Anyone - which is almost everyone who is reading this - should be able to understand that this film was made in a biased way in which it persaudes the viewers to sympathise with the characters such as Morant, Witton, Major Thomas and Handcock (to some extent).
I agree that Breaker Morant has some bias and I have no problem with it; it's necessary to make a story about a government unable to accept its own responsibility for the actions of its soldiers. Why else make it? Would a version that is sympathetic to the British Empire's apparent frustration at having rogue officers committing atrocities in South Africa be less biased? How about a movie about the Boer War that takes a sympathetic view to the fact that it was the British that invented the concentration camp? The main character is clearly shown as a man who not only orders an execution in a moment of fury but also devises the assassination of a minister who might be acting as a spy. He's also shown to be cultured (he sings lieder and writes poetry), of clearly a higher class than the two men on trial with him--a fact driven home when a cohort offers him escape but cannot offer it to the other one who has been condemned. The fact that Morant prefers to stay and take his punishment shows that he was honorable too. Sympathetic? Yes, indeed and deservedly so. The question that should be asked is When is a character that is shown to be complicated with contradictory attributes not worthy of sympathy? I can't think of a movie that does not extend sympathy to a complicated character and I'd be happy to be told of one.
shareI have to admit that I didn't read all of the posts, there are just too many and I don't have enough time, but I'd like to say a few things which may or may not have relevance to the conversation. They might have some indirectly, or at least they'll give you something to think about.
Boer fighters were clearly not real soldiers, as we see in the film. After a long time out fighting their clothes would fall apart, as clothes do under stress. They began to take clothing and supplies from dead British soldiers, and when Kitchener heard of this he ordered all Boer prisoners *who were wearing British clothing* to be shot, as anyone wearing the enemy uniform is generally considered a spy, subject to execution. Kitchener might have been thinking of them as spies, or maybe, and more likely, he was just looking for an easy way to eleminate the Boer problem any way he could.
Kitchener was a less than savory character. He was stationed in Cairo at one point and put down the Mahdi rebellion which had dealt the British a heavy blow several years earlier. Once he thoroughly trounced the rebellion, he ordered the tomb of the Mahdi to be desecrated, and he seriously considered using the Mahdi's skull as an inkstand. The British back home would have none of it.
Is the film biased? yes. Was the real trial fair? No. they had once day to prepare, their lawyer had no court martial experience, all the pertinant witnesses had been transferred, Kitchener himself was unreachable. They really were scapegoats, thats all there is to it.
mjp12usa3 says, "Boer fighters were clearly not real soldiers"
Excuse me, but I must strongly disagree. The Boers were GUERILLA soldiers. The English had little experience fighting guerillas. The guerillas fought an unconventional war and therefore the British required unconventional tactics to defeat the enemy.
Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?
Are you kidding me? The British had more experience fighting guerrillas than anyone in the world. Ultimately, they were pretty good at adjusting their tactics effectively. They just weren't popular or pleasant tactics.
shareI admit I'm not an historian...so please let me have it! I would really like to know more about your statement "The British had more experience fighting guerrillas than anyone in the world". Thanks. I hate feeling like an ignoramous.
Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?
First, they had been fighting with the Boers off and on for some time before the actual Boer Wars. They also fought the American Revolution, which was, by and large, a victory of guerilla tactics the century before. They had dealt with the Thugs, amongst others, in India. During the Napoleonic Wars, Wellington waged a guerilla war in Spain for several years. They had also fought innumerable indigenous peoples around the world, so they certainly were not caught off-guard by irregular tactics. There really is no other European power at the time that was more accustomed to irregular tactics. The United States Indian Wars are the only really close comparison at the time, and we all know how that one ended up...
shareNosey (Wellington) didn't 'wage a guerrilla war in Spain' - the Spanish waged a guerrilla war in Spain and the French were the ones on the receiving end. Wellington was COOPERATING with the guerrillas who were on his side.
The British, as an army, were not necessarily more or less prepared to fight guerrilla wars than other imperial forces - the French had been fighting in Indochina (Vietnam) and the Spanish in the Philippines as well. The British solution though is that they would commonly form ad hoc groups or even establish regiments of people who were best suited to the task to get the job done. The legendary Black Watch started as an anti-guerrilla force of sorts, policing the Scottish highlands against smugglers, rogues, highwaymen and Jacobite rebels. Other units like Roger's Rangers, Mackay's Georgia Highlanders, Ferguson's Tory Riflemen, the Corsican Rangers, etc. all the way to the Bushveldt Carbineers, would be according to the needs of the situation.
I would say that the British were on par with other professional military organizations around the world in fighting guerrillas, not necessarily better.
Tom516
"It is not enough to like a film. You must like it for the right reasons."
- Pierre Rissient
Don't bring the American Revolution into this conversation. All of the war's decisive battles were conventional, European-style fighting. There was guerilla conflict (particularly in the South, the West and along the New York-Canadian border) but it mostly involved Native Americans and was in any case of little consequence to the overall war. Otherwise, what do you think Baron Von Steuben was doing at Valley Forge?
Well yes, a splat today, but tomorrow - who knows, or dares to dream?
[deleted]
yes this film is biased to the Australians cos its made by australians FOR australians, when we were starting to become more patriototic and proud of our nation i think..... may need to pay attention in english
~*~If I lay here, if I just lay here, would you lie with me and just forget the world?~*~
"The Boers were GUERILLA soldiers"...no, the Boers were farmers, as the name indicates.
shareThose are not mutually exclusive terms.
shareWell said. Why anyone would think that being a "guerilla" or a "farmer" is an either/or proposition knows nothing of the Boer War or warfare in general.
Despite what Morant says at one point in the movie, this type of war was not new. He says that the combatants are farmers, rather than professional soldiers. That was true. But the Colonials during the American Revolution were farmers and used the type of hit-and-run tactics that the Boers are said to have invented. These same tactics were used by the Confederates during the Civil War. Nathan Bedford Forrest, John Singleton Mosby, and the infamous William Quantrill, all used such tactics. When it came to outright barbarity and disregard of military law, I doubt the Boers had much on Quantrill (or "Bloody Bill" Anderson) and his men. (Such tactics--and the resulting atrocities--go even further back, at least to the time of Genghis Khan.)
None of us is pro-war. But this type of knee-jerk, biased, and reactionism usually comes from those who know absolutely nothing of war--except that THEY DON'T LIKE IT!
Well, la-di-da. Neither do the men and the women who are compelled to fight it.
The Boers were given their own back and Morant was sacrificed for the sins of Lord Kitchener and the British high command for the sake of peace. I'm amazed at those the deep thinkers who are more outraged at the men who carried out the orders than they are at the man (Kitchener and his staff) who gave those orders--and were allowed to wash their hands of the whole bloody mess.
[deleted]
If you did any research into the matter at all, you wouldn't make such a comment. Maybe it was slightly exaggerated (in the way almost any movie is), but this film is based directly off the memoirs written off the one surviving officer (at present I cant recall his name) of these trials. The government spent years trying to keep his written work under wraps because they knew that what they had done by killing Morant and his other man was wrong and they didn't want the publicity that the book would naturally attract.
Check your facts next time.
I agree with Nazgul. The British Empire is littered with the bodies of innocents - but all Empires are; they must in order to become Empires.
Take the American Empire (in steep declinenow under the dreadful Administation of George Bush). There was Vietnam, now Iraq. Case closed.
Breaker Morant is an outstanding movie.
I'm fully aware of the bias, but even without that I would probably side with the prisoners, since command refused to accept any blame at all. Also consider the circumstances in which they were forced to fight. I say if you send someone to work in a cow pasture, don't blame them when they step in some s**t. Witton wtote a book after his release from prison entitled 'Scapegoats of the Empire'
shareOf COURSE it's biased. If the British made it, it would portray Witton, Morant & Handcock as undisciplined and disreputable men because that's what the British thought of Australians.
The facts are still there though, the Brits lied and used Aussies as scapegoats for their war, which IS unfair.
"Ooh, a level three! Did you call Jack Bauer?" Dr. House
If the Brits made it, it'd be far, far more anti-British and would get lashings of UK Government funding as well.
"Someone has been tampering with Hank's memories."
[deleted]
Every film ever made is biased, the filmmakers always have an opinion.
share