It's one of the most delightful experiences to watch a movie you know completely nothing about and it turns out to be one of the best surprises in a long time. This was the case with "Breaker' Morant". I dont even know why I bothered to watch it, since it sounded like a truly boring Australian war movie, but boy was I wrong and consequently glad I DID bother. Some of the acting and the script are truly Oscar-worthy and the photography and camera movements were truly outstanding on many occasions, taking the whole movie onto another level of experience. And not to forget, the poetry recited through the movie is brilliant. I wonder if it truly got published. 8/10
116 Reviews
Magnificent, thought-provoking (albeit depressing) courtroom drama
Euromutt16 September 2003
"'Breaker' Morant" is based on true events, and deals with the court-martial of three subalterns during the closing stages of the Second Boer War (1899-1902). The officers are members of a mostly Australian unit called the Bushveldt Carbineers, created to fight the Boer commandos (in the original sense of the word) by employing their own tactics against them. The charges against them are that they committed murder by summarily executing captured Boers. That they have done so in not in question, but in their defence they argue that they were acting in accordance with standing orders, not least because the operational nature of the Carbineers would be hampered by having to keep prisoners under guard. The British command is keen to distance itself from this claim for various reasons; it might galvanise Boer resistance, and give Germany an excuse to provide material support to the Boers (thus extending a war which was already a serious drain on the British Empire's resources), and (though this is left unsaid in the film) cause discontent about the conduct of the war in those parts of the Empire supplying the manpower for the war, i.e. Britain, Australia and Canada. Instead, the British command clearly wishes to portray the three protagonists as "rogue elements" and sacrifice them for the sake of political expediency.
"'Breaker' Morant" is about injustice, hypocrisy and incomprehension. The injustice is not that lieutenants Morant, Hancock and Witton are innocent of the charges brought against them--they're not. The Second Convention of The Hague may have been only two years old at the time, but the custom of not killing prisoners was well-established long before, and at no point do we see any of the protagonists object to the standing orders. The injustice lies in the fact that the body which is trying them for their crimes--the British army--is the very body which ordered them to commit these crimes in the first place.
The incomprehension is that of the home front; in a brief flashback of Witton's relatives giving a going-away party, we see the expectation among the civilians that "our boys will knock 'em for six" but behave like gentlemen while doing so. Brief as the scene is, it is plain that the civilians understand only in the most abstract way, if they understand at all, that war is a messy business in which winning requires killing people in unpleasant ways. As Major Thomas, the protagonists' defence counsel, comments, "The barbarities of war are seldom committed by abnormal men. The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations." While I can agree with this observation, it does not alter the fact that the acts committed by the protagonists were of such a nature as to be have been formally outlawed, even within the context of war, two years previously.
Another trope, which occurs in this film but repeated in every war of the 20th century, is that "only a combat soldier can judge another combat soldier." As it happens, I am a former soldier (who never saw combat) who later helped prosecute war criminals while a civilian; I think this line is unadulterated bullsh*t. That said, this opinion comes with a caveat, which is that those civilians and non-combat soldiers who would pass judgement should understand that expecting soldiers to both fight cleanly and to win may be (and often are) mutually exclusive.
Of course, standards have changed somewhat since 1901; when Morant remarks "it's a new kind of war, George; it's a new war for a new century," the difference he indicates is that it is the first time white men visit atrocities upon each other which both had been quite content to inflict upon non-whites for most of the previous century. At one point in the film, Lt. Hancock pulls a dum-dum round from a Boer's ammunition pouch as an indication of the Boers' disregard for the laws of war. However, a (somewhat apocryphal) story from the opening stages of the Boer War (not in the film) tells of how the Boers lodged a protest with the British after finding dum-dum rounds in a killed British soldier's ammunition pouch; the British reportedly apologised profusely, explaining that the soldier had been issued these rounds in error, as these were intended only for use against blacks. The Boers accepted this explanation without further complaint.
But however you may feel about the politics underlying this film, it is a joy to watch. The quality of the production values is top notch, and had I not been familiar with Edward Woodward and Bryan Brown, I could have believed this film was made this year, rather than in 1980. The directing and acting are also superb. At the heart of this is the script, which carried no dead weight of unnecessary scenes; likely, this is due to the fact that it was originally written (and written well) for the stage. The story might easily be transposed to any number of conflicts since the Second Boer War in which military victory demands taking nasty measures; it could easily be rewritten to Iraq in 2003 ("Well, Peter, this is what comes of empire-building."), and for that reason it deserves more recognition than it's received. Magnificent; see it ASAP.
"'Breaker' Morant" is about injustice, hypocrisy and incomprehension. The injustice is not that lieutenants Morant, Hancock and Witton are innocent of the charges brought against them--they're not. The Second Convention of The Hague may have been only two years old at the time, but the custom of not killing prisoners was well-established long before, and at no point do we see any of the protagonists object to the standing orders. The injustice lies in the fact that the body which is trying them for their crimes--the British army--is the very body which ordered them to commit these crimes in the first place.
The incomprehension is that of the home front; in a brief flashback of Witton's relatives giving a going-away party, we see the expectation among the civilians that "our boys will knock 'em for six" but behave like gentlemen while doing so. Brief as the scene is, it is plain that the civilians understand only in the most abstract way, if they understand at all, that war is a messy business in which winning requires killing people in unpleasant ways. As Major Thomas, the protagonists' defence counsel, comments, "The barbarities of war are seldom committed by abnormal men. The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations." While I can agree with this observation, it does not alter the fact that the acts committed by the protagonists were of such a nature as to be have been formally outlawed, even within the context of war, two years previously.
Another trope, which occurs in this film but repeated in every war of the 20th century, is that "only a combat soldier can judge another combat soldier." As it happens, I am a former soldier (who never saw combat) who later helped prosecute war criminals while a civilian; I think this line is unadulterated bullsh*t. That said, this opinion comes with a caveat, which is that those civilians and non-combat soldiers who would pass judgement should understand that expecting soldiers to both fight cleanly and to win may be (and often are) mutually exclusive.
Of course, standards have changed somewhat since 1901; when Morant remarks "it's a new kind of war, George; it's a new war for a new century," the difference he indicates is that it is the first time white men visit atrocities upon each other which both had been quite content to inflict upon non-whites for most of the previous century. At one point in the film, Lt. Hancock pulls a dum-dum round from a Boer's ammunition pouch as an indication of the Boers' disregard for the laws of war. However, a (somewhat apocryphal) story from the opening stages of the Boer War (not in the film) tells of how the Boers lodged a protest with the British after finding dum-dum rounds in a killed British soldier's ammunition pouch; the British reportedly apologised profusely, explaining that the soldier had been issued these rounds in error, as these were intended only for use against blacks. The Boers accepted this explanation without further complaint.
But however you may feel about the politics underlying this film, it is a joy to watch. The quality of the production values is top notch, and had I not been familiar with Edward Woodward and Bryan Brown, I could have believed this film was made this year, rather than in 1980. The directing and acting are also superb. At the heart of this is the script, which carried no dead weight of unnecessary scenes; likely, this is due to the fact that it was originally written (and written well) for the stage. The story might easily be transposed to any number of conflicts since the Second Boer War in which military victory demands taking nasty measures; it could easily be rewritten to Iraq in 2003 ("Well, Peter, this is what comes of empire-building."), and for that reason it deserves more recognition than it's received. Magnificent; see it ASAP.
Well worth seeing.
planktonrules24 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"Breaker Morant" is set during the Boer War--a particularly ugly war fought in South Africa around the turn of the 20th century. Both the Boers (Dutch South African farmers) and the British committed a lot of nasty atrocities and many of the standards conduct during warfare were violated in the course of this war. Concentration camps, a scorched earth policy and the like were used to subdue the Boers.
In this film, three Commonwealth soldiers from Australia are up on charges for war crimes--they are charged with executing prisoners and the like. While the defendants do not deny doing this, the problem is that this was common practice and those in command heartily approved--at least until word of the atrocities leaked. Now, to maintain the facade of civility, the three soldiers are being prosecuted--scapegoats despite doing exactly what they were expected to do. This is based, on part, on a real case--though how closely they stick to the original is uncertain.
While most of the film takes place during the court martials, through flashbacks you see many of the events that led up to the trials. Some of the behavior of the men seemed incredibly savage (such as shooting prisoners who had surrendered on their own) and much of their actions seemed to make sense in light of the guerrilla warfare being committed against them. Regardless, what is clear is that the court really seems to want nothing more than to make examples of these men.
Not surprisingly, "Breaker Morant" struck a chord with many who fought in Vietnam and recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like the Boer War, soldiers had no idea who was and was not the enemy and vague or politically motivated rules of engagement made fighting very difficult. The parallels are many--making this story rather timeless. This, the excellent writing and acting make for a very good film--one well worth seeing--even if it is a bit stagy (belying its roots as a play).
In this film, three Commonwealth soldiers from Australia are up on charges for war crimes--they are charged with executing prisoners and the like. While the defendants do not deny doing this, the problem is that this was common practice and those in command heartily approved--at least until word of the atrocities leaked. Now, to maintain the facade of civility, the three soldiers are being prosecuted--scapegoats despite doing exactly what they were expected to do. This is based, on part, on a real case--though how closely they stick to the original is uncertain.
While most of the film takes place during the court martials, through flashbacks you see many of the events that led up to the trials. Some of the behavior of the men seemed incredibly savage (such as shooting prisoners who had surrendered on their own) and much of their actions seemed to make sense in light of the guerrilla warfare being committed against them. Regardless, what is clear is that the court really seems to want nothing more than to make examples of these men.
Not surprisingly, "Breaker Morant" struck a chord with many who fought in Vietnam and recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like the Boer War, soldiers had no idea who was and was not the enemy and vague or politically motivated rules of engagement made fighting very difficult. The parallels are many--making this story rather timeless. This, the excellent writing and acting make for a very good film--one well worth seeing--even if it is a bit stagy (belying its roots as a play).
A Plot for Warriors of Any Epoch
DoctorVic2 March 2005
After first encountering "Breaker" Morant during a bout of insomnia in 1984 on cable, I have repeatedly come back to this film as one of my all-time classics--covering war, politics, tactics, transitions to manhood involved in all wars--and injustice.
Although set during the Boer War, the account of three officers tried for murder during a war in which the opponents were dressed as civilians has its obvious parallels to the 21st Century. It is absolutely amazing how similar a court marshal can be out on the "velt" of South Africa, in Washington, D.C., or during a purely uniformed war in which all protagonists are easily identifiable.
Three Australian volunteers for the "Bushvelt Carbineers", recruited to fight against civilian-clad commandos (reportedly the first use of the term), find themselves charged with murder, and set as an example by the British in order to prevent Germany from entering the war on the side of the Boer (Dutch) inhabitants of South Africa. In one incredulous encounter between a British officer and Lord Kitchener, the officer spouts the British line "they lack our altruism" (referring to German interests in the gold and silver mines of South Africa), to which Lord Kitchener grudgingly responds, "Quite." A sham trial from start to finish, the Australians are defended by military attorney with experience in "land conveyancing and wills" to which one of those charged, "the latter might come in handy." The film is replete with irony and tragicomic circumstances, as this "new war for a new century" presages many of the conflicts that would come later in the 20th century, and many of the clear paradoxes and trying aspects of the war against terror--again, in which one side is not uniformed, does not conduct war according to any known "rules" of "civilized warfare" (an oxymoron if ever there was one). It has lost none of its cutting edge in the 25-odd years since its release.
Although set during the Boer War, the account of three officers tried for murder during a war in which the opponents were dressed as civilians has its obvious parallels to the 21st Century. It is absolutely amazing how similar a court marshal can be out on the "velt" of South Africa, in Washington, D.C., or during a purely uniformed war in which all protagonists are easily identifiable.
Three Australian volunteers for the "Bushvelt Carbineers", recruited to fight against civilian-clad commandos (reportedly the first use of the term), find themselves charged with murder, and set as an example by the British in order to prevent Germany from entering the war on the side of the Boer (Dutch) inhabitants of South Africa. In one incredulous encounter between a British officer and Lord Kitchener, the officer spouts the British line "they lack our altruism" (referring to German interests in the gold and silver mines of South Africa), to which Lord Kitchener grudgingly responds, "Quite." A sham trial from start to finish, the Australians are defended by military attorney with experience in "land conveyancing and wills" to which one of those charged, "the latter might come in handy." The film is replete with irony and tragicomic circumstances, as this "new war for a new century" presages many of the conflicts that would come later in the 20th century, and many of the clear paradoxes and trying aspects of the war against terror--again, in which one side is not uniformed, does not conduct war according to any known "rules" of "civilized warfare" (an oxymoron if ever there was one). It has lost none of its cutting edge in the 25-odd years since its release.
Superb wartime courtroom drama
DennisLittrell4 May 2003
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)
The question raised in this film is the same as that raised in the Nuremberg trials following World War II and at the trial of Lt. William Calley during the Vietnam War, namely should a soldier be punished for following orders?
The answer to that question depends not only on what the orders were--that is, were they legitimate orders consistent with the "rules of war"--but also on who is asking the question and why they are asking it. After WWII the Allies asked the question and the reason they asked it was because so many people were horrified by Nazi atrocities and wanted someone to punish. If the Axis powers had somehow won the war they might have tried US President Harry S Truman and others for the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities, or indeed for the fire bombings of Dresden. In Vietnam we asked the question of ourselves during the war because our government and military were being accused both at home and abroad of waging a unjustified war and going against our own value system.
Here the story goes back to the Boer War a hundred years ago in South Africa, as the British command for political reasons puts Lt. Breaker Morant, an Australian soldier fighting with the British forces, and two of his fellow Bushveldt Carbineers on trial for shooting Boer prisoners. Their defense is the same as the Nazi soldiers and that of Lt. Calley: they were just following orders.
The superb direction by Bruce Beresford (from the play by Kenneth Ross) makes us identify with Morant (Edward Woodward), Lt. Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown) and the third soldier because we can see that the horrors of war pervert the usual logic of right and wrong so completely that we can appreciate what drove them to do what they did. Jack Thompson, playing defense attorney Major J. F. Thomas, expresses this when he tells the court that war changes us and that therefore the usual rules of conduct no longer apply. Incidentally this film is based on actual events.
Regardless of which side of this very vexing question you come down on, I can promise you will enjoy this outstanding film, winner of 10 Australian Film Institute Awards. In the annuals of war films and courtroom dramas this ranks with the best of them.
The question raised in this film is the same as that raised in the Nuremberg trials following World War II and at the trial of Lt. William Calley during the Vietnam War, namely should a soldier be punished for following orders?
The answer to that question depends not only on what the orders were--that is, were they legitimate orders consistent with the "rules of war"--but also on who is asking the question and why they are asking it. After WWII the Allies asked the question and the reason they asked it was because so many people were horrified by Nazi atrocities and wanted someone to punish. If the Axis powers had somehow won the war they might have tried US President Harry S Truman and others for the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities, or indeed for the fire bombings of Dresden. In Vietnam we asked the question of ourselves during the war because our government and military were being accused both at home and abroad of waging a unjustified war and going against our own value system.
Here the story goes back to the Boer War a hundred years ago in South Africa, as the British command for political reasons puts Lt. Breaker Morant, an Australian soldier fighting with the British forces, and two of his fellow Bushveldt Carbineers on trial for shooting Boer prisoners. Their defense is the same as the Nazi soldiers and that of Lt. Calley: they were just following orders.
The superb direction by Bruce Beresford (from the play by Kenneth Ross) makes us identify with Morant (Edward Woodward), Lt. Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown) and the third soldier because we can see that the horrors of war pervert the usual logic of right and wrong so completely that we can appreciate what drove them to do what they did. Jack Thompson, playing defense attorney Major J. F. Thomas, expresses this when he tells the court that war changes us and that therefore the usual rules of conduct no longer apply. Incidentally this film is based on actual events.
Regardless of which side of this very vexing question you come down on, I can promise you will enjoy this outstanding film, winner of 10 Australian Film Institute Awards. In the annuals of war films and courtroom dramas this ranks with the best of them.
Watching Edward Woodward is like taking an acting lesson
davidg2e3 November 2008
This is a remarkable film that remains as fresh as when it was produced. Edward Woodward has always been a favorite of mine and he was masterful as the title character. He seems incapable of giving any less than a strong performance in a variety of roles. "The Wicker Man" comes to mind, as well as the many episodes of "The Equalizer."
It is easy to imagine the conflicts that inevitably occur between military superiors and the men on the front, and this film clearly shows that, in those days, command personnel were much more likely to be obeyed without question, even as the enlisted men suffered for their mistakes, errors of judgment or even criminality.
For me, the frosting on the cake was using Woodward to sing "Soldiers of the Queen" during the roll of the credits. His clear and fine singing voice seemed to taunt the military brass. It is a crackerjack movie and NOT a tear-jerker, despite the story line.
It is easy to imagine the conflicts that inevitably occur between military superiors and the men on the front, and this film clearly shows that, in those days, command personnel were much more likely to be obeyed without question, even as the enlisted men suffered for their mistakes, errors of judgment or even criminality.
For me, the frosting on the cake was using Woodward to sing "Soldiers of the Queen" during the roll of the credits. His clear and fine singing voice seemed to taunt the military brass. It is a crackerjack movie and NOT a tear-jerker, despite the story line.
A great movie that shows the real face of war.
jomendeziii31 October 2003
This movie shows what a truly hellish thing war can be. Where no rule but rule `3-0-3' exists. A lot of films show war in one slant or another, glorious or horrific. This one just shows it for what it is. A damned horrible mess. Many of the actors are some of Australia's finest and this movie is a credit to their skill and talent. It has simple production values but it is elevated by their acting abilities and the great script. A definite must for those who favor the war genre in films, and a measuring point for those who seek to make a film about war and the people caught up in it.
Reversed Jury
tedg18 August 2008
I have several preferences. I'm trying to watch every detective movie from the thirties, for instance. And I am trying to watch every Australian movie. This marginally qualifies. Though its subject is perfidy in the fall of the British Empire and the location is Africa, it is made by an Aussie. Moreover and more importantly it is a story that in some real sense defined the nation we have today.
The story if you don't know is about an Australian commando under British command. He is ordered to perform battlefield atrocities, all commands undocumented. When it becomes convenient, the generals deny commanding the atrocities and sacrifice the soldier. Direct political benefit results from the actions against this "colonial."
The episode ran through the Australian people and was a factor in defining themselves away from England.
The thing is set up as a courtroom drama, with an interesting twist. The purpose of the trial is not to get to the truth so far as the defendants are concerned, but to get to the truth of the accusers. We do find some twists so far as the charges, but the thing is cleverly focused on the inverse of what you expect. Its a very effective narrative reversal.
It worked for me. I'm not sure that the character of the thing was specifically Australian. But it does work. I think the reason it did for me is because we live in such a time. In the US, we have torturers who, like the men in this film perform their inhuman duty under orders. Like the unsavory proud generals here, our administration is covering their culpability.
So it resonates.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
The story if you don't know is about an Australian commando under British command. He is ordered to perform battlefield atrocities, all commands undocumented. When it becomes convenient, the generals deny commanding the atrocities and sacrifice the soldier. Direct political benefit results from the actions against this "colonial."
The episode ran through the Australian people and was a factor in defining themselves away from England.
The thing is set up as a courtroom drama, with an interesting twist. The purpose of the trial is not to get to the truth so far as the defendants are concerned, but to get to the truth of the accusers. We do find some twists so far as the charges, but the thing is cleverly focused on the inverse of what you expect. Its a very effective narrative reversal.
It worked for me. I'm not sure that the character of the thing was specifically Australian. But it does work. I think the reason it did for me is because we live in such a time. In the US, we have torturers who, like the men in this film perform their inhuman duty under orders. Like the unsavory proud generals here, our administration is covering their culpability.
So it resonates.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Just following orders
rmax3048236 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has been compared to Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" and there are plenty of parallels. But there is a major difference. Kubrick's three grunts were executed because they didn't follow orders and take the Ant Hill. Beresford's are "sacrificed" because they followed the norms, written and unwritten. Our sympathies are all with the defendants.
An interesting thought experiment suggests itself. Let's change the prosecutors from 1903 Brits into 1946 Allies. Let's change the defendants from Australians to high-ranking German officers. Let's change the setting from South Africa to Nuremberg. Would the film still generate the same sympathy for the defendants, whose only defense, in both cases, was, "I was just following orders"? Were any of the defendants in this film less guilty of following orders than, say, Goering, the head of the Luftwaffe, who was more interested in his pet lions than in the disposition of Jews?
I realize that this is an abrasive consideration, but films like this prompt one to wonder if justice was served in either case. It's difficult to imagine how Goering, with his name, could have escaped the hangman except as he did. I think the saying is, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
Easy enough for us to sit back and say, "What a bunch of politically motivated jerks those prosecutors were," when we see "Breaker Morant." True, they were morons. But thinking about it leaves me, at least, a little queasy. As for killing civilians because they are trying to kill you, that leaves me not merely queasy but a victim of projectile vomiting.
An interesting thought experiment suggests itself. Let's change the prosecutors from 1903 Brits into 1946 Allies. Let's change the defendants from Australians to high-ranking German officers. Let's change the setting from South Africa to Nuremberg. Would the film still generate the same sympathy for the defendants, whose only defense, in both cases, was, "I was just following orders"? Were any of the defendants in this film less guilty of following orders than, say, Goering, the head of the Luftwaffe, who was more interested in his pet lions than in the disposition of Jews?
I realize that this is an abrasive consideration, but films like this prompt one to wonder if justice was served in either case. It's difficult to imagine how Goering, with his name, could have escaped the hangman except as he did. I think the saying is, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
Easy enough for us to sit back and say, "What a bunch of politically motivated jerks those prosecutors were," when we see "Breaker Morant." True, they were morons. But thinking about it leaves me, at least, a little queasy. As for killing civilians because they are trying to kill you, that leaves me not merely queasy but a victim of projectile vomiting.
A Masterpiece of thought provoking cinema.
smahman27 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
****May contain Spoilers****
This small Australian film is a slow burning classic, and deserves to be seen by many more people.
Every aspect of the film is handled perfectly; stirling performances, excellent set design, and superb direction that contrasts the measured response of the courtroom to the difficulty of acting honourably in battle. The stresses put upon the soldiers in the field are conveyed superbly, particularly, when set against the sterility of the court scenes.
What makes this such a magnificent film is not merely portrayal of the injustice meted out to the defendants, but the fact that everyone in the film is depicted as doing the best they can under different moral systems. Despite the obvious wrong done to the three Australian soldiers, with whom the films loyalties clearly lie, the prosecutors are not portrayed as out and out monsters.
Even Kitchener, who essentially orders the sacrifice of the soldiers as a political move, is acting from a utilitarian standpoint. "God damn it Johnny, I am not trying to prove some academic point here, I am just trying to find an end to this useless war"
For me the most poignant character is the judge, who has to make the casting vote. The final decision rests on his shoulders, despite the fact he sides with the authorities, the guilt and sadness when delivering the verdict are clear to see. For a film which is about a travesty of justice to do this is admirable. In Breaker Morant, as in war, it seems not everything is black and white.
The great problem with films such as this, is that they tend to "become fact". Having read up on the background to this film, which in itself is a testament to it's power, it is pleasing to see that not only is this a truly great war film, but also no real liberties were taken with the facts.
Even the final summary by Major Thomas is by and large unaltered from the original transcripts, and never has a more articulate sentiment been expressed in a war film.
If you haven't seen this, see it, you owe it to yourself.
This small Australian film is a slow burning classic, and deserves to be seen by many more people.
Every aspect of the film is handled perfectly; stirling performances, excellent set design, and superb direction that contrasts the measured response of the courtroom to the difficulty of acting honourably in battle. The stresses put upon the soldiers in the field are conveyed superbly, particularly, when set against the sterility of the court scenes.
What makes this such a magnificent film is not merely portrayal of the injustice meted out to the defendants, but the fact that everyone in the film is depicted as doing the best they can under different moral systems. Despite the obvious wrong done to the three Australian soldiers, with whom the films loyalties clearly lie, the prosecutors are not portrayed as out and out monsters.
Even Kitchener, who essentially orders the sacrifice of the soldiers as a political move, is acting from a utilitarian standpoint. "God damn it Johnny, I am not trying to prove some academic point here, I am just trying to find an end to this useless war"
For me the most poignant character is the judge, who has to make the casting vote. The final decision rests on his shoulders, despite the fact he sides with the authorities, the guilt and sadness when delivering the verdict are clear to see. For a film which is about a travesty of justice to do this is admirable. In Breaker Morant, as in war, it seems not everything is black and white.
The great problem with films such as this, is that they tend to "become fact". Having read up on the background to this film, which in itself is a testament to it's power, it is pleasing to see that not only is this a truly great war film, but also no real liberties were taken with the facts.
Even the final summary by Major Thomas is by and large unaltered from the original transcripts, and never has a more articulate sentiment been expressed in a war film.
If you haven't seen this, see it, you owe it to yourself.
Fascinating Australian film about courtmartialed soldiers...
Doylenf24 May 2008
EDWARD WOODWARD heads the cast of this excellent film about three British soldiers courtmartialed during the Boer War for their "take no prisoners" stance after witnessing brutal wartime deaths of fellow soldiers. Director Bruce Beresford coaxes excellent performances in all the supporting roles, particularly JACK THOMPSON, very earnest and effective as Maj. Thomas, who, although inexperienced, does a brilliant job on the defense, and BRYAN BROWN as Lt. Handcock and LEWIS FITZ-GERALD as Lt. Witton.
The story is not told in a conventional way, peppered as it is with flashbacks that fill in the details being discussed at the trial. Only gradually does the full story emerge through the use of these incidents.
All of the technical credits are fine, its superb color photography and filming locations in Australia all adding to the authentic period look of the story. JACK THOMPSON's defense is one of the best aspects of the script and he gives his role an eloquence that defies the decision made by those presiding over the trial.
The vagaries of war and obeying commands is given a workout here, as in many other films dealing with decisions made in the heat of battle which often lead to trials like this one.
Summing up: Superb film-making benefits from good direction and many fine performances in the practically all male cast.
The story is not told in a conventional way, peppered as it is with flashbacks that fill in the details being discussed at the trial. Only gradually does the full story emerge through the use of these incidents.
All of the technical credits are fine, its superb color photography and filming locations in Australia all adding to the authentic period look of the story. JACK THOMPSON's defense is one of the best aspects of the script and he gives his role an eloquence that defies the decision made by those presiding over the trial.
The vagaries of war and obeying commands is given a workout here, as in many other films dealing with decisions made in the heat of battle which often lead to trials like this one.
Summing up: Superb film-making benefits from good direction and many fine performances in the practically all male cast.
War Where There Ain't No Rules
bkoganbing24 May 2008
Edward Woodward, better known to American audiences as the Equalizer, plays the title role in this military courtroom drama set during the Boer War. Woodward who had a well known reputation as a rollicking writer of the Australian frontier was one of three men charged with murdering several prisoners during the Boer War, one of them happened to be a German missionary. That got Kaiser Wilhelm's back up and the British were not looking for intervention from him on the Boer side. One must remember that the Germans did have a presence in Africa at the time. The diplomatic situation was not unlike the Korean War before the Chinese intervened.
What to do, but find someone to take the fall. Certainly not Lord Kitchener the commander of British forces in South Africa who let it be known quite unofficially and not on paper for attribution that he really wouldn't care if Boer Prisoners were shot. Edward Woodward, Bryan Brown and young Lewis Fitzgerald, get selected for a court martial. This is not unlike the more famous incident in the French Army during World War I as depicted in Paths of Glory.
The Australians to this day feel that these men were singled out because they were Australians and not British. Wouldn't do to have His Majesty's subjects, let alone the commander be held responsible. While the Boer War was going on, the various colonies on the Australian continent coalesced and formed a nation. Why the Australian government didn't protest more vigorously is something I'm not quite understanding.
That however does not detract from Breaker Morant being the fine film it is with sterling performances all around. Jack Thompson is the defense attorney in this court martial and does a splendid job in the face of a stacked deck.
Alan Cassell is a bloodless Kitchener covering his own rear at all costs and Vincent Ball plays Sir Ian Hamilton who was Kitchener's aide at the time. Australia would meet these two later on under far worse circumstances as Kitchener was War Minister in the Asquith cabinet during World War I and Ian Hamilton was the commander-in-chief of the Gallipoli Expedition where so many ANZACS died in another foreign battlefield for another cause not really their concern. Hamilton is shown as quite the rat here, helping to cover his boss's complicity.
I recommend Breaker Morant mostly for those who are not Australian so they can acquaint themselves with a sad and bitter chapter in that nation's life.
What to do, but find someone to take the fall. Certainly not Lord Kitchener the commander of British forces in South Africa who let it be known quite unofficially and not on paper for attribution that he really wouldn't care if Boer Prisoners were shot. Edward Woodward, Bryan Brown and young Lewis Fitzgerald, get selected for a court martial. This is not unlike the more famous incident in the French Army during World War I as depicted in Paths of Glory.
The Australians to this day feel that these men were singled out because they were Australians and not British. Wouldn't do to have His Majesty's subjects, let alone the commander be held responsible. While the Boer War was going on, the various colonies on the Australian continent coalesced and formed a nation. Why the Australian government didn't protest more vigorously is something I'm not quite understanding.
That however does not detract from Breaker Morant being the fine film it is with sterling performances all around. Jack Thompson is the defense attorney in this court martial and does a splendid job in the face of a stacked deck.
Alan Cassell is a bloodless Kitchener covering his own rear at all costs and Vincent Ball plays Sir Ian Hamilton who was Kitchener's aide at the time. Australia would meet these two later on under far worse circumstances as Kitchener was War Minister in the Asquith cabinet during World War I and Ian Hamilton was the commander-in-chief of the Gallipoli Expedition where so many ANZACS died in another foreign battlefield for another cause not really their concern. Hamilton is shown as quite the rat here, helping to cover his boss's complicity.
I recommend Breaker Morant mostly for those who are not Australian so they can acquaint themselves with a sad and bitter chapter in that nation's life.
" Somewhere between the first order and the last shot, lies the truth of our guilt "
thinker169112 June 2010
War as a wise man once said, is a complete succession of ration thought. Regardless of the time or place it has become a fact. Take this movie called " Breaker Morant " which has come to personify the conflict known as The Boar War and has left a bloody mess in South Africa which killed thousands is a lingering, haunting legacy. The war itself lasted from 1880 to 1902 and changed combatants from it's inception to it's eventual end. The film dutifully covers the controversial court-martial of three Australian officers and centers on weather Lt. Harry 'Breaker' Morant (Edward Woodward), Lt. Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown) and Lt. George Witton (Lewis Fitz-Gerald) were guilty of willful murder. At their court-martial they are aptly defended by Major J.F,Thomas (Jack Thompson) who despite his expert best, was a foregone conclusion by the British Government, who had predetermined their guilt. It was later admitted by unbiased authorities the men were merely scapegoats. The film is a excellent adaptation of the original stage play which has come to exemplify the martyrdom of these heroic Australians who are honored in their own country. The fine cast are superb examples of superior actors on the world stage. Easilly Recommended to anyone seeking a modern film of the Boar tragedy. ****
The nod and wink - or was it?
jghbrown23 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The most striking thing for me about this movie is that it deals with a trial about the killing of unarmed people (murder by some standards?) without ever really discussing the moral justification for the killing. It seems that it might be right in one scenario but not in another. Depending on whether (or not) you got the nod and the wink from your commanding officer. And not on whether you actually judged it to be morally right or not yourself. A dangerously flexible morality, perhaps? Or, is it just the way we fight wars these days? Or. Perhaps it's the way we've always fought them but have only just discovered about the nod and the wink.
I did just two months of active service in the Rhodesian bush in the early seventies. Each camp had a period of re-training and during that time we got the nod and the wink from our commanding officer. Beat them about a bit, make them understand that we're tougher than the other side. This in reference to unarmed black civilians. If an unfortunate accident should occur. A slip of the trigger finger. Well. Don't worry, no-one's going to do anything about it. It's all for a good cause. The war cause. Almost anything's OK for the war cause. That war, incidentally, was lost. So was Vietnam.
They say that the first casualty of war is the truth. However that is a manifest lie in itself. The first and last casualties of war are civilians, and in that category I would lump prisoners of war. If they aren't being deliberately bombed, as in Dresden, London or Nagasaki, they are accused of every kind of deception and put up against walls and shot, or displaced in their thousands or millions towards destinations who don't want them, or herded into unsanitary camps to face malnutrition and disease.
Yes, of course the acting and photography are good. However there seemed to be some playing for audience sympathy for the three soldiers on trial, while the Boers were depicted as a ragtag bunch of scarecrows instead of the highly resourceful and religiously devout people that they actually were. After all they were pioneers in a savage land.
The only injustice, in my view, was the injustice to the unarmed men (Boers and priest) who were callously shot. The rest is procedural - there should have been more men on trial, especially amongst the nodders and winkers. More rule 303.
I did just two months of active service in the Rhodesian bush in the early seventies. Each camp had a period of re-training and during that time we got the nod and the wink from our commanding officer. Beat them about a bit, make them understand that we're tougher than the other side. This in reference to unarmed black civilians. If an unfortunate accident should occur. A slip of the trigger finger. Well. Don't worry, no-one's going to do anything about it. It's all for a good cause. The war cause. Almost anything's OK for the war cause. That war, incidentally, was lost. So was Vietnam.
They say that the first casualty of war is the truth. However that is a manifest lie in itself. The first and last casualties of war are civilians, and in that category I would lump prisoners of war. If they aren't being deliberately bombed, as in Dresden, London or Nagasaki, they are accused of every kind of deception and put up against walls and shot, or displaced in their thousands or millions towards destinations who don't want them, or herded into unsanitary camps to face malnutrition and disease.
Yes, of course the acting and photography are good. However there seemed to be some playing for audience sympathy for the three soldiers on trial, while the Boers were depicted as a ragtag bunch of scarecrows instead of the highly resourceful and religiously devout people that they actually were. After all they were pioneers in a savage land.
The only injustice, in my view, was the injustice to the unarmed men (Boers and priest) who were callously shot. The rest is procedural - there should have been more men on trial, especially amongst the nodders and winkers. More rule 303.
Intelligent Drama About Military Morality
Theo Robertson28 October 2003
We don't see very many films or dramas on the history channel here in Britain . I know the American version shows them because American reviewers have mentioned this on this very website , but I'm not very keen on this happening over here because before you know it we might be seeing THE GREEN BERETS , BRAVEHEART and WE WERE SOLDIERS appearing on the channel , poor movies and poor history to boot in my opinion . At the weekend we were treated to BREAKER MORANT . As I said I'm not keen on the history channel transmitting feature films but I'll forgive them this time because it's a very good movie and very good history .
BREAKER MORANT is the dramatisation of a real life incident during the Boer war , the first " dirty war " of the 20th century , where three Australian officers Harry Morant , John Handcock and George Witton are on trial for their lives for the murder of boer POWs and of a German missionary . What I love about this film is that unlike a lot of other movies with an anti-war / anti- military injustice agenda is that it shows the difficult situations soldiers will always find themselves in . The men on trial are victims , victims of politics and of a wider picture . With the killing of the missionary Germany wants to intervene in the conflict on the side of the boers , not to protect the noble South African farmers from British aggression but to get their hands on the region's gold and diamond mines . In order to stop this happening the British government needs scapegoats in order to hang and Morant , Witton and Handcock were to be hung out to dry so it's the politicians of the time who are to blame for this miscarriage of justice , not the military , and it'd be interesting to note what people who campaign for pardons for the British soldiers shot for " cowardice " during the first world war make of this tale . The three characters on trial here are victims of a grave injustice but you can't help feeling because they " were only obeying orders " sympathy for them will be in short supply from a modern day perspective . I'm probably correct in saying that anyone who's served in the military can see far more clearly the injustice done than any of the " professional anti-war brigade " . BREAKER MORANT isn't a movie than can be used for anyone's hidden agenda , and for that we should be grateful
It's fairly obvious BREAKER MORANT is based upon a stage play . The central setting is a military court room with much of the story told in flashback . Director Bruce Beresford handles the action scenes very well but in this type of story the most important aspect is the cast and their acting , and the director gets the best out of his cast especially Edward Woodward ( Normally an actor I don't like ) who gives a career best performance and Jack Thompson . My only criticism of the casting is that a couple of actors playing British characters let their Aussie accents slip a little , but I'm nitpicking .
Just to sum up this is a very intelligent story of a dirty war , dirty politics and dirty justice which will appeal to serious historians and former servicemen rather than professional pacifists
BREAKER MORANT is the dramatisation of a real life incident during the Boer war , the first " dirty war " of the 20th century , where three Australian officers Harry Morant , John Handcock and George Witton are on trial for their lives for the murder of boer POWs and of a German missionary . What I love about this film is that unlike a lot of other movies with an anti-war / anti- military injustice agenda is that it shows the difficult situations soldiers will always find themselves in . The men on trial are victims , victims of politics and of a wider picture . With the killing of the missionary Germany wants to intervene in the conflict on the side of the boers , not to protect the noble South African farmers from British aggression but to get their hands on the region's gold and diamond mines . In order to stop this happening the British government needs scapegoats in order to hang and Morant , Witton and Handcock were to be hung out to dry so it's the politicians of the time who are to blame for this miscarriage of justice , not the military , and it'd be interesting to note what people who campaign for pardons for the British soldiers shot for " cowardice " during the first world war make of this tale . The three characters on trial here are victims of a grave injustice but you can't help feeling because they " were only obeying orders " sympathy for them will be in short supply from a modern day perspective . I'm probably correct in saying that anyone who's served in the military can see far more clearly the injustice done than any of the " professional anti-war brigade " . BREAKER MORANT isn't a movie than can be used for anyone's hidden agenda , and for that we should be grateful
It's fairly obvious BREAKER MORANT is based upon a stage play . The central setting is a military court room with much of the story told in flashback . Director Bruce Beresford handles the action scenes very well but in this type of story the most important aspect is the cast and their acting , and the director gets the best out of his cast especially Edward Woodward ( Normally an actor I don't like ) who gives a career best performance and Jack Thompson . My only criticism of the casting is that a couple of actors playing British characters let their Aussie accents slip a little , but I'm nitpicking .
Just to sum up this is a very intelligent story of a dirty war , dirty politics and dirty justice which will appeal to serious historians and former servicemen rather than professional pacifists
One of the best
chuck5212 June 2003
A war/courtroom drama on a par with The Caine Mutiny. Well written, acted and photographed without a single superfluous scene or conversation.I have watched it several times and it has always held my complete attention and has never failed to evoke pity and sympathy for the common soldier.
"It's a new war for a new century."
ackstasis21 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'll admit that my knowledge of Australian cinema is still regretfully limited, but the fact remains that I rarely have the opportunity to use the word "masterpiece" in reference to a local film. Fortunately, 'Breaker Morant' is a happy exception, a perfectly-plotted, impeccably-acted war drama that treads a similar path to Stanley Kubrick's 'Paths of Glory (1957),' but undeniably leaves its mark as a work of pure Australian film-making. The film is based upon a true story, of the murder trial and execution of Australian soldiers during the Boer War (1899-1902). The screenplay, written by Jonathan Hardy, David Stevens and Bruce Beresford, was adapted from Kenneth G. Ross' 1978 play, "Breaker Morant: A Play in Two Acts" {a popular misconception is that the film was derived from Kit Denton's 1973 book, "The Breaker," and Ross was forced to take legal action to successfully prove otherwise}.
'Breaker Morant' is certainly one of the most gripping courtroom dramas I've ever come across, a perfectly-balanced assembly of probing cross-examinations, impassioned monologues and legal injustice. Much of the story unfolds in flashbacks throughout the course of the trial, slowly allowing the pieces of the murder puzzle to fall into place. During the Second Boer War, three Australian soldiers, officers of the Bushveldt Carbineers {a multinational mounted infantry regiment of the British Army, of which about 40% were Australian} were accused of the murder of seven Boer prisoners-of-war, as well as the sniper-style assassination of a German missionary. Lt. Harry "Breaker" Morant (Edward Woodward), Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown) and George Witton (Lewis Fitz-Gerald) were brought to trial by the British Army for their alleged crimes, found guilty of murder, and both Morant and Handcock were promptly executed. An inexperienced small-town solicitor, Major J.F. Thomas (Jack Thompson), mounts the most formidable defence he can manage, yet the panel's verdict {being led by Charles 'Bud' Tingwell} seems to have been decided from the very beginning.
Australians have a peculiar habit of glorifying historical criminals, the bushranger Ned Kelly (1955-1880) being the most pertinent example. Since his execution, the Anglo-Australian Harry "Breaker" Morant has also become something of a minor folk hero, his death representative of the resentment that many have for the British over their maltreatment of Australian soldiers {Peter Weir's celebrate war film, 'Gallipoli (1981)' also exhibited this general theme}. Indeed, the film firmly places its sympathies with the accused soldiers, even after they secretly acknowledge their participation in the seemingly-barbaric crimes. In the soldiers' defence, Maj. Thomas proposes various arguments: that the men were merely following their orders, and that these murders were "committed by normal men in abnormal situations." Surely, with all the death and acts of barbarism constantly taking place around these men, their actions cannot be judged as they might in a normal, everyday situations. Lt. George Witton, who was pardoned after serving a three-year sentence, later published his controversial account of the trial, "Scapegoats of the Empire," which is now considered the most reliable report of the actual proceedings.
There's no denying that 'Breaker Morant' has the relatable atmosphere that only an Australian director and largely Australian cast can produce, and every actor involved brings passion and authenticity to their roles (arguably, British actor Edward Woodward gives the film's finest performance as the titular character). The film, like most wartime pictures produced in our country, celebrates the importance of mateship and comradery between everyday Aussie blokes, whether they be fighting the enemy, fighting betrayal from their own superiors ("And a man's foe shall be they of his own household") or dying together, steadfast and courageous to the last ("Shoot straight, you bastards - don't make a mess of it!"). 'Breaker Morant' cleansweeped the 1980 AFI awards, claiming a phenomenal ten wins from thirteen nominations. It was also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay at the 1981 Academy Awards. Certainly one of the most rousing motion pictures that the Australian film industry has ever produced, 'Breaker Morant' is also one of the finest war films you're likely to see anywhere.
'Breaker Morant' is certainly one of the most gripping courtroom dramas I've ever come across, a perfectly-balanced assembly of probing cross-examinations, impassioned monologues and legal injustice. Much of the story unfolds in flashbacks throughout the course of the trial, slowly allowing the pieces of the murder puzzle to fall into place. During the Second Boer War, three Australian soldiers, officers of the Bushveldt Carbineers {a multinational mounted infantry regiment of the British Army, of which about 40% were Australian} were accused of the murder of seven Boer prisoners-of-war, as well as the sniper-style assassination of a German missionary. Lt. Harry "Breaker" Morant (Edward Woodward), Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown) and George Witton (Lewis Fitz-Gerald) were brought to trial by the British Army for their alleged crimes, found guilty of murder, and both Morant and Handcock were promptly executed. An inexperienced small-town solicitor, Major J.F. Thomas (Jack Thompson), mounts the most formidable defence he can manage, yet the panel's verdict {being led by Charles 'Bud' Tingwell} seems to have been decided from the very beginning.
Australians have a peculiar habit of glorifying historical criminals, the bushranger Ned Kelly (1955-1880) being the most pertinent example. Since his execution, the Anglo-Australian Harry "Breaker" Morant has also become something of a minor folk hero, his death representative of the resentment that many have for the British over their maltreatment of Australian soldiers {Peter Weir's celebrate war film, 'Gallipoli (1981)' also exhibited this general theme}. Indeed, the film firmly places its sympathies with the accused soldiers, even after they secretly acknowledge their participation in the seemingly-barbaric crimes. In the soldiers' defence, Maj. Thomas proposes various arguments: that the men were merely following their orders, and that these murders were "committed by normal men in abnormal situations." Surely, with all the death and acts of barbarism constantly taking place around these men, their actions cannot be judged as they might in a normal, everyday situations. Lt. George Witton, who was pardoned after serving a three-year sentence, later published his controversial account of the trial, "Scapegoats of the Empire," which is now considered the most reliable report of the actual proceedings.
There's no denying that 'Breaker Morant' has the relatable atmosphere that only an Australian director and largely Australian cast can produce, and every actor involved brings passion and authenticity to their roles (arguably, British actor Edward Woodward gives the film's finest performance as the titular character). The film, like most wartime pictures produced in our country, celebrates the importance of mateship and comradery between everyday Aussie blokes, whether they be fighting the enemy, fighting betrayal from their own superiors ("And a man's foe shall be they of his own household") or dying together, steadfast and courageous to the last ("Shoot straight, you bastards - don't make a mess of it!"). 'Breaker Morant' cleansweeped the 1980 AFI awards, claiming a phenomenal ten wins from thirteen nominations. It was also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay at the 1981 Academy Awards. Certainly one of the most rousing motion pictures that the Australian film industry has ever produced, 'Breaker Morant' is also one of the finest war films you're likely to see anywhere.
Great
mighty_pickman10 October 2003
Truly great drama based on a real story. The camerawork is simple & not flashy, allowing the great script & magnificent ensemble cast to shine. There isn't one weak acting performance in this film, the standouts being Jack Thompson (in my opinion, his best ever performance)& Woodward in the role of "Breaker" Morant. Gripping drama that has aged well over 23 years. A must see 9/10.
Aussie Classic
toonnnnn3 March 2002
A film about flawed heroes.They did as they were told but the rules are changed and goal posts moved and they gat the blame.A story of men under pressure doing their duty,but they are pawns in a political game and pawns as we all know are the first to be sacrificed. An intelligent movie with a great cast Edward Woodward has never been better and is given good support from the cast,an excellent script and fantastic direction. Iwatched this on dvd and the extras are good too please watch this movie 8/10
not sure to root for the defendants
SnoopyStyle3 July 2015
It's Petersburg, Transvaal, South Africa 1901. During the Boer War, three Australian lieutenants Harry Morant (Edward Woodward), Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown) and George Witton (Lewis Fitz-Gerald) are on trial for killing some Boer prisoners and a German missionary after their Capt. Hunt was killed. They are scapegoats and Lord Kitchener needs to convict them to appease the Germans. However they claim that they were following the rules of war laid down by Hunt which comes from the top Kitchener. It's a show trial where the judges are predisposed and the defense lawyer is inexperienced in military court. The Boer attack the prison and the three men heroically beat them back. The show trial goes on.
This is not an anti-war movie. These guys are portrayed as heroes for much of the movie. This is more or less anti-British military. That's an easy target. These characters are complicated and I wish they are played just a little bit more complicated. They need to be a bit more brutal. During the Boer attack on the prison, they are more like Rambo. There is a fascinating but a little slow court procedural where the defense starts out strong and turns murky. The final defense closing arguments are awkward. It's a movie that leaves me questioning the need of the movie to make martyrs of these men.
This is not an anti-war movie. These guys are portrayed as heroes for much of the movie. This is more or less anti-British military. That's an easy target. These characters are complicated and I wish they are played just a little bit more complicated. They need to be a bit more brutal. During the Boer attack on the prison, they are more like Rambo. There is a fascinating but a little slow court procedural where the defense starts out strong and turns murky. The final defense closing arguments are awkward. It's a movie that leaves me questioning the need of the movie to make martyrs of these men.
Powerful war movie
perfectbond15 November 2004
When I watched this finely acted movie, I wasn't really too knowledgeable about the Boer War so I didn't know how historically accurate the film was. However, from reading the posts, it seems more knowledgeable posters then myself agree that the filmmakers were very authentic in their endeavors. Most pertinently, even though the story is about the General Staff scapgoating the three Australian lieutenants to cover their own practice of ordering Boer prisoners shot, in a war obviously long since concluded, its relevance is timeless and universal as soldiers in all times and places are asked to do things that conflict with their consciences. Breaker Morant shows this very powerfully. 9/10.
Quite Gripping
Uriah4322 April 2015
This movie concerns the atrocities and subsequent courts-martial of three Australian officers serving during the Boer War. Although the movie itself is quite dramatic I think it deserves mention that the defendants were all guilty of the crimes in which they were charged. The question then remains as to whether they were simply following orders or not. Yet even if they were under orders to "take no prisoners" it should also be stated that the acceptance of prisoners under a flag of truce (or any other circumstance) nullifies the order and therefore undermines any defense for executing them once they've been captured. Likewise the cold-blooded murder of a witness to the crime cannot be justified or overstated either. That being the case any implication that the three defendants were tried solely because of political considerations is rather specious. Be that as it may, as far as the movie is concerned it is still quite gripping and provocative from start to finish with good direction (Bruce Beresford) and crisp acting from all concerned. Having said that I believe it should be restated that the film itself is not an historical documentary and shouldn't be mistaken for one. Above average.
Finally: A Historical film that Treats the Boer Fairly
zabokrugby814 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
If you believe like I do, that war is utterly futile, then you should view Breaker Morant. There is no better film that captures that essence. Even after 10 viewings, this film still captivates my complete attention.
And there are many reasons. Just to list a few: the plot is riveting, the actors are superbly cast in their disparate roles and the natural backdrop and scenery are simply stunning. Amidst all of that lies the core attraction of this film: courtroom drama. Even The Bard would have had much difficulty replicating such suspense, emotion and linguistic eloquence in a play. Speaking of suspense, during the military court-martial, each and every utterance from the main players had my full and complete attention.
Not many, if any one film of a similar genre has ever done that before.
If there is one weakness though, the film is Aussie biased; so much so, that I got the impression the directors/producers blamed Britain solely for the execution of two of their native sons. Yes, the 'Thin Red Line' was culpable for committing atrocities against the Boers (concentration camps in Northern Transvaal) but were the British the lone culprits?
Now, hold on a New York minute! It's true that Lord Kitchener sought a quick way to extricate himself (and the Brits) from this 'dirty' war. And it's implicit in the film that, Morant and at least one of his two lieutenants were expendable BUT it's also clear that two of the Aussie colonial volunteer soldiers did commit murder: the German pastor. And the soldiers were even unabashed about the events leading up to the heinous deed during the court martial. In the dock, they all admitted their 'hate' for the German pastor's partisan stand. Their words...
"He helped the Boer cause, solely. And we warned him about the consequences, many times."
And justice was served; the fact that it came by a British military court martial is moot. As soldiers, those Aussies knew the penalty. And the one (George) who was spared execution, probably knows now or should have known then, that he was only 'pardoned' because of his young age. Although, judging by the film's plot, his 'role' in the atrocities was deemed negligible even by the prosecution. The judges though didn't exactly state a compelling case for his innocence either.
Not convinced? Watch this film and 'judge' for yourself...
And there are many reasons. Just to list a few: the plot is riveting, the actors are superbly cast in their disparate roles and the natural backdrop and scenery are simply stunning. Amidst all of that lies the core attraction of this film: courtroom drama. Even The Bard would have had much difficulty replicating such suspense, emotion and linguistic eloquence in a play. Speaking of suspense, during the military court-martial, each and every utterance from the main players had my full and complete attention.
Not many, if any one film of a similar genre has ever done that before.
If there is one weakness though, the film is Aussie biased; so much so, that I got the impression the directors/producers blamed Britain solely for the execution of two of their native sons. Yes, the 'Thin Red Line' was culpable for committing atrocities against the Boers (concentration camps in Northern Transvaal) but were the British the lone culprits?
Now, hold on a New York minute! It's true that Lord Kitchener sought a quick way to extricate himself (and the Brits) from this 'dirty' war. And it's implicit in the film that, Morant and at least one of his two lieutenants were expendable BUT it's also clear that two of the Aussie colonial volunteer soldiers did commit murder: the German pastor. And the soldiers were even unabashed about the events leading up to the heinous deed during the court martial. In the dock, they all admitted their 'hate' for the German pastor's partisan stand. Their words...
"He helped the Boer cause, solely. And we warned him about the consequences, many times."
And justice was served; the fact that it came by a British military court martial is moot. As soldiers, those Aussies knew the penalty. And the one (George) who was spared execution, probably knows now or should have known then, that he was only 'pardoned' because of his young age. Although, judging by the film's plot, his 'role' in the atrocities was deemed negligible even by the prosecution. The judges though didn't exactly state a compelling case for his innocence either.
Not convinced? Watch this film and 'judge' for yourself...
Interesting story
Leofwine_draca2 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
BREAKER MORANT is a very interesting Australian war movie set during the Boer War, of all things. It happens to tell a true story which most of us will have never heard of (at least outside of Australia), so what follows is engaging and occasionally gripping. It's a courtroom drama with major elements of the story shown in flashback, and it's altogether a character-focused and enduring experience. Edward Woodward heads a fine cast that includes up-and-coming Bryan Brown and Jack Thompson as the lawyer, the latter particularly good in a scene-stealing role. This one's an intellectual movie that looks at important aspects not usually covered by more gung-ho war movies, such as responsibility, bravery, passing the buck and the flawed justice system.
Awful
hotmaledot130 March 2005
A friend found this for me down the local library, we watched it together and found it highly entertaining.
I then did a little research on the subject and discovered the truth.
I am all for learning from the mistakes of the past, I hate things being brushed over.
But this film is absolutely awful in regards that it simply tells lies.
If you want an entertaining film watch this, if you want to learn something give it a miss.
It is in the same mold as Gallipoli, entertaining but just crammed full of inaccuracies which make the British look bad.
More Australian nationalism turned into racism.
I then did a little research on the subject and discovered the truth.
I am all for learning from the mistakes of the past, I hate things being brushed over.
But this film is absolutely awful in regards that it simply tells lies.
If you want an entertaining film watch this, if you want to learn something give it a miss.
It is in the same mold as Gallipoli, entertaining but just crammed full of inaccuracies which make the British look bad.
More Australian nationalism turned into racism.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
