My Review of ‘Breaker Morant’ (1980)
I’ve always liked this movie, but I don’t think I fully appreciated what it was really about until now.
It’s about three Australian officers serving with the British Army during the Boer Wars. The three of them face a court martial and possible execution for their alleged war crimes.
When I first viewed this film, the memory of Vietnam was still relatively fresh in my mind. While growing up, I saw the news stories about the massacre at My Lai and the entire mess that was the Vietnam War. You could say it left an impression.
On top of that, the British officers in the film seem to harbor a faint disgust for Australians in general. At the time, they seemed like the “bad guys.” This time, it also suggested to me differences in culture, as well as class.
I have since learned that the director Bruce Beresford never intended to depict the Australians as “innocent” or as “martyrs,” which would have surprised me a bit. Then.
So, now I’ve seen the movie again. And I think I understand where Beresford was coming from. According to Beresford, he “never pretended for a moment” to depict the defendants as innocent. He wanted to show how ordinary-looking people can be capable of committing terrible atrocities.
And I would’ve agreed and still do. At least two of them very deliberately planned and committed a murder.
Ah, but the trial. That’s where I always get the feeling these chaps are getting just a wee bit railroaded.
First, they’re assigned a solicitor — i.e., someone with zero trial experience — to represent all three defendants. That is a serious disadvantage, if not an outright basis for an appeal. (I have no idea how all that works for courts martial, let alone in the Commonwealth, so … don’t ask.) Except, in order to create the level of emotion the trial is meant to elicit, the solicitor turns out to be a natural. Cross-examination? Nothing to it. More hopeful than realistic.
And it seemed to me a few rulings were on that fine line on which a judge could go either way. In the case of the Australians, the way was always against them.
As a lawyer (and an American she says, shrinking slightly), I probably look at the situation from a different perspective than some, but I can’t help but think these guys never really stood a chance — even if they had been innocent or had acted with sufficient justification. And what is sufficient justification? Well may you ask.
The movie is based on a play — one that likely focused on the court martial — but it’s broadened location-wise beyond the proceedings through the use of flashbacks. And while the wheels of military justice might need a lug nut or two tightened, the reality is not a happy one, either.
But what I love about this movie are the actors. Edward Woodward is just amazing in the role of Harry Morant, the leader of his squad or platoon or gang (or whatever it’s called). Bryan Brown is suitably good-looking and blasé with a touch of “in your face” as the lieutenant who may or may not have done the alleged deed. And Lewis Fitz-Gerald as Lt. George Witten — well, if anyone got railroaded, I thought it was he.
Jack Thompson, who plays the solicitor/makeshift litigator, also gives a stellar performance. More stellar than one could reasonably expect from a lawyer’s first time appearance in court, but that only makes it better.
It’s a nice fantasy, until the cold reality of the situation hits you.
I have to give props to all the writers involved in creating the story. And as for the cinematography … that closing scene is simply brilliant.
If you’ve never seen the movie, you should. But it is a sad movie. And provocative.
Here’s the trailer.
Directed by Bruce Beresford
Produced by Matthew Carroll
Screenplay by Johnathan Hardy, David Stevens, and Bruce Beresford (based on Breaker Morant by Kenneth Ross and The Breaker by Kit Denton)
PS: Did I mention the editing? Or the soundtrack? Really impressive!
And did I gloss over the politics? Well, yeah … :)
