View Full Version : Zulu
Ian Gentles
17th October 2007, 06:50 PM (18:50)
This is a film made in sixties, but in great form. It tells the story of a small British garrison defending Rorks Drift in the Zula wars, against thousands of Zulues. Its a fantastic action packed film, with an amazing ending, but leave that for you to find out. Its worth seeing, and most vidio libraries should have a copy.
Ryan Scott
18th October 2007, 07:49 AM (07:49)
I liked this movie as well. They don't make'em like this anymore.
Ian Gentles
18th October 2007, 08:20 AM (08:20)
I liked this movie as well. They don't make'em like this anymore.
They sure dont, at atmospherics are fantastic!!
Garth Lahana
18th October 2007, 12:00 PM (12:00)
I found this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058777/) review on IMDB for your perusal...
Glenda Harvey
18th October 2007, 02:07 PM (14:07)
This is one of my husbands favorite movies.
Ian Gentles
18th October 2007, 02:27 PM (14:27)
One of the great things about it is, no sex, and no cursing, unique in its way :)
Paul Whitaker
18th October 2007, 09:13 PM (21:13)
If you Google "Shaka Zulu" you will find good information about Shaka.
There was a film "Shaka Zulu" which shows many of the happenings in Shaka's life.
The Swazi tribe is a branch of the Zulu "tree". The Swazi is proud of his Zulu connections.,
Carsten Schermuly
20th October 2007, 10:48 AM (10:48)
What have had people from Great Britain, from Germany, from Spain, from Portugal, from the Netherlands and from other nations to do in Africa - under weapons?
"Defending a fort" is a very bad base for a story, christian story or not.
Once they had entered other continents only as traders or as missionaries (in a peaceful way), it had been good. But to enter as colony builders by using armies (political violence) - it was unright from the beginning.
Carsten Schermuly
20th October 2007, 10:59 AM (10:59)
The "christian nations" do sigh today under world political developings they do not want to see.
It is a burden, they have lain by their own hand on their own shoulders.
Once they had followed the Lord Jesus Christ in the right time - never to touch a weapon, only preaching the gospel - betting, we had not the unwanted political turbulences today?
Once I do a sin, I do know that because my beating mind.
The conqerors of all centuries did know: "What I do is unright."
The present worlds political situation we do not like to see, is a burden, the christian nations have lain by their own hand on their own shoulders.
Carsten Schermuly
20th October 2007, 11:09 AM (11:09)
The christian nations are sinners.
"We need forgiveness" were the right sight for today,
but we do not need to defend a fort, a fortress, built by sinners, it means to defend sin, it means to be unwilligly to make needed correctures.
Carsten Schermuly
20th October 2007, 11:15 AM (11:15)
Grace.
Grace or we are lost.
We, the christian nations do have no rights.
All we do have, is to carry the sin of our fathers. We are under the pressure to do forfeit right now (look around and see the problems, is there a chance to alive?) - or we must later listen to the uncomfortable question: "What do you have done to save the world I have given in your hands?"
Ian Gentles
20th October 2007, 06:52 PM (18:52)
To an extent i agree. However colonisation brough education, medicine, commerce etc. That we did it for profit, sure, that it help those nations, it did. Also remember colonial rule, though not christian in itself, did open doors for missions to progress.
Anyway back to the subject, its one great film.
Carsten Schermuly
20th October 2007, 07:29 PM (19:29)
To an extent i agree. However colonisation brough education, medicine, commerce etc. That we did it for profit, sure, that it help those nations, it did. Also remember colonial rule, though not christian in itself, did open doors for missions to progress.
Anyway back to the subject, its one great film.Dear Ian,
remember, Germany also has had colonies, so I do not look down on you by an uplifted finger - OK?
What you are saying is correct.
Now mission is possible - under peace of the colonial states order.
AND
were mission possible today in Iraq without the war?
No.
But
mission - far away from all political violence - e. g. done like the Wycliff - Bibletranslators do it today - that were mission after the Lords will - without to use weapons to prepare the missionairies way,
am I correct?
I will not critize the nations, do own today colonies. They also have only one choice - to carry the burdens, that burdens do follow from the sin of the fathers - they now must make the best from.
AND
they do. They are willingly to do their part, will protect outter and inner peace and law & order, will build schools and universities, hospitals etc (social work).
BUT
in the beginning was violence.
Conqerors have been sent out under weapons - and this was unright and never we can turn that - it will be unright forever.
To what time this had begun - to use violence?
Once Adam & Eve must leave paradise.
It is the way of the world.
Kain killed Abel.
We do still the very same - we do shed innocent blood.
Provocation
Imagine you as a chaplain,
do you make spectators willingly to listen to the gospel by using a gun?
"Stay here and listen or I will shoot you?"
They do see how you will love them - the kind way you will speak, does make them willingly to think about your message.
This way you do preach or counsel, could have gone also the "christian" nations, tried to get colonies.
Carsten Schermuly
20th October 2007, 07:40 PM (19:40)
Anyway back to the subject, its one great film.It is to the greater part a phantasy story. The real life of the "Fieldmarshall" or "King" Shaka Zulu or Shaka ka Senzangakhona does sound in another way. He was a tyrann like the roman emperors, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Franko - he is guilty for about one million killed people.
In other words, Shaka Zulu was not a heroe, he was a murderer.
Dale Cozby
21st October 2007, 05:31 PM (17:31)
OK, I am going to get us back to this movie.
Review:
1. If you get it on DVD you can fast forward through the national geographic scenes of half-naked native women in the beginning.
2. The movie even in the 1960's portrays the lone minister as a cowardly drunk.(pretty typical now, but this one was an early bash on Christian ministers) This is very far from the actual truth of the story. The minster was in fact very helpful in the hospital tending to the wounded throughout the battle and begfore the battle he acted as scout in the hills near the mission station to help warn the British company of the impending attack.
3. The Boar calvary also fought the first skirmish with the British before retreating(since they were outside the walls and retreat seemed to be the best option.) But in the movie they refused to help at all( more dramatic I guess)
Now, as to the heroism in the movie it is quite good. Men defending thier mates under such odds led to many accounts of bravery. That much is true.
The music in the movie is good as well as the interaction between to two commanding officers. Overall it is a good film of the Victorian Era British Army if you take out some of the bad parts. No foul language though.
Carsten Schermuly
21st October 2007, 06:37 PM (18:37)
I do think (I could be wrong),
the Zulu film is one of the last of a gone time era in movie culture.
Go just some short years back, the Zulu - Film was made in 1964, go into the Fifties. I was a schoolboy. I have seen in cinema behind back of my mother many, many "wild west" films.
In end came the US cavalry by a mighty horn signal like a storm wind and ended the trouble between seddlers and indians.
Coloured people have been killed like animals have been hunted.
Note,
the Zulu film was shown in cinemas in the Republic of South Africa "for whites only".
Why?
Easy to see - not to steer up the "animal like black people" the people of misrespect, must live under the rassistic Apartheid - politics. They got not big interest - they just delivered a reason to defend the Fort. They did just appear in the movie to be killed,
like the red skins in the "wild west" movies of the Fifties.
They have been always the bad, the enemies, movie spectators did hate.
Today we do no more understand that. We have no more a relation to.
To that time we had been also on side of the whites as on the side of the better people, as on the side of the winners.
We do live in the time after Martin Luther King and his speech in front of Lincoln Memorial.
It was a cesura.
I as a schoolboy - I was all the times on the side of the winners.
Oha! That brave and strong cowboys as heroes - and the lovely or heartbreaking scenes inside the seddlers families - and the mighty cavalry, hooray, - what impressive!
We do see today things by other eyes. We take distance to the winners, we know to identify emotions and their backgrounds, we are building our own opinion by facts of history.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.