SHAKA ILEMBE: An Interview with Creator Angus Gibson and Screenwriter Andy Petersen

If you have not read our review on the pilot season of Shaka iLembe, then perhaps you should pause and read it here first, before proceeding with this article. Then for more insight and good measure, reading our interviews with two of the film directors- Zeno Petersen and Adze Ugah would be of immense help too.

With the second season over, Teambooktu was fortunate to get an exclusive interview with Angus Gibson, the co-creator/film director of this award-winning series, and Andy Petersen, the show’s screenwriter. As usual, we are proud to bring to you another engaging chat with some of Africa’s famous creatives minds.

For both Andy and Angus, Shaka iLembe was never intended to be simply another telling of the story of King Shaka. The series was an opportunity to explore a much wider precolonial South African landscape — the Ndwandwe, Mthethwa, eLangeni and Zulu worlds — while navigating the difficult territory between documented history, oral tradition and dramatic invention.

In our conversation, Gibson and Petersen discuss the origins of the series, the liberties they took where history offered few answers, the controversial decisions they knowingly made, the importance of love and human relationships in an otherwise dark story, the extraordinary physical demands placed on the cast, and their hopes for the much-anticipated third season.

FINDING A NEW WORLD IN A FAMILIAR STORY

What made you decide that the next landscape you wanted to explore was precolonial Africa — and eventually King Shaka?

ANGUS: As a company, we were keen on not repeating ourselves. We had done very urban, gritty dramas, then spent a period exploring a rural, polygamous world, which was completely different from what we’d done before. We began asking what else we wanted to do and what we felt was absent from our landscape.

Precolonial stories felt absent. The struggle against apartheid and the oppressions of the colonial period had been told, but there wasn’t much representation of the landscape and peoples that predated all of that. That was where we wanted to go. We proposed doing a series of projects around obscure characters — people that audiences didn’t know in different parts of the country. Our proposal was to partner with the different provinces of South Africa and do projects about the frontiers in the Eastern Cape, Mujaji in the North, and others. I even went as far as meeting with Jacob Zuma to get the thing going. Long story short, we didn’t get that off the ground.

Then M-Net came to us and said, in terms of a precolonial world, would we be prepared to pitch a project on King Shaka? That was almost the opposite of what we had proposed. Shaka is not an obscure figure. Many historians have written about him, and people have very passionate views about him. That made us a little nervous because it felt like we were setting ourselves up for failure. Nevertheless, that was what our broadcaster wanted, so we engaged with it.

To explore something different, we decided to broaden the lens and include the Ndwandwe, the Mthethwa and the eLangeni tribes outside the specifically Zulu world. That allowed us to explore fresh terrain.

Andy, when did you come into the project?

ANDY: As a writer, I joined the project when it was already at a stage where a lot of research and development thinking had happened. We were ready to start writing, turning the research into scripts and episode treatments, and understanding how the show would look. That’s when I fully got involved, which I think was around 2019.

In terms of telling a different story, it became clear that telling this wider landscape story was almost a necessity to understand Shaka’s rise. To really understand where he came from, you had to understand that he was not the heir to some big, powerful kingdom. He built that himself. That felt like a necessity in the story. In writing the first six episodes, the first half of the season, he’s barely a character. He’s maybe not the main character of the first season, although he becomes one by the end. The whole world opened up, and that was really fun — to think about, conceptualize and imagine into that history.

Why did you settle on a classic linear structure for the story?

ANGUS: There was quite a lot of debate in the room about the form of the storytelling. There was a proposal to find him as an adult and then return to the young Shaka. I fought my corner for a completely classic linear telling. Partly because we were telling the stories of the Ndwandwe, the Mthethwa and the eLangeni concurrently. Trying to do that without a linear timeline would have been relatively impossible.

I also felt that, in the absence of other narratives about this period, we were a bit like pioneers. We wanted to do a very classic, respectful, dignified telling. That was the corner I fought.

LOVE, BETRAYAL AND THE HUMAN STORY

Shaka iLembe is ultimately a dark story, but love plays a surprisingly important role. Was that partly a way of bringing the audience into the story?

ANGUS: For me, there’s always got to be light in the dark. I was very clear that the best way to engage an audience in the beginning was with a classic love story.

The Nandi-Senzangakhona relationship felt very important. It was the way into the series. I was worried about the fact that, not too far in, Senzangakhona betrays her. I thought, are we going to lose our audience at that moment? That was the reason for the creation of Baleka. It felt like we’d taken away a crucial part. We’d betrayed the audience, but we were giving them a promise with the other narrative. Love was still in the air.

That was the construct. In many ways, we felt the main characters of the first season were Dingiswayo and Nandi, and, in a way, Zwide. We’re big believers in love stories. I’m sitting today on another project, and we’re thinking: what are the great love stories we can tell inside this project?

BETWEEN HISTORY, ORAL TRADITION AND INVENTION

One of the biggest challenges must have been balancing creative licence with historical fact and oral history. How did you approach that?

ANGUS: What was easy in the beginning was the fact that there were substantial holes in the history, where there was absolutely nothing known. Very little was known about the Ndwandwe, for example. There was the myth, legend or history of this witch queen, Ntombazi, who had control of bats and hyenas, and the idea that the heads of people they defeated were cut off and preserved. Literally, that was the kind of material we had. There was precious little else. So we were going to have to almost create a history.

For example, to make a more complex Ntombazi, the Ndwandwe Queen, we invented the narrative of the child (Goloza) who had been hidden away. It’s a classic story. You find it in Greek literature. I suppose it refers almost to Things Fall Apart — the narrative of abandoned twins, rescue and all of that. That part is complete fiction, but it was created in the absence of anything we knew at that point. People were generous with us around that. There was much less criticism than I had expected.

ANDY: From the general public, very, very little. Almost none.

ANGUS: I’ll tell you the kind of criticism we did get. From the eLangeni, for example, their belief is that lobola — bride price — was never paid for Nandi, therefore she never married. But we represented a marriage ceremony in the first season between her and Senzangakhona .

Before we started shooting, we had a symposium at which the Zulu King Zwelithini, who was alive then, was present, as well as the present king, who was a prince at the time, and representatives of the different households. They were Zulu historians or representatives of these households. A huge amount of time was spent debating whether lobola was paid or not. There was no resolution. That was a case in point. They came back angry that we had represented a marriage ceremony, but it was something we knew we would face criticism over, and we went down that road.

Andy, how much freedom did that uncertainty give you as a writer?

ANDY: It did allow a lot of freedom, especially in the first season. I won’t say creative licence because there was a test we measured ourselves against constantly: Does this feel true? Does this feel like it explains what we know and where we get to, even though it has never been written down in the annals of history?

With Dingiswayo, for example, it was known what happened to his brothers. They were all killed, and he ran and spent a very long time away. Exactly where he went is less certain. There are different ideas about that. We chose to take him to a few different places. That whole narrative of Dingiswayo’s classic, almost hero’s journey — going away and returning a changed man — was a real gift in the first season.

He was my favourite character.

ANDY: Probably mine too. (Laughs.) His relationship with Baleka, who was never one of his wives, is not historical. She represented something about his longing to return and his commitment to that journey. In our narrative, they ultimately parted ways before he returned because his path towards becoming king took precedence.

BUILDING THE CHARACTERS BEYOND THE HISTORY BOOKS

Ntombazana is one of the more fascinating characters because of how much she changes in the season — from conniving to loving, vindictive and then remorseful. What informed that interpretation?

ANDY: She is a historical character. The story of her luring Dingiswayo is also historical too. We didn’t invent that. What we did invent was investing in her as a POV character from the beginning and really getting into her mindset.

We needed to explore the Ndwandwe world in Season Two. In the first season, they were very present in terms of their impact and in most people’s memories, but they were only in about half of the episodes at most. In the second season, it was clear that this was the Ndwandwe season. We knew where it was ending — with the big battle. In the first season, you have Zwide, Goloza, his mother Ntombazi, and one or two other characters in Ndwandwe. We knew we needed to create more characters for this world.

We also knew the major story around Gqokli Hill where Zwide lost a number of his sons in battle and we hadn’t represented many of them. This season, we needed to flesh them out. We also played Ntombazana, first as Ntombazi’s protégé, then explored her relationship with her brothers, with Sikhunyana specifically, and with all of them.

To go in-depth into her character, we had to ask questions. What did it mean for her to be sent on this mission? To be sent to the Mthethwa and meet their king, Dingiswayo, and actually fall in love with him? Because how can you not? Then she has to betray him and lead to the most consequential killing of that era. After that, there was another question: What do you do with her? History stops talking about her after that moment. Do you leave her? We felt she was such a great character, so we carried on with her. What would it be like to return to the Ndwandwe having betrayed her betrothed Dingiswayo? To be lauded as a heroine in some ways, but feeling conflicted about what she’d done? That is where the invention, or writing into history, came in.

ANGUS: In fact, one of the things we knew right from the beginning was the story of her capturing Dingiswayo’s sperm and bringing it to Ntombazi as an instrument to bewitch him. So we worked with that to add drama.

MAKING AN EPIC ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT LOSING ITS AFRICAN CORE

The series has reached an international audience. Was there a deliberate attempt to make the story easier for viewers outside South Africa to understand without oversimplifying it?

ANGUS: For us, the primary target was the African audience. It was by far the most important audience. If anybody else gets on board, that’s great, but the African audience was the most important. We felt we were telling quite a complex story that even many South Africans knew little about. People know the broad story of King Shaka, but the Mthethwa and Ndwandwe stories felt like new tellings.

One of the ways we made it easier was to associate certain colours with certain communities. Mthethwa was associated with blue. That’s a complete construct. We used blue for Mthethwa, black for the Ndwandwe and white for the Zulus. Those were attempts to make it easier for the audience.

Also,with the paramountcies- the cattle of the various kingdoms, we consciously made them feel very different from each other. When you see the Ndwandwe, you see them up on the hill; for Mthethwa by the sea. These were shorthand for the general audience, not particularly for a European or Western audience.

ANDY: From a narrative perspective, there was a general storytelling rule: we always went to a new place and met a new people through characters we’d already established. We were teaching the audience how to watch the show, which is pretty standard storytelling. We stuck very strongly to that rule, especially in the first few episodes. It helped establish a sense of geography, landscape and, I suppose, geopolitical relations.

THE SCALE — AND THE HUMAN COST — OF MAKING SHAKA ILEMBE

What was the biggest logistical challenge in making a series of this scale?

ANGUS: There was no precedent for it in South Africa. There had been a series made in 1980. It was made with a gigantic amount of money. Relatively, our budget was lean. In the context of South Africa, it was huge, but in the context of this kind of epic storytelling, it was lean. Then our company didn’t have much experience working with CGI. Special effects and that kind of thing were not our comfort zone. By the third season, it had become a major comfort zone.

Yes, and just dealing with the numbers was a huge thing.

We also chose to shoot in winter because the light is more beautiful and there are fewer problems with snakes, ticks and rain. Of course, everybody is almost naked and cold. The actors had it hard. With the background actors, the wardrobe people could rush to the principal actors with gowns and everything, but the background actors were much more on their own. When we shouted, “Cut!”, they would run for the fires. It was extraordinary, the spirit of those background actors. They were completely invested in the project and learnt all these songs. When they were absolutely freezing and miserable, they would sing. Somehow that kept the spirit going. I completely take my hat off to them.

CASTING SHAKA — AND THE SIX-PACKS

How involved were you personally in casting?

ANGUS: I’m completely obsessive about that.

When you cast Lemogang Tsipa as Shaka, was Henry Cele from the 1980s Shaka Zulu series an inspiration? There is a semblance.

ANGUS: Let me put it this way. I knew that from the 1980s series, the South African audience, and I think the world audience, really loved Henry in that role. He certainly had a beautiful voice, an extraordinary presence and a great six-pack. Henry wasn’t a deliberate reference. He was definitely a subconscious one.

I fought hard for Lemogang for another reason. So he is Tswana, not Zulu, but had grown up in a Zulu area. Nevertheless, it was still a big gamble for him to take the Shaka role in front of a critical audience. But I could not see another actor who could have played 18 and also 41 years of age. That was what we needed. I wanted somebody who could stretch from 18 through to his death. There were actors who could play the older Shaka, but Lemogang was literally the only person I knew who could do that long span. And he’s also a great actor.

Speaking of six-packs, it was like the movie 300 all over again! Almost every warrior was chiselled, was that conscious?

ANGUS: (Laughs) That was certainly an area where we strayed from an authentic telling. The bodies of our actors are very much 20th- and 21st-century bodies as opposed to 18th- and 19th-century bodies.

Senzo (Radebe), for example, was completely in control of his body. If I had phoned him and said, “Hey, I need you in for a scene tomorrow instead of a week ahead of schedule,” it would have been a real challenge because he always wants to be in tip-top shape- physically. He was totally in control of his body. In fact, he was much bigger when I was doing the casting sessions. I said to him, “You feel too much like a man that goes to the gym. If you’re going to take this role, you need to be leaner or more natural.” He had to work with that.

Lemogang, on the other hand, had to lose an enormous amount of weight to be the young Shaka. He was virtually starving himself. It was very hard for him in the first season because everyone around him was buffed and eating everything, while he was this skinny guy starving himself. He also didn’t have the energy because he wasn’t eating. It was very hard.

Then, midway through the season, he had to put on a whole lot of kilos very quickly. You’ll see in the third season he’s a very solid figure, and he really comes into his own. The transformation is incredible.

I guess there was a bit of effort put into body.

THREE SEASONS, THREE DIFFERENT SHAKAS

When you started the series, did you already have the three-season storyline mapped out or was it prepared season by season?

ANGUS: Season by season. Nevertheless, we clearly knew from the beginning that we wanted three seasons. The first season would be Shaka becoming king. The second season was about him building an empire and defeating the Ndwandwe. The third season is him at his most powerful, with the forces within turning against him and becoming his own enemy in a way. But that’s ahead for you.

There is a lot of expectation for Season Three. Are you concerned about the so-called threequel or final-season curse?

ANGUS: I’m always worried. I was worried about the first season. After the first season, I was worried that the second season wouldn’t be well received. When we started the very first meeting with the crew, I said to them, you know, a very formative film for me was The Godfather.

I said, I really am trusting that we are not going to make The Godfather III in Season Three. For me, and for a lot of fans, Godfather III was a disappointment after the first two. The fact that we’ve lost the pleasure of (spoiler alert) Dingiswayo, Zwide, Ntombazi in Season 2, those really wonderful characters, felt like a challenge in Season Three. So, of course, I’m worried. You’re going to tell me at a later stage whether we succeeded or not.

TAKING RISKS AND LEAVING YOUR OWN STAMP

For producers and writers working on historical stories, particularly after something successful, is it safer to stick to what audiences expect, or should they take the risk of doing something disruptive and different?

ANGUS: I’m a risk-taker. Fundamentally, that’s what I think I am. I want to do things that feel fresh and different. It’s not always easy, but that’s what I want as a creator. If we are to do another historical series, I don’t want it to feel like Shaka iLembe. I want it to have its own character and its own cinematic form.

We had very strict rules around Shaka iLembe — the lens and the way the camera moved, which was all very conservative, actually. It was a very thought-through, clear decision. Going forward, I might do something else. I don’t look back and think I wish we’d done it differently. I like the way we did it.

Other people doing it must put their own stamp on it, I think.

WHAT COMES AFTER SHAKA ILEMBE?

So what is next for Bomb Productions after Shaka iLembe?

ANGUS: I’m working on… I can’t actually tell you what they are, but there are a few historical narratives. More than one. All quite different from each other, and I am hoping that they have their own energy.

And when should we expect Shaka iLembe Season Three?

ANGUS: It’s coming out April next year.

Good to know! Thanks for your time.