulu armies of Chief Cetewayo, near Isandhlwana Rock, in South Africa. It is the subject of Douglas Hickox's ZULU DAWN (1979). 

ZULU (Enfield, 1964) is the film about the Zulu Wars most people reach for. It has young Michael Caine, an even-handed attitude toward the Zulus, and a great tribute to the Welsh troops who made up the bulk of the forces defending Roarke's Drift -- one of the splendid feats of British Arms. And, of course, the White Man appears to have won at the end or, at least, gotten a draw. However, ZULU DAWN, made 15 years later, shows us the major battle of the campaign in cold analytical terms, superbly staged, that, in fact, the earlier, more decisive battle at Isandhlwana was won hands down by the Zulus. 

With a cast headed by Peter O'Toole, John Mills, Burt Lancaster, the film dramatizes the arrogance and stupidity of the British strategy and tactics: 

-- The Commander splits his forces. 

-- The officers look down upon their Boer scouts and ignore warnings about the capabilities of the Zulu Army. 

-- Adequate perimeter measures are not maintained. 

-- The Quartermaster fails to keep his ammunition ready because he does not wish the troops to waste bullets. 

-- The Commander, making an exploratory advance with 
a favored company, cannot believe the Zulus would attack his main force left behind. 

-- Most of the officers underestimate their danger until it is too late. 

---------------- 

Released on the 100th Anniversary of the actual event, few films have laid out a military debacle so clearly in cinematic terms as does ZULU DAWN. That judgment includes the many examinations of Custer's Last Stand, from THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (Walsh, 1941) to the best, the TV mini-series SON OF MORNING STAR (Robe, 1991). 

As the ZULU DAWN illustrates, in addition to a force of Territorials and Boers, over 600 British Regulars were slaughtered, almost to a man: the greatest loss sustained by a European Army at the hands of native troops in Modern History. A few officers escaped, but they were swiftly courts-martialed for "Cowardice in the Face of the Enemy." A massive British expeditionary force eventually subdued the Zulus, not before the French Prince Imperial, serving as an observer, had been hauled off his horse by Zulus and slaughtered, causing an International Incident. 

Financed, in part, with Iranian money, ZULU DAWN opened to criticism that it lacked an emotional center. But the purpose of the film is not to deal with heroes and villains; its purpose is to show even-handedly a classic disaster. For Director Douglas Hickox (BLACKOUT, 1985), it was his one great shot at a Big Film. He came through splendidly. 

It may be noted that Chief Goodwill, longtime leader of the modern Zulu nation, plays his ancestor, Cetewayo, King of the Zulu Impies, in the film. It also marks Bob Hoskins' first screen appearance, as a tough Sergeant Major. 

Seldom has battle been shown on the screen, tactically and strategically, in its sweep, and with the vividly delineated tragic consequences of Command complacency. 

--------------- 

UPDATE: March 20, 2008 -- As we enter the sixth year of our colonial war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the lessons illustrated in ZULU DAWN are only beginning to be implemented. Of course, at Christmas 1999, few sane American Citizens -- except, perhaps, the "kitchen cabinet" gathered around George W. Bush's coming Presidency -- certainly not ordinary, innocent American Citizens -- could have imagined that America, the avowed enemy of fascism and colonialism since at least the End of World War II, would plunge into a series of wars similar to those carried on by the British in the last half of the 19th Century. 

Now, unfortunately, we can. But we have still not learned the Great Lesson; Do not put inadequate, vulnerable armed forces in the center of an enraged, dedicated multitude of people who feel aggrieved that have already been looted by colonial powers for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. 

----------------- 

UPDATE: October 12, 2009 -- Which brings us to the decision before President Obama whether or not to commit 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, or withdraw the troops but for trainers and strike forces.  Or, if we had the men and women (which we don't under our reluctance to institute a draft), bring in 80,000 more to finish the job.  And so, we are faced with the possibility of a disaster, more or less, on the scale of The Little Big Horn,  Isandhlwana, the Ardennes, Stalingrad, the Yalu, Dien bien Phu, Tet, Kabul, 9/11, ???

  How easy it is to underestimate "inferior" forces!