Many
anti-war films work on the feeling that war is fundamentally
absurd; that both the rules and the actions of war are beyond
the rational scope of civilized humanity. Such a belief is
powerfully stated in the 1979 Australian film Breaker Morant.
The
story, based on fact, is about the court-martialling of three
Aussie soldiers during the Boer War. The soldiers are accused
of killing a Boer solider and a German missionary, in both
cases, in a fashion which apparently breaks the rules of warfare
as set out by the British (who the Australians were fighting
for at the time). The Boer solider was apparently killed as
revenge for a Boer attack which killed a general, while the
missionary, a German, whose country sympathized with the Boers,
was simply killed for no good reason at all. The entire film
focuses on the case and the events surrounding it, and does
not include any extraneous or useless sub-plots. And you will
also discover that, no matter what happens, there will be
no winners and losers, good guys and bad.
The
defense appears to have a rough road ahead right from the
start. Their lawyer is a small-time attorney, inexperienced
in court-martial cases case of any kind, who is given only
one day to prepare his case. The first trial day has him ruffling
papers in an attempt at organization. As the trial moves on,
however, the lawyer's inexperience is the least of the problems,
as you will see that the case is not simply about punishment
for wrongdoing, but a showcase of the true intentions of every
side of this dispute, as well as the nature of warfare.
The
British seem quite prepared to punish these soldiers, as a
show to the Boers that the British can indeed accommodate
an impartial system of justice, even as the crime is the killing
of the enemy. The Brits' prejudice of the Aussies also plays
a major part. The British put on this show because they want
to hide the fact that some of the groups on the battlefield
were given strict orders to kill all Boer prisoners, at all
times. This barbarious order is not something the British
want released into the public.
As
well, the motives of the soldiers are not so innocent either.
The highest ranking of the three is a very hot-tempered sort,
and therefore, the presentation of his actions requires some
thought. Yes, he is following orders, but is he really behaving
impartially, or is revenge his motive?
The
final argument of the defense, and the movie, seems to be
that it is absurd to punish in a situation which by its very
nature is removed from society, both legally and morally.
War changes people, and so it is only logical to assume that
people will behave differently in the warfield, either by
force or their own will.
I
didn't expect this film to be as good and as interesting as
it was. I expected it to be more along the lines of The Caine
Mutiny, another movie about a possible crime from the inside.
While that movie was pretty good, it wasn't nearly as complex
about the nature of war. While that movie had a fairly clear
definition between the villain (Humphrey Bogart's mad captain),
and the good guys (most of the men who orchestrated the mutiny),
and also had justice properly served during its court-martial,
Breaker Morant does not have such a clear-cut depiction. The
movie does not allow you to take sides against the other,
but forces you to face the selfish and primitive truths behind
what many countries like to present as noble and necessary
wars. The storytelling and direction itself are brilliantly
presented, with great editing of the court-martial scenes
and the incriminating events of the battlefield, leading up
to the tragic and terrifically presented final shots.
David
Macdonald
David
Macdonald's Movie Reviews
|