Breaker Morant (Spoilers)

Breaker Morant is a film based on the true story of three Australians fighting the Dutch in one of South Africa's Boer Wars. The men are being court martialed for political reasons for crimes that they committed under orders from their superiors.

The film is tremendously interesting, raising loads of questions on the ethics of war. According to the film, the Boers were fighting a guerrilla war. Morant, the main character, who is also a poet, calls this a new sort of war for a new century. The film asks what should one side do when the other side deviates from the rules of war. Any of the Boers could be planning to attack, even a passing missionary, according to Morant. The Australians were picked to take the fall due to the stereotypes associated with their nationality when the British army decided to change its tack. The British government wants to prosecute some Australians in order to prove to the Boers that they want to negotiate. One higher-up officer says that the three Australians must be sacrificed.

This theme of sacrifice follows through the film, at times pushing up against religious imagery. Two of the three men are shot at the end of the film. In the voiced-over poem at the end, Morant uses "crucifixion" in his final rhyme; in addition, the two men fall, shot, with their arms extended. One of the soldiers suggests, at one point, that he would help Morant escape. Morant, however, doesn't jump on this opportunity. Instead, he remains resigned to his fate. He asks for Matthew 10:36 to be his epitaph: "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

What complicates this film is the personal motivations of the characters--Morant was revenging his friend Hunt's death. Hunt was his superior; Morant had been engaged to Hunt's sister. While not taking prisoners of the Boers that they encountered, but rather killing them, was following the orders of his superiors, it was also in accord with Morant's own desire for revenge. In fact, as one of the soldiers pointed out, Morant didn't follow orders when he disagreed with them. The overlapping of personal and professional ethics is of great interest here.

Justice is not upheld in the course of the court martial--the man who gave the orders that Morant was following denied it. In addition, the soldiers who would have testified in support of Morant's story were sent to India. Justice does not seem to be present, either, in the verdict: the soldiers who shot the convicted men did the same thing that those three men did during the war--they followed orders, no matter how politically motivated or evil those orders were.

There are two men being court martialed in addition to Morant. The youngest soldier is very idealistic--he believes in the idea of the British empire. His crime is the most obviously bogus as he killed a Boer either in self defense or accidentally. While the young boy is idealistic, Morant is sober about the empire and about the possibility of justice--toward the end he says, "Well, Peter, this is what comes of empire building."

The lawyer defending the three Australians does an admirable job--doing his best in the midst of a rigged situation. Their lawyer argues that "War changes men's natures. ... The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations. ... Soldiers and war are not to be judged by civilian rules." The film gives some evidence to back this up--Breaker Morant is really just a poet; he is shown in the flashbacks reciting poetry at fine parties. However, when his friend is apparently tortured and then killed, he snaps and is no longer even-handed and fair. The soldiers that he commands are surprised at his fury.

The film, which is directed by the director of Driving Miss Daisy and Tender Mercies (which makes me want to see that movie even more), is somewhat similar to 12 Angry Men, although the court martial in Breaker Morant is more of a frame that is punctuated by flashbacks that take you out of the courtroom and introduce drama into the otherwise simple set.

This film was recommended to me by Arlene Saxonhouse, a political theorist. She said that she often uses this film in her classes, which seems fitting. It seems to me that one obvious way that this film speaks to current events is with regard to terrorism--how do you attack people who threaten you, but do not abide by any traditional rules of war? The film undermines any idealism with regard to the possibility of finding solutions to these questions, showing that corrupt political motivations abound.


(picture, picture)