Jump to content

Talk:Zulu (1964 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inaccurate statement about Endfield's inability to pay Zulu extras with money

[edit]

This is the disputed statement:"Due to the apartheid laws in South Africa, none of the Zulu extras could be paid for their performance. Director Endfield circumvented this by leaving them all the animals, primarily cattle, used in the film; to the Zulu, this was a gift far more valuable than money."

The hyperlink leads to a page that discusses South African apartheid in general; the cited page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa) does not support the writer's statement.

Even in apartheid South Africa, Cy Endfield most certainly could have paid money to the Zulu extras who worked on his film. If it's true that Endfield "paid" the Zulus in cattle, the most logical explanation that I can think of is this: Endfield was not allowed to pay the Zulus directly. In 1964, due to the "Pass Laws" that prohibited Africans from selling their labor freely, it's likely that Endfield had to hire the Zulus through an apartheid government functionary. If Endfield had to pay via South African government officials, he may have feared that the officials would cheat the Zulus out of their rightful earnings, and the Zulus would have no recourse to be able to get their money.

Zibiza (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film was filmed in the actual location of Natal Province which was a semi-autonomous 'native homeland' within South Africa at the time, and this may have operated under different laws than the rest of the country. The ostensible purpose of these 'homelands' was to allow the 'natives' to continue to live the traditional lifestyle they had lived before the arrival of the colonists, and it is possible that the government in Pretoria did not want an influx of freely-convertible cash going into the province.
In addition, it is quite likely that the apartheid pay scales for extras would be different for the various categories, a 'white' extra receiving higher rates than a 'coloured' or 'black' extra, hence paying the Zulu extras in cattle would have allowed Enfield and Baker (who was co-producer) to pay them as much as a 'white', if not considerably more in equivalent monetary value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.248 (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

US$3,500,000. I seem to remember it being US$2.80 to the £ at the time, so £1,250,000.(178.236.117.122 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Source? BMK (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For most of the relevant period there were well over two dollars to the pound, the pound only started to slip in the early seventies when the UK government-of-the-day had to resort to the IMF. For much of the 1950's there were almost five dollars to the pound.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.248 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor

[edit]

FilmandTVFan28 and Gareth Griffith-Jones, please stop reverting each other and have a discussion here about identifying this film's distributor. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can add nothing to that already said in my edit summaries. Thanks, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad idea to convey arguments in edit summaries. I suggest that no one changes the article any further in this regard and discuss the matter to better understand how guidelines and reliable sources apply here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The new information about another distributor for the US. was introduced by FilmandTVFan28 and has also been reverted by Beyond My Ken — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't new. The editor made it sound like that Paramount co-distributed the film with Embassy Pictures in the US when the studio only released it Internationally and Embassy only released it in the US. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a matter of it looking like the USA label applies to both distributors? Why don't we keep Paramount at the top and write (int'l) after it, and keep "Embassy Pictures (USA)" as it is? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. BMK (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds satisfying. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks, Erik, as ever. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) I've made the change in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zulu (1964 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hook's daughter or daughters?

[edit]

Under 'Reception' we're told Hook's elderly daughters were so disgusted by his distorted portrayal in the film that they walked out of the premiere. Here they're clearly plural. But in the section on Hook under 'The men of the regiment' there's only one of them ('daughter'). The succession of plurals ('daughters', 'were', 'they') under 'Reception' suggests that this is the correct version, and that 'daughter' is simply a typo.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they should have stayed and seen the remainder of the film because Private Hook redeems himself and proves himself to be a hero in his defence of the hospital. He was after all, awarded a VC.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zulu (1964 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The men of the regiment

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Bourne states 'At the end of the war, he (Frank Bourne) was given the honorary rank of Lieutenant Colonel and appointed OBE.' This page (Zulu_1964_film) claims 'He was the last British survivor of the Battle and died as a full colonel.' What rank did he acheive? 2A00:23C5:BC00:8A00:DD01:ADB5:F84F:F909 (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Historic Accuracy” - Biased information

[edit]

The basic premises of the film are true and largely accurate; however, the film must be viewed as simply that and not a historical reenactment of real events. The words “the film must be viewed as....” are clearly biased, and should be changed to something else. The Very Best Editor (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this The Very Best Editor (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Men of Harlech - Apache Drums

[edit]

Just watched an old and little-remembered western "Apache Drums" (1951). In the film some of the white men are Welsh silver miners (accompanied by a nonconformist minister, who is frequently rebuked for his racism by American characters). They are besieged in a building by the Indians and sing "Men of Harlech" (in Welsh) back at them. I wonder whether this was the inspiration for Stanley Baker having the South Wales Borderers anachronistically singing "Men of Harlech" (a specially-written English verse) at the Zulus. We'd need a source.Paulturtle (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alamo

[edit]

Just as "Jaws"was a retelling of "Moby Dick",this could be, although nonfictional, be the British Alamo. 219.89.227.127 (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cuts on British TV

[edit]

I have searched the BBFC website but I cannot find a reason, or is it Ch4, as they show it the most on their movie channel, but can anyone enlighten me as to why this cut has been made to the film.

In the original scene after Corporal Frederick Schiess (played by Dickie Owen) has saved the life of Lieutenant John Chard (Stanley Baker), he kills a few more Zulus and then turns to the camera and starts laughing. In recent years this scene has been cut short. In the previous version, Schiess was always shown turning to the scwreen laughing, now this is cut. Is there some morality issue at play here? Is this a glorifiaction of war issue? I have searched for an answer but I cannot find one. It's most odd. It would now suggest the film that is most commonly shown is now an alternative version. Moreover, I have found from the BBFC website that there cuts made in the first submission in 1963 creating a version that has since become the definitive version.146.66.62.182 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zulu_(1964_film)&oldid=1252528212"