RULE 303. Breaker Morant is an example of "Mommy's House - Mommy's Rules" and when Mommy is through with you, it is under the bus you go. Edward Woodward is excellent in everything he did.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Hello Vlad65. Personal experience - I've been there but avoided the bus because I had 'better dirt'. Just understand that 'leaders' want the sausages, but don't want to see how they are made. Oh, and don't forget to wash your hands...
It's a fine line between hero and villain. Morant was condemned to execution by firing squad as a war criminal and is considered a sentimental and unimportant poet. T E Lawrence fighting behind enemy lines in a brutal guerilla war in which many atrocities occurred is lauded as a war hero and a great man of letters.
This is the stupidity of media and public with stupid sentimental views .you can't always take prisoners ,for civvies watch saving private Ryan at the landing they kill everyone till the area is taken people see this as wrong but where do you keep them even later when they release a POW who repays pays them by going straight back to his unit and killing the captain this shows why you why you shoot them as done even today not because of blood lust but simply to protect you your colleagues and the mission ie prisoners have to be guarded taking away fighting men they are also noisy taking away stealth they also eat at your limited supplies (water and food) FYI one of the most famous journalist pushing this on the public making himself famous was winston Churchill the same man responsible for Gallipoli and a pillack today he would be a UA-cam troll as he believed himself to be a military genius instead of the ego maniac piss head he was and the British army who rate there personnel pretty fairly believed he was a knob going on what Kitchener wrote one point as to Churchill admiration of the boers in his own mind then and later is very easy to see by him naming the first British special force's after them ie commandos
morant happened to kill a german missionary (complicit in the murders of Morant's soldiers) and germany was using it as a pretext to back the boers and widen the conflict, he was a scapegoat. In my mind Morant was a hero. Lawrence of Arabia was a hollywood hero, leftist wokeism runs deep in hollywood and has existed for a long time. The film showed the whites liberating the poor oppressed brown skinned people of the middle east, victims of white colonialism.
Great review of a great film. The film captures the moral ambiguities of guerrilla warfare and the sense that Morant, Hancock and Witten were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Morant says in his final poem “If you encounter any Boers You really must not loot ‘em, And, if you wish to leave these shores, For pity’s sake, don’t shoot ‘em.”
Yes, it was extremely appropriate to include that at the ending. I recall having a sad and hollow feeling the first time I saw it by the conclusion. As usual, the first time was the best as you didn't know what fate awaited each character.
Great insights and presentation. Jack Thompson's final summation in court, with its musical cadences, irregular rhythms, pauses and emphases of certain words, is inimitable and one of the most spellbinding monologues in film history. As for Woodward, he couldn't give a bad performance if the Empire depended on it.
The last appeal to have them pardoned was rejected on the grounds that Morant and Handcock admitted to shooting the prisoners so were guilty whether following orders or not. We will never know if Kitchener issued those verbal orders but his reputation will always be smeared by the concentration camps and the mass starvation of so many innocent women and children. My Great Grandfather fought in that Boer War in the British Army and was decorated for bravery. Makes me wonder what he might have done while “following orders” but war has always been a dirty business. Nice review of the film. In my opinion the best of the court martial films to date above A Few Good Men and The Caine Mutiny etc.
Thanks. I have to agree with you on the court martial films. Morant is compelling as a true story and being told in a straightforward manner, which ground everything in reality for the viewer. Good Men is entertaining but a bit "cinematic", especially as Nicholson's speech is now the stuff of parodies. I still like Caine a lot with Bogey playing another flawed character, a good man who has been broken by the strains of war. If you can, you should also get your hands on The Caine Mutiny Court Martial (if you haven't already) - directed by Robert Altman the whole production focuses on the trial. Made later, it is also tougher and more open about how the defense lawyer (Eric Bogosian) being an American Jew colours the view of the man he is defending.
Great movie, big fan of Woodward and his portrayal of Morant. I am reminded of the line from Apocalypse Now:"...a murder charge here(Viet Nam) is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."
Did you ever see Edward Woodward sing “Soldiers of the Queen” in a non-ironic, but celebratory and jingoistic manner, in the very popular BBC show “ The Good Old Days”; which paid homage to the Victorian musical hall tradition? Both the singer and the show have stayed a pleasant memory in my mind for around half a century. Quality lasts.
Wow. Just as you wrote this I am having my wife watch the Boer War segment of Young Winston. With Woodward of course. I have not seen him sing the other version. I also like the fact he was a fellow war gamer
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Whilst not a War-Gamer, I did become a collector of model soldiers, after being inspired by Woodward’s Callan character painting such figures in his dingy London flat; as a form of solace from the cynical, violent world, in which he had to operate.
The answer to this question is best given in Morant’s statement ; “This is a new type of warfare for a new century. Some combatants are women and children and some are missionaries”. That is, the rule of guerrilla warfare is that there are no rules. Given the circumstances of this conflict, Morant’s culpability was remarkably reduced.
This is undeniably an interesting assertion, though given both the historical and "life and death" implications, one that must be considered with critical care. First, wars the impact civilians and "women and children" certainly did not start in the 20th Century, far from it. Choosing from an unfortunately long list, there are the barbarities of Napoleon's misguided invasion of Spain (the Spanish ulcer), the horrific scale of civilian involvement in the 1812 invasion of Russia (well documented in the best-selling Moscow 1812), the treatment of the Scottish clans after the 1745 war - and countless others going back to antiquity. Also, as I am in contact with civilians in Western Ukraine who have survived nearby Russian missile attacks, I do find it difficult to totally absolve soldiers willing to wage war on women, old men and children under the "just following orders" call. So, yes, while the statement is a dynamic bit of dialogue, you can question how well it would stand up to hard scrutiny.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I did say that the circumstances mitigated Morant’s culpability, though they did not completely absolve him. Though the American Revolutionary was a guerrilla war , like others that pre-existed the Boer War, it can be stated that insurgency was certainly the hallmark of so many “new” conflicts of the Twentieth Century. There was unquestionably a stylistic change from the “fixed piece” battles of old. Certainly nobody would disagree that the wanton murder of innocent old men and women is reprehensible. But the Boer guerrillas ceased to be innocent farmers when they wore khaki, used deception, took up arms and committed acts of sabotage against Commonwealth soldiers. Independent of whatever one’s allegiance may be, I do not think that the Boer guerrillas could be compared to the innocent civilians of Ukraine.
Great and entertaining review. I especially like how you pointed something I'd never noticed: that all the Boers shot in the movie were either off screen or seen from a great distance, as if done to minimize their loss. How easily we're manipulated by people who make movies. I loved this movie when I saw it all those years ago, and have been fascinated by the controversy surrounding the events of the trial ever since. In addition to the question of whether or not the defendants were guilty, whether or not Kitchener had issued the order, etc, to me the two big questions are (1) did they receive fair trials, and (2) why weren't dozens of other British or Commonwealth troops tried for similar offenses? Those are the questions which remain unanswered as people continue to muddy the water. As for the film itself, it was something of a masterpiece, but also should be seen as a cautionary tale reminding us of how easily and thoroughly we can be persuaded by someone with an agenda who suppresses the facts that don't support that agenda.
Thanks for your very thoughtful comment. I was very impressed by the film when it came out and remember meeting an Australian court worker while traveling on Brit Rail and learning how controversial he was down under. The point about how Beresford depicted the Boer deaths I just noticed when watching more critically for this review. Of course you are absolutely correct about being wary about how filmmakers present events and the power that can have. As I noted in The Bounty review, for many the movie becomes the historic reality.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews - Thank you for that feedback. When I get a chance I want to review all the stuff I sort of knew at one time to get it all straight in my mind again, but I think in the movie it was stated the Australian government approved of the verdict and the sentence, while I think the reality was the Australian government didn't find out until weeks or months later. Also, there's that pesky issue of all those people whom the defense would have called to testify had they not been transferred out of South Africa. The British Army's position seemed to be "We know they're guilty, so therefore we can't risk a fair trial in which they might not be found guilty."
Thank you for your presentation about the Breaker Morant story and film. This has remained one of my all time favourite movies and Edward Woodward was brilliantly cast in the title role. The final closing scene of the film is brilliantly unforgettable.
Agreed. It had a strong impact on me decades ago and still hits with a punch - researching the video also uncovered some dark sides of history that were interesting to learn. Thanks for posting!
Fantastic movie! Makes one think, think, think (I served a year-and-a-half in Vietnam a half-century ago -- amazing how time flies -- and saw some of war up close and personal and realized back then what a flaw we have in our humans to organize so well to kill each other). I still get goosebumps thinking about this film: the cinematography, the perfect cast, costumes, the story (who is good, who is bad, who is right, who is wrong, who is hiding the truth, what is the truth?), and especially the biting dialog. I have mentioned this movie to others interested in military history; sad that so many have not seen this film. Happy that you have reviewed it! -- retired U.S. Navy chief petty officer. 👍
Very thoughtful and thought-provoking. Of course, as you think about the history, you also have to think about the agenda of the filmmaker and why he/she tells the story in a certain way.
Excellent--a favorite movie of mine--a complicated back story--a lot of nuance. I'm impressed that you found a photo of the real Breaker Morant! Somehow I didn't realize this was based on a real story.
Thank you and I am glad it expanded your enjoyment of this classic.. This offers another example of the power of movies because the version of events and viewpoints they offer are often embraced as the "historic reality" by an audience. I was emotionally stirred to anger as I watched it again - the head of the court was so perfectly loathsome. But when you do the research and consider the many Boers and other shot, yes, it gets a lot murkier. As I noted in another reply, I recall discussing the case with an Australian court official in England after its original release and he emphasized how well known, complicated and divisive the history was in his homeland.
The original book has been reprinted for the first time since 1902. Written under the pseudonym of Frank Renar by Sir Frank Fox, it provides a vivid account of the Boer War with drawings by Norman Lindsay and contemporary photographs.
@@edgoodson5528 Wonder why the book wasn't reprinted in the aftermath of the film's great success? Looking at SA conflicts I am soon reviewing Zulu which I hope you find of interest.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I don´t have a good reason for that, other than he had died 20 years before and we have only recently begun republishing his books as executors of his estate. (Sir) Frank Fox was the Acting Editor of The Sydney Bulletin where he worked with Norman Lindsay as Illustrator, and Banjo Paterson as Poet and Author. He subsequently founded The Lone Hand and became the Editor recruiting his former Bulletin colleagues as contributors. There is an excellent film called Sirens with Hugh Grant about Lindsay which would be well worth a review! Thanks
It's a favorite film of mine - although Morant was a complex person who (almost certainly) lied about being an illegitimate son of a British Admiral - who married and abandoned a series of women in Australia and who, to my knowledge, lost his mind after the ugly death of his friend, and carried out war crimes. Of course we still don't know if Kitchener really did order the summary execution of Boers caught wearing British khaki uniforms - which would certainly change the view of Morant's actions. Complicating the whole thing is the political aspect: peace negotiations were ongoing, that would end a very ugly guerilla war - and Morant's trial & execution may have prevented a breakdown in those negotiations and lengthening the war. Nations use up soldiers, and when they end (to paraphrase "Zero Dark Thirty") "You don't want to be the last one holding a dog collar & leash". Morant's orders, if a year or two earlier would have most likely been ignored or covered up - they were sacrificed to the peace process whether they deserved I or not.
excellent comments _ I've recently been reading a book on the Boer War and Morant, and he certainly was a "character" skilled at spinning histories about himself, borrowing money and rarely paying it back. The book also sheds more light on the British horrific treatment of Boer families in detainment camps. As a Canadian, I know that this was the first war in which Canadians fought abroad but it was hardly a noble cause.
Thank you for this! I've loved this film, ever since I first saw it, shortly after its release. As you note, what makes the movie great is precisely the moral ambiguity of the eponymous Morant. Again, as you note, both Woodward and Thompson give outstanding performances, but the whole cast is terrific.
You are very welcome - I'm finding this kind of dialogue is motivating to do the work. I also saw the film when it was released. I recall I was taking my first international trip - to England - when I met an Australian court worker and we discussed the film. He was aware of more of the back history at that time and it was fascinating. He stressed what a divisive figure Morant was in his country. I wanted to mention this in my summing up but I find I need to keep things tight. One last note, coming back to the film I was interested to learn that the dramatic veldt locations were actually shot in South Australia. They really add to the film.
I can’t agree with you more. This is a under the radar great film, IMHO. As you said every performance is way above average. The production too! If you have Turner Classic Movies, watch for it. You won’t be disappointed.
Thank you for your astute and balanced critique of this Classic Film. The film was shot in the town of Burra South Australia.. an old copper mining town. Thus, the native Mallee flora had been cut down to provide fuel for the smelters. The prison featured was part of a school
Thank you for your comments - when I saw it when first released I had no idea it was filmed in Australia. The school/court room being so confining worked out nicely for the tension in the film. (I wish Canada could produce some decent films on our history.)
I think everyone misses the main point of this film. The need for a scapegoat is the ultimate driver of “justice,” whether for war crimes or before a KY Medical Board 1994 case #467 in the accidental death of a patient for which I, the treating physician, was blamed. I wrote about it, mentioning this movie in my memoirs “My Medical Legal Back Pages.” Archway. Bruce Sterling pen name. An even more obscure memoir relegated to the dustbin of books that bombed but which was nevertheless based entirely on true and easily sourced events, unlike whether the Carbineers were operating under orders from Lord Kitchener. The hypocrisy of the English as seen by the Boer concentration camps really moots the question. So what happened? Sure, like in nearly all wars, bad things happened. Morant was probably what to those of us, sitting behind our computers and never having been in a real war, would call a war criminal but the English looked the other way as long as the Aussies effectively did the English’s dirty work- until the English needed to end the war for fear of German entry into the war on the side of the Boers. A plausible concern of the English already facing a classic Thucydides trap and later entry into WWI. But in view of my circumstances Breaker Moorant has to be my favorite film of all time, and is a companion to another court martial farce in “Mission of the Shark” film, played by Stacey Keach. Sub commander Hashimoto: “Captain, you are a man who believes in fate? USS Indianapolis Captain McVay (Keach): “No. I am a man who is trying to accept it.” The epitaph on Morant’s grave marker in S. Africa says it all. “And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Matthew 10:36.
A lot of understandable passion in your reply. Also, I did not know that the unfortunate captain of the Indianapolis was subjected to a court martial - or that Keach, always an interesting actor, was in a film about it. Thanks for this.
Very fair summary although the war crimes of the Boer Kommandos almost always goes overlooked. In Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) Captain Taylor was known to the Matabele as "the man who kills and steals".
Interesting trivia, several sources report that Breaker Morant was a favorite movie of Ronald Reagan and it is included in the list of movies he watched at Camp David.
@@henricoj.cronje9071 Hi again. Ok, please send me the email for your teacher. If he/she confirms the assignment, I will be pleased to email you my script and notes.
@@henricoj.cronje9071 I would copy and paste email address into my own email account and then delete your comment. If I cannot check with your teacher, I cannot send my script.
7:26 The British did NOT put Boer non-combatants in 'Prison camps'. This is a very emotive and serious issue, which needs to be handled factually. During the later part of the war, the British created what were referred to at the time as 'refugee' or 'Concentration' camps. Since WW2, the term 'Concentration camp' has subsequently taken on an entirely different meaning than the one it had in the period that we are talking about. It's also important to understand the background issues that led to these camps becoming necessary. Boer Commando units, by their nature were irregular units, comprised of civilians. They were no more of an army than the Taliban or ISIS would be considered an 'Army' today. They operated outside the rules of regular warfare, and one of their tactics was to both hide out in and operate from civilian premises such as farms. They would even snipe at passing British troops from farms. The farms were supporting and offering refuge to active fighting units, and this could not be ignored. Eventually it led to retaliatory measures by the British, the burning of farm buildings (to remove the refuge cover for active Boer units) and also the crops (which the Boers relied on for sustenance). The displaced non-combatant civilians had to be placed somewhere. The British felt responsible for the Non-Combatants and the army (at first reluctantly) provided some kind of accommodation for these displaced people. It should be noted, that at the same time, many Pro-British non-combatant civilians had also been displaced by Boers burning and looting of Pro-British farms. These displaced people were given no assistance by either Boers or the British and had to fend for themselves and many protested that the British treated the Boers better than loyalists. The British also guaranteed IOU's given to people whose property or goods were 'requisitioned' by both he British AND the Boers. Under this (quite ludicrous) arrangement, Boers could go to pro-Boer merchants and 'Requisition' food, arms and ammunition and offer astronomically high IOU's, knowing that the British would reimburse the merchant and not the Boers. The British ended up also paying ALL reconstruction costs for the war, something no other victorious nation has ever done. Furthermore, the idea of the 'refugee camps' was actually supported by the Combatant Boers themselves. They supported them for two reasons. Firstly a perverse sense of satisfaction that their families were being housed and fed at their enemies expense, but also because the Boers were growing ever fearful of their vulnerable women and children being attacked by vengeful natives when they were away on active duty. The Boer commando units also made extensive use of the camps by 'playing the system' and using them as a place for rest and recuperation when ill or low on food and then slipping away back to their units. The British had a very lax (and ultimately counter productive) 'Parole' system for 'surrendered Boers'. Boers could surrender, hand over their 'weapons' (usually something obsolete such as a Blunderbus after burying their actual arms for later retrieval) pledge an oath of allegiance to the King and be given a 'parole pass' and either set free, or sent to one of the 'camps'. On multiple occasions, dead Boers were found with multiple 'Parole passes', showing that they had 'surrendered' and returned to their units multiple times, thus did the British softness perversely prolong the war (and the suffering of the civilians both Boer and British). The camps undoubtedly had their failings, especially initially when they were overwhelmed with occupants and under resourced with medicines and food. However, the fact remains that the camp occupants had a greater chance of survival in a camp, than they did outside one, without food or shelter or protection from native tribesman. The deaths in the camps, from epidemics of cholera and other diseases caused an outrage in BRITIAN, just as much as the rest of the world (even though worse conditions were to be found in the 'Concentration camps' that were in existence under similar circumstances in Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish American war and subsequent annexation of both and the rebellions that followed. Yes, the use of concentration camps (and the blockhouse system) was first employed by Spain and the US in Cuba and the Philippines). The outrage in Britain led by people like Hobhouse and Fawcett was also at times subjected to hysteria and whipped up by the press. Some of the pictures used in British newspapers at the time to whip up this anti-British sentiment were actually pictures from the Indian famine from 1898. When the reforms of the camps led by Hobhouse and Fawcett took effect, the death rates plummeted. However, the same focus was not given to the occupants of the camps for native displaced Africans, where the death toll was much worse proportionally.
It's a very good film. And viewed dispassionately, as a film (and an anti-war film that that) it has many positives, including humanising the perpetrators of what are regarded by most people as 'Barbarous acts'. The speeches by Thomas do this very well. However, where the film fails is that it uses a real life incident without giving the full facts. Morant and Hancock were not on trial for the deaths of Visser and Heese, but for the murder of dozens of Boers (including women and children) in multiple acts of summary execution. The film makes us think that it was only a few Boers and the (obviously duplicitous) missionary who were killed. But the reality was that Morant and the carbineers murdered many Boer prisoners and also murdered sick Boer women and children. The other important point (which is given the briefest of mention in the film) is that no matter the veracity of the 'Take no prisoners' order, there is a lot of legal difference between 'taking no prisoners' and taking someone prisoner and then shooting them. (This same issue would rear up multiple times in WW2). The 'orders' also in no part could be interpreted as advocating the execution of women, children or the clergy. Full disclosure, I watched this movie as a teenager in the mid 90's and was immediately taken by it. I believed it as fact and felt the sense of burning injustice (As I also did when watching Gallipoli), especially the idea of 'Scapegoats of the Empire'. I have always been a fan of military history and was working my way through 'Colonial history' books after devouring WW1 & 2. However, when I read more about it, it soon became apparent that there was more to the story. Far from being 'Scape goats of the Empire', they were an embarrassment that was probably destined to be swept under the carpet until the issue was raised by Australians in their own unit. Again, as the video points out, but the movie omits, the whistle was blown by Australians in the Carbineers who were outraged by the atrocities and did not want the good name of Australia to be tarnished by countrymen acting so beyond all decency. I feel Morant and Hancock would have most probably had fully blown PTSD and had become deranged to the Colonel Kurtz 'Heart of Darkness' level. But that is no defence for their actions. However, it was the Australian whistle blowing that brought the matter to light, and the fact that there were so few instances of these summary executions in other units, showed that there was no widespread 'Imperial order' basis for this (else many other instances would have occurred if people felt it was 'state sanctioned'). Therefore it was not the 'Empire' that was feeling like it had any need for 'scape goats'. It could be better argued, IMO, that it was actually the 'Empire' that was being 'Scape goated' in the film. The fact that the main accused were Australian actually complicated things for the British. If Hancock and Witton had been true born English (and Morant had never travelled to Australia) it would have been much easier to sentence them to death and be done with it. However the fact that they were Australians in a BRITISH unit, made the British responsible for their actions and caused the tension between a desire to display a sense of fairness to the Boers (during a period of attempted reconciliation) and the desire to appease their Australian allies. On reading more history and coming to realise some of the politically motivated 'Myths' perpetuated by this film and others such as Gallipoli (with it's falsehoods about the British drinking tea on Suvla beach whilst ANZACS died), films such as this and Gallipoli (and even Braveheart) lose their meaning. They become a tool of Anti-British resentment, rather than accurate portrayals of history to help us better understand the past. You can't ever hope to understand the past if you can't admit the truth.
Excellent analysis of what clearly appears to be a cinematic masterwork. The content seems to reflect both the idealism of antiwar sentiment while not negating the reality of that war seems to be part of the dark side of human nature.
Thanks. That was a goal of the director, but the power of the film makes the three accused into pure victims for many viewers but the reality of the real events are not as clean cut.
Great film review and story. At the time the film came out most people only knew about WWI as it pretty much dwarfed any earlier conflicts. But the film even though it's a 'dramatised' version shone light on Australia's early military history, particularly as Australia had only just been Federated in 1901 and a national Parliament created. Before 1901 each State Parliament dealt directly with London and there was no 'Australian Army', it was the 'New South Wales (NSW) Contingent', the 'Queensland Contingent', etc. Lieutenant George Witton upon return to Australia (AUST.) would write 'Scapegoats of the Empire' (1907), although as always it's hard to separate fact from fiction (some disputed it at the time); but it's a contemporary source from the era by someone close to the events and the people involed.
Thank you. It was interesting doing some research on this one as it is a film that had an impact on me ever since I saw it when first released. You can totally understand patriotic Australians seeing Breaker as a martyr, but naturally the families of his victims feel very differently. But to me the key find was the "disappearance" of the transcripts. I only wish Canada could do one or two historic movies approaching the quality of the Aussies, but that does not seem likely to happen.
Good review, our British overlords were quite capable of stunning missteps , the Canadian soldiers"mutiny " in 1919 by soldiers held back from going home and the execution of "ringleaders " comes to mind
@@Vlad65WFPReviews There was a really informative movie which is how I found out ( hard to find though) & I found it looking for a really bitter song about WW I
0:07 It’s after seeing Humphrey Bogart in _The Caine Mutiny_ that a jobbing actor, in London, named Maurice Micklewhite, who had already chosen “Michael” to be his given stage name, finally chose a surname too.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Indeed, when Bogie gets his worry balls out, at the tribunal, and cooks his own goose: it’s a tribute to the man’s talent. I particularly liked how the drunken doc turns up, at the celebratory party afterwards, where they’re all toasting their reprieve, to chide their consciences. They’ve saved their skins but at the cost of destroying a formerly great man and war hero.
@@michaeljames4904 Yes; I'd also strongly recommend the Caine Mutiny Court Martial remake from Robert Altman in which the doc is Jewish and even more intense.
I am also a huge fan, as you can judge from my video. The fact that he was a tabletop wargamer (as I have been for decades) also shows he was a man of keen intelligence! (The hobby was worked into his character on TV's Callan.)
its odd that the whole question of shooting prisoners in africa where the movie is set only seems to have applied to white captives.only a couple of years earlier at omdurman kitchener who in this case was deemed by the court incapable of signing an order to shoot boer prisoners gave clear instructions to his men to finish off all the wounded dervishes left on the field after the battle of omdurman.similar short shrift was given to zulu matabele and pondi prisoners in earlier conflicts.
Worthwhile point. In my review of Zulu I do point out that Zulu wounded were sometimes killed, though to be balanced we must note that the Zulus killed all British and Indigenous troops after Isandlwana.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews no i cast no approbrium in a no prisoners war but the british were eqaually ruthless against the dervishes who did often take prisoners albeit men of rank who agreed to convert.the mahdi was horrified and gordons death for example as he wanted him a prisoner.however wolseleys and kitcheners campaigns expressly ordered no prisoners be taken on the march except for interrogation after which they were shot.no wounded were to be spared either at kitcheners express order.the boer war had its origins in the jameson raid where the invaders were treated well by the boers and returned to england for trial.both sides were keen to show to europe their chivalrous side as basically the war was a sqaulid attempt to control the diamond and gold fields caused in no small part by the machinations of rhodes.the scramble for africa had begun in earnest so the boers supported by germany portrayed themselves as victims whilst the british tried to appease their european allies and enemies by an appearence of fair play.shooting prisoners would be seized on by the german press much as belgian atrocities in ww1 by the germans were played up by the british.the germans showed no such compunction themselves during the herrero revolt in namibia killinf hundreds of thousands indiscriminately including women and children.forgotten now mainly due to the furore over the belgian congo it again shows a completely different set of rules for fighting non white enemies.
There is another feature, hidden within this review. The German Keizer was apparently threatening to enter the Boer war on the sdie of the Dutch (he was insanely jealous of all of the British colonial conquests) . The severe punishment exacted on the Aussies was in part to placate him. But imagine if he had... Could one result have been preempting WWI?
Absolutely. There are mentions of the "peace process" in the film and a recent book on Morant (and other texts) underline that the shooting of the German missionary was the greatest concern for British command. Thanks for watching. (As a younger man on my first trip to Britain I recall a great discussion with an Australian court official in our B&B about the case and its importance and debates in Oz.)
Thanks for the review and detailed research. This remains a popular film in Australia and although perhaps not as iconic as Beresford's later work Gallipoli it was in my view a least, a more complete film from a dramatic perspective.
Thanks for your support. I agree that I find Morant a more compelling dramatic experience given several factors: specific true story, the David vs Goliath odds, and the mature force of the lead characters - the gravitas of Woodward as Morant is hard to beat. Of course Gallipoli is a fine film too, dealing with another far larger Australian historic controversy (and much more successfully than Canada's WW I near epic, Passchendaele).
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I've not seen Passchendaele but will look it up thanks. I agree that Gallipoli was also a great film. Well cast and although a little jingoistic in parts the film is layered than it first appears. In particular the way in which the film balanced themes of youthful naivety and enthusiasm, the exploitation of trust (both in the context of Australia as a nation and the individual characters) and the notion of responsibility and 'giving a good account of yourself' was very effective. Epecially on an emotional level, and provided a strong insight into the attitudes and expectations of the period.
@@keithforbes4213 Very well said. Sadly for the species, there seems to be a universal youthful enthusiasm for proving yourself in battle whatever the cause. Meanwhile, I wouldn't spend too much time on the Passchendaele project - it is a Canadian film that meant well but is far far from the class of the two Aussie movies.
Brilliant film. It's one of my all-time favorites. Thanks for this excellent discussion about it. It seems to be largely under-appreciated in the US. That's a shame. It certainly deserves its place among the great court-martial films of all time (as you show in the intro).
I love Edward Woodward, but I have to repeat the famous Olivier anecdote. Apparently when Sir Laurence first heard EW's name, he said "Sounds like a fart in a bathtub."
Thanks for watching and commenting. I have to say that pronouncing "Edward Woodward" was a bit challenging and you can hear me take my time with his name in the video. I was a huge fan - and also like that in his private life he shared my hobby of tabletop wargaming.
In the genre of courts martial, take a look at "Conduct Unbecoming" with Michael York as a reluctant defence counsel in a kangaroo court of fellow junior officers.
I'm no historian. I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was about a trio of Aussie soldiers fighting for the British empire who, despite following orders, were scapegoated by the British Empire to keep Germany out of the Boer War.
I'm watching the true story of Breaker Morant now on UA-cam and he a bloody Pomme as Aussies say. I'm so glad i asked for a review of this film but nearly more so that i found ur brilliant site as ur narration and talent for detail are very addictive. Fantastic site!! I've subbed ok
the channel's goal is discussion but also to sometimes direct movies they haven't seen yet so I steadfastly avoid or warn about spoilers - thanks for watching.
The Boer should have taught the British to not march into battle at the beat of a drum. They had to use Australians to fight the Boer at their own game, and they crucified them for doing it. Totally riveting for me.
Really excellent, to the point synopsis on a very involved and contentious subject. Edward Woodward, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Martin Scorcese & James Mason were all very keen model soldier collectors and, (except Lee, who never seemed to stop work) wargamers. By all accounts they were very well versed in military history.
Thanks. I've been a tabletop wargamer for ages, which is why I added the bit on Woodward (even though the old show was pretty danged boring, I admit The Yanks on Little Wars TV do a good job). Thanks for your support. I hope you have subscribed. I am not going to "monetize" but I'd love to get to 1,000 subs just to do it. And thanks again.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews An interesting side note about that scene.... The British rifles used in the movie were genuine Boer War-era rifles, that had long ago been sold off as surplus in Australia, converted to civilian hunting rifles, then bought up for the movie and reassembled to original standard, using original parts from the same outback gunsmiths that had sporterized many of them. They were "Frankenrifles", good for props or (maybe) shooting, but that was all...no collector value left. To enhance the "Rule 303" scene, some unknown prop handler stamped ".303" on the wrist of the rifle closest to the camera, without asking permission. The owner was FURIOUS when he got them back, and soon after sold them off. He later said ruefully in an interview that somebody out there has Australia's most iconic movie rifle and doesn't know it.
@@MA-wq2ih as you probably know, the 303 speech actually happened in some form during the trial - and while it was powerful - it also served as an admission of guilt. And from my readings, it was the shooting of the German mercenary that was Morant's greatest problem, with the Kaiser making noise about the war. If it had "only" been Boers, the sentence may have been less severe
Thank you!! Very good job. I love this movie. One of my favorites. I was just curious..I saw at the beginning of your video, you showed a clip of Paths of Glory (another great movie). Will you ever do a video on that movie?
Thank you for your comment. I did spend some time digging into trial's history and am glad when that's appreciated by a fan of this great film. As my "niche" is films with British themes or casts or writers I don't have Paths of Glory on my list. However, I do have other videos on historically related subjects (Day of the Jackal, Sink the Bismarck, Ice Cold in Alex, A Night to Remember) and am currently working on 1984's The Bounty.
Thanks for that. If you watch my later reviews (I've done 31 to date) you should find they improved in technical quality as I improved my equipment and knowledge of the files I was working with. (I do wish Breaker was technically better as it is one of my more popular titles.) Thanks again.
Really glad you liked that detail - I was hoping it was a cheeky way to end the review. As a longtime fan of the movie I found it interesting doing the research, especially the bit that all the trial records "vanished" in London.Thanks for subscribing, appreciate the support, and please do share your thoughts on some of my other subjects.
@@MA-wq2ih I know there were terrible atrocities commite by both sides,a lot of it involving innocent civilians,it needs many perspectives to get the whole picture
Really glad you enjoyed it especially as someone who has been to Australia. I note there are a number of other videos and specials placing a microscope on Morant and the trial.
US soldiers fighting in the Pacific and in Europe in WW2 said there were times when they had prisoners and they could either have a number of men keep them and get them back to be incarcerated, leaving the rest of their group to fight without them....or....they could shoot them. It absolutely happened that they did, at times, shoot them.
Of course this happened. The killing of prisoners is as old as warfare. It was brought up a few times in the Band of Brothers series. It's often "officially discouraged" by senior command, if only to make enemy soldiers more likely to surrender and stop fighting. In the current war, Ukraine emphasizes good treatment of surrendered soldiers in videos to undermine Russian resolve. As you know, the entire point of contention in Morant was whether troops were unofficially order to kill prisoners or not.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I'm glad that the Ukraine is emphasizing good treatment of Russian soldiers. It could hardly be worse than the Russian Governments treatment of their own soldiers. My favourite story comes from the Spanish Civil War, and isn't strictly about treatment of prisoners. The international brigade were dug in up in the freezing mountains. They had hardly any ammunition, so avoided shooting at all costs. They did want to undermine the moral of the Fascist troops, & encourage them to surrender. So they'd shout "Buttered toast. We're eating buttered toast.. It's hot and delicious. Butter is dripping through the holes in the bread!" Ah the evils of propaganda.
Fantastic analysis and good video all round mate. The only thing I'll pull you up on is that the rank 'lieutenant' in the UK (subsequently the commonwealth and other places like Australia) it is pronounced 'left-tenant'. Regardless, love your work.
Thanks, Jack. I'm a North American "colonial" myself - I'm aware of the UK version of lieutenant but went with the RCA version. Really glad you enjoyed it - I loved the film since it came out and the research was interesting - especially the missing court records.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Ah didn’t know that the Canadians pronounce the same as the yanks. I’ve recently gotten into your channel and I’m enjoying your content. And mabey someday we too can shed the shackles the poms have on our phonetics. Also have you thought about doing some kiwi cinema as it be good to see our cousins represented.
Not a great review but better than many. You said that many Australians regard Morant and Handcock as heroes. That's not true; they regard them as victims. The controversy revolves around whether Kitchener gave the order to "take no prisoners.” He did give that order and the evidence is overwhelming. I refer to the St Clair document and the testimony of many Boer War veterans. This should have been mentioned, although you did mention that the British "lost" or suppressed the court transcript, which may or may not have settled the question. The fact that the prosecution ensured that Kitchener and others were made unavailable as witnesses to support Handcock and Morant in regard to their defence regarding them obeying the order to take no prisoners should also have been mentioned. It was not. Nor was the fact that unlike today’s soldiers who declare in writing that they will obey LAWFUL orders, Morant and Handcock signed a statement while enlisting which said they were to obey orders from commanding officers, as in ALL orders. The word LAWFUL was conspicuously absent, meaning it was not up to the soldier to decide what was and was not a lawful order. The soldier was to presume that all orders he received from commanding officers were lawful and as such he was to obey them or face disciplinary action. A soldier today would be in trouble for obeying such an order because it would obviously be unlawful, but what is now known as the Nuremberg excuse was at that stage irrelevant. Peter Handcock was not escaping his domestic life. I have researched his life in detail and the evidence suggests he had a successful marriage, although his motivation for joining up may have been financial given that he had a family to support. There is no evidence to suggest he was a womaniser. All evidence suggest he was a good family man.
As someone who has obviously put time and effort into careful research you bring up some worthwhile points. Having not the time to research Handcock in detail, the way his character was written and acted by Bryan Brown, he did come across as a "lady's man" who liked action and might have been bored with a working life and family at home. ("a slice off a cut loaf is never missed.") Also, it is tragically interesting that you write "today" a soldier would be in trouble for obeying such orders, given many news reports about atrocities and mass graves in the Ukraine war. (that's very personal for me.) Anyway, I'm at least pleased you found the piece "better than many" as my intent is to encourage people watching movies of this quality.
Thanks for the reply Walt. If you want a more thorough understanding of Handcock's character it is worth visiting the site owned by his great grandson, Richard Williams, who has researched the subject in great detail. See the link below. Richard, like me, has found nothing that suggests he was having a relationship with the two Boer women who provided alibis for him when he was accused of shooting Rev Heese. The film, "Breaker Morant" however, maintains he was. I also believe it unlikely. It is unlikely because one of the women, Mrs Schiels, had two sons who gave the same evidence as their mother. The other lady, Mrs Bristow, had a husband who also gave evidence of Peter's whereabouts. So, other than the fact there is no documentary evidence to suggest he was servicing those women, Mrs Bristow's husband would be highly unlikely to testify on Peter's behalf if he thought he may have been servicing his wife, and the same could be said for Mrs Schiels' sons if there was any suggestion Peter was servicing their mum, (particularly when their dad was absent as a POW of the British). So again, even though there is zero proof of him servicing the Boer woman, or any other women for that matter, we do not know for a fact whether he was a womaniser or a faithful husband. However, given what has been said about him by those who knew him well I would suggest it is more than likely he was a faithful husband. I think it likely he was portrayed as having been intimate with the Boer women because sex assists in the selling of books and movies. The film also has him saying he enjoyed "chasing tarts around Bathurst." There is no evidence to suggest he engaged in that pastime. www.lieutpjhandcock.com
@@DAVE57571 Yes, the film also has him referencing that home had "a family and a depression", and mixed with how he was portrayed in the movie, it made it appear he simply wanted to escape the "trap" of that life. One of the things I enjoy about this channel (I certainly don't do it for the money) is digging into these issues with viewers. Handcock's portrayal is certainly more "subtle", but now it reminds me of the blatant demonizing of Henry Hook's character in Zulu. Of course Hook is shown to be a malingering drunk in the film while in real life he was a model soldier - researching my Zulu video I learned his elderly relatives angrily stormed out of the premiere!
Sorry mate you have history mixed up it's the bore war from 1899/1902 in South Africa. The 3 Australian officers serve under British command under Lord Kitcher a formed regiment as commandos .Morant was Englishman , who come over too Australia about 1888 got off ship in Townsville Queensland,made his way too charters Towers, married Irish lady called dasy Bates , did wrong by her and made his way from Queensland drove cattle all the way too south Australia ,was horse breaker ,are bush poet ,who wrote for bulletin in South Australia,before departure for South Africa,who enlisted in the south Australia 2nd Contingent. Started as lance corporal.NCO .in Australia was promoted to Sargent in that unit .And Promotion too Leautent in Bush Velt Carabineers . Mainly made of Australians in that Unit .the British government regarded Australian's 🦘🌏 As colonials .That is Were Australian Army was Formed.In South Africa.when Australia becomes a Federation in 1901 Australia army were renamed as the Commonwealth Horse and out break WW1 is renamed as the Australian Light Horse ,during the Trial of Lt Morant Lt Hancock Lt Whitton during British Court-martial.The The British Government Lied too Australian Government during Court-martial, only too learn fate a year after the been shot 27 Feb 1902 .these men were not given a fair trial ,what about thousands of Southern Bore Farmers killed by British in Concentration camps.woman children . Many of Australia's soldiers from 1880.too 1943 were made of mixed bunch of from First nations Australians Japan Australia, Chinese Australia, Danish, Australia, English Australian, Irish, Australians Scottish Australian, Welsh Australian, German Australian, who were farmers ,shop keepers ,timber cutters .they hard working families,most were very poor .lived of out back hunting trapping ,fishing,I am great great grand son of British, German settlers who came too Australia for better,life .my great grandfather was Englishman from Somerset,just like breaker Morant .who was gold miner then join the Australian Army.
To the point of the movie and the defense of Morant in the movie: were these soldiers following orders from superiors? Since the war crime trials of Nuremberg in particular, it has gained moral, ethical and legal standing in the minds of many that there are orders from military superiors that are illegal (as well as immoral and unethical) and therefore MUST be disobeyed. I say that such was not always the case and it was most likely NOT the case in 1903 in the British Empire of South Africa during the Boer War. And here is why I say this. In the 1920s in Ireland following the 1916 Easter Uprising, the end of World War I and the allowance of Great Britain to allow the beginnings of freedom for an Irish nation, rebellion was found throughout Ireland and Great Britain chose NOT to go to war (as it had in South Africa against the Boer in the early 1900s or as it had to help France against Germany in 1914). However, Great Britain DID hire a large number of unemployed veterans of WW1, sent them to Ireland and asked them to keep order and to put down rebellion where they found. These British troopers were called the Black and Tans (for the mismatched colors of their uniforms). Finally to my point: the British commander of the Black and Tans gave orders to kill suspected Irish guerrilla fighters OR civilians whether justified (ex. being shot at by fighters) or not without fear of court marshall OR inquiry by him. This is historical fact; please look into it. Therefore, I say if a British military commander in Ireland in 1920 could give such orders, how much of a stretch is it to think that similar orders (to shoot Boer prisoners in this instance) COULD have been issued in South Africa as the movie and Harry Morant's defense contended at court marshall? I'm thinking it's a very short stretch. To anyone wanting to use the war crime standards coming out of Nuremberg after World War II and applying them to Hancock and Morant's court marshall in 1903 have to also keep in mind that the British Army also put into practice the first concentration camps during the Boer War over 35 years before the German Nazis did the same thing. There were no trials or court marshalls for THESE war crimes or "crimes against humanity".
I'm not a deep expert on this matter, but I agree it seems very very probable that some kind of unofficial order from Kitchener about shooting Boers, especially Boers "wearing Khaki" did exist - as I found it remarkable that the trial records were "lost". Sadly, as someone with relatives in Western Ukraine in our "modern times", the entire issue of soldiers being ordered to commit war crimes against prisoners and civilians is all too current. Tragically, too many of Putin's draftees are felons only too eager to kill and rape. And thanks for the historic details on the 1920 Irish situation - very enlightening.
Sir, I'd never heard of this film and only asked for a review as it's on Freeview now!!!! The part where the brilliant- (Equaliser)-Edward Woodward is telling his pompous higher ranked officer about Law 303 which i took as their 303 Rifle and that he's the only one true Law as without that ur screwed baby but gettin back to Edward W he was just a fantastic and i think highly under rated actor who was capable of some just outstanding and memorable acting!! He was married to the on screen wife Michelle Dotrice of Frank Spencer the bungling idiot played expertly by now Sir Michael Crawford in Some Mothers Do Ave Em in case anyone gives a toss!!? He also, Edward W had a fantastic voice, a bass tenor if i recall sort of deep Welsh singing voice? An actor deffo missed by all who have seen him in action so to speak!! Enjoying the film so far that's for sure and even Alf from Home and Away is in this!! If ur American uve got two hopes of knowin who Alf is, there's Bob Hope and effin No Hope!!
Hello, thanks for the comment and subscribing. I'm a miniatures tabletop gamer myself (as was Edward Woodward, both onscreen and privately) so I will take a good look at your channel. Most of all, I am so pleased that you noted this "movie is unknown to me" as shining a light on great movies that are relatively obscure is the ultimate goal of my channel - along with chatting with existing fans - so I trust you will enjoy it - and other films that will be showcased. Thanks for writing!
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Do much appreciate your reply . I will take my time to watch your videos and discover other movies Of course my preference goes to the historic ones ! Greetings , Robert
as you will see, a lot of my early titles deal with historic themes - such as war and espionage. Ice Cold in Alex is a great example, a memorable war drama based on a book by a serving officer, but which was basically "lost" in North America. Hope you enjoy the videos and this kind of feedback is encouraging for me to keep working on new ones.
PLEASE SUPPORT THE CHANNEL: Remember to click Like and Subscribe. SEE MORE WFP Review videos: find them here: ua-cam.com/channels/Lk0imh2GnMR9aV1oQr4iUQ.html
Thanks. I recall visiting England for the first time just after the movie came out and meeting a Court worker from Australia and having a wonderful conversation about what a famous but controversial figure Morant was (ans still is) in Aus,
Well, I and others in my household are big fans of Mr. Rylance - Master Thespian - but I have never heard that comparison before. Of course, I will take it as a fine compliment.
That statement might be an oversimplification. The rules of war covered conduct when dealing with civilians and uniformed combatants. Boer guerrillas, however, subverted the civilian-combatant divide by fitting into neither, instead being able to make devastating strikes while hiding behind civilians. That would mean that the rules of war did not cover them, so doing what would normally be considered "illegal" might not necessarily be the case here, and even the soldiers probably felt the same when they had to fight such guerrillas (and they might have to make life-or-death decisions very quickly).
@@sksolaris0045 This will always remain a fascinating debate and discussion. Looking into it I was struck that other men from Morant's unit were also concerned about what was happening.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I am sure that other members of the unit weren't the only ones who were concerned or were debating the issue with themselves and amongst their colleagues. You'd hope you could go high when your enemy goes low (i.e. obey the laws of war to the strictest of standards even while your enemy breaks rules left and right), but that becomes difficult when it becomes a matter of life and death (i.e. the enemy subverts to rule so that it becomes easier for him or her to kill you). When too many of your own die, you start to distrust your senses, and you can't feel safe even if you seem to be surrounded by civilians. I guess even Lord Kitchener struggled with himself over those rules to shoot, and he was far from the last (debate has since emerged over the Malayan Emergency, the Vietnam War, and the War on Terror, all of which have involved guerrillas hiding behind civilians to strike with extraordinary deadliness)...
I live in a Commonwealth country and like the historical connection to Britain. The history of all nations is imperfect, especially ones with imperial pasts, but I value Britain's democratic and justice traditions - and its culture.
I believe it's clear he was strongly motivated to avenge Capt Hunt, whatever the unofficial orders were - but the suppression of the trial records does raise questions about the prosecution.
A scapegoat for the press to keep British as the good guys which at the time they weren't and public opinion was changing making it more akin to a Vietnam problem public sympathy slipping ie concentration camps (bad in the national papers at breakfast)especially since the women and children were white Europeans not foreign natives of a different colour living in mud huts and yes sometimes soldiers do bad things in emotional reactions we are only human was he innocent or guilty only he really knows same position would you do the same ??? FYI I would standing orders and my best friend blood on there hands in War
Aussies have a history of making movies where they are the victims of 'Pommie' oppression, note that there are no significant Aussie movies about their involvement in the Vietnam war, Britain wasn't in that one so there's no one for them to blame.
RULE 303. Breaker Morant is an example of "Mommy's House - Mommy's Rules" and when Mommy is through with you, it is under the bus you go. Edward Woodward is excellent in everything he did.
I totally agree and that is a wonderfully succinct explanation of what was going on.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Hello Vlad65. Personal experience - I've been there but avoided the bus because I had 'better dirt'. Just understand that 'leaders' want the sausages, but don't want to see how they are made. Oh, and don't forget to wash your hands...
The wrath of Achilles…
It's a fine line between hero and villain. Morant was condemned to execution by firing squad as a war criminal and is considered a sentimental and unimportant poet. T E Lawrence fighting behind enemy lines in a brutal guerilla war in which many atrocities occurred is lauded as a war hero and a great man of letters.
Excellent comparison. The "no prisoners" sequence in the attack on the Turkish column was a shocker - especially for its day.
This is the stupidity of media and public with stupid sentimental views .you can't always take prisoners ,for civvies watch saving private Ryan at the landing they kill everyone till the area is taken people see this as wrong but where do you keep them even later when they release a POW who repays pays them by going straight back to his unit and killing the captain this shows why you why you shoot them as done even today not because of blood lust but simply to protect you your colleagues and the mission ie prisoners have to be guarded taking away fighting men they are also noisy taking away stealth they also eat at your limited supplies (water and food) FYI one of the most famous journalist pushing this on the public making himself famous was winston Churchill the same man responsible for Gallipoli and a pillack today he would be a UA-cam troll as he believed himself to be a military genius instead of the ego maniac piss head he was and the British army who rate there personnel pretty fairly believed he was a knob going on what Kitchener wrote one point as to Churchill admiration of the boers in his own mind then and later is very easy to see by him naming the first British special force's after them ie commandos
morant happened to kill a german missionary (complicit in the murders of Morant's soldiers) and germany was using it as a pretext to back the boers and widen the conflict, he was a scapegoat. In my mind Morant was a hero. Lawrence of Arabia was a hollywood hero, leftist wokeism runs deep in hollywood and has existed for a long time. The film showed the whites liberating the poor oppressed brown skinned people of the middle east, victims of white colonialism.
It's simple; Lawrence is English and Morant is not considered English.
No one could argue with that comparison mate.
Great review of a great film. The film captures the moral ambiguities of guerrilla warfare and the sense that Morant, Hancock and Witten were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Morant says in his final poem
“If you encounter any Boers
You really must not loot ‘em,
And, if you wish to leave these shores,
For pity’s sake, don’t shoot ‘em.”
Yes, it was extremely appropriate to include that at the ending. I recall having a sad and hollow feeling the first time I saw it by the conclusion. As usual, the first time was the best as you didn't know what fate awaited each character.
Great insights and presentation. Jack Thompson's final summation in court, with its musical cadences, irregular rhythms, pauses and emphases of certain words, is inimitable and one of the most spellbinding monologues in film history. As for Woodward, he couldn't give a bad performance if the Empire depended on it.
I was always a big fan of Edward W, and the fact he was an avid tabletop gamer didn't hurt
The last appeal to have them pardoned was rejected on the grounds that Morant and Handcock admitted to shooting the prisoners so were guilty whether following orders or not.
We will never know if Kitchener issued those verbal orders but his reputation will always be smeared by the concentration camps and the mass starvation of so many innocent women and children. My Great Grandfather fought in that Boer War in the British Army and was decorated for bravery. Makes me wonder what he might have done while “following orders” but war has always been a dirty business.
Nice review of the film. In my opinion the best of the court martial films to date above A Few Good Men and The Caine Mutiny etc.
Thanks. I have to agree with you on the court martial films. Morant is compelling as a true story and being told in a straightforward manner, which ground everything in reality for the viewer. Good Men is entertaining but a bit "cinematic", especially as Nicholson's speech is now the stuff of parodies. I still like Caine a lot with Bogey playing another flawed character, a good man who has been broken by the strains of war. If you can, you should also get your hands on The Caine Mutiny Court Martial (if you haven't already) - directed by Robert Altman the whole production focuses on the trial. Made later, it is also tougher and more open about how the defense lawyer (Eric Bogosian) being an American Jew colours the view of the man he is defending.
In my top ten movies of all time.
if you watch it 5+ times you see many layers, easter eggs and plot foreshadowings.
Great movie, big fan of Woodward and his portrayal of Morant. I am reminded of the line from Apocalypse Now:"...a murder charge here(Viet Nam) is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."
I loved Edward especially as he was a war gamer and even used the hobby in his series Callhan
Did you ever see Edward Woodward sing “Soldiers of the Queen” in a non-ironic, but celebratory and jingoistic manner, in the very popular BBC show “ The Good Old Days”; which paid homage to the Victorian musical hall tradition? Both the singer and the show have stayed a pleasant memory in my mind for around half a century. Quality lasts.
Wow. Just as you wrote this I am having my wife watch the Boer War segment of Young Winston. With Woodward of course. I have not seen him sing the other version. I also like the fact he was a fellow war gamer
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Whilst not a War-Gamer, I did become a collector of model soldiers, after being inspired by Woodward’s Callan character painting such figures in his dingy London flat; as a form of solace from the cynical, violent world, in which he had to operate.
The answer to this question is best given in Morant’s statement ; “This is a new type of warfare for a new century. Some combatants are women and children and some are missionaries”. That is, the rule of guerrilla warfare is that there are no rules. Given the circumstances of this conflict, Morant’s culpability was remarkably reduced.
This is undeniably an interesting assertion, though given both the historical and "life and death" implications, one that must be considered with critical care. First, wars the impact civilians and "women and children" certainly did not start in the 20th Century, far from it. Choosing from an unfortunately long list, there are the barbarities of Napoleon's misguided invasion of Spain (the Spanish ulcer), the horrific scale of civilian involvement in the 1812 invasion of Russia (well documented in the best-selling Moscow 1812), the treatment of the Scottish clans after the 1745 war - and countless others going back to antiquity.
Also, as I am in contact with civilians in Western Ukraine who have survived nearby Russian missile attacks, I do find it difficult to totally absolve soldiers willing to wage war on women, old men and children under the "just following orders" call. So, yes, while the statement is a dynamic bit of dialogue, you can question how well it would stand up to hard scrutiny.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I did say that the circumstances mitigated Morant’s culpability, though they did not completely absolve him. Though the American Revolutionary was a guerrilla war , like others that pre-existed the Boer War, it can be stated that insurgency was certainly the hallmark of so many “new” conflicts of the Twentieth Century. There was unquestionably a stylistic change from the “fixed piece” battles of old.
Certainly nobody would disagree that the wanton murder of innocent old men and women is reprehensible. But the Boer guerrillas ceased to be innocent farmers when they wore khaki, used deception, took up arms and committed acts of sabotage against Commonwealth soldiers. Independent of whatever one’s allegiance may be, I do not think that the Boer guerrillas could be compared to the innocent civilians of Ukraine.
Great and entertaining review. I especially like how you pointed something I'd never noticed: that all the Boers shot in the movie were either off screen or seen from a great distance, as if done to minimize their loss. How easily we're manipulated by people who make movies.
I loved this movie when I saw it all those years ago, and have been fascinated by the controversy surrounding the events of the trial ever since. In addition to the question of whether or not the defendants were guilty, whether or not Kitchener had issued the order, etc, to me the two big questions are (1) did they receive fair trials, and (2) why weren't dozens of other British or Commonwealth troops tried for similar offenses? Those are the questions which remain unanswered as people continue to muddy the water.
As for the film itself, it was something of a masterpiece, but also should be seen as a cautionary tale reminding us of how easily and thoroughly we can be persuaded by someone with an agenda who suppresses the facts that don't support that agenda.
Thanks for your very thoughtful comment. I was very impressed by the film when it came out and remember meeting an Australian court worker while traveling on Brit Rail and learning how controversial he was down under. The point about how Beresford depicted the Boer deaths I just noticed when watching more critically for this review.
Of course you are absolutely correct about being wary about how filmmakers present events and the power that can have. As I noted in The Bounty review, for many the movie becomes the historic reality.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews - Thank you for that feedback. When I get a chance I want to review all the stuff I sort of knew at one time to get it all straight in my mind again, but I think in the movie it was stated the Australian government approved of the verdict and the sentence, while I think the reality was the Australian government didn't find out until weeks or months later. Also, there's that pesky issue of all those people whom the defense would have called to testify had they not been transferred out of South Africa. The British Army's position seemed to be "We know they're guilty, so therefore we can't risk a fair trial in which they might not be found guilty."
Thank you for your presentation about the Breaker Morant story and film. This has remained one of my all time favourite movies and Edward Woodward was brilliantly cast in the title role. The final closing scene of the film is brilliantly unforgettable.
Agreed. It had a strong impact on me decades ago and still hits with a punch - researching the video also uncovered some dark sides of history that were interesting to learn. Thanks for posting!
Nobody misses a slice of a cut loaf...has to be the best line in that whole film..fine movie!!👍👍👍
"Well...he'll never meet God if he doesn't die." just before they shoot the Boer.
"Lieutenant Handcock's personal morality is not on trial, sir."
A slice off a cut loaf isn't missed.
Fantastic movie! Makes one think, think, think (I served a year-and-a-half in Vietnam a half-century ago -- amazing how time flies -- and saw some of war up close and personal and realized back then what a flaw we have in our humans to organize so well to kill each other). I still get goosebumps thinking about this film: the cinematography, the perfect cast, costumes, the story (who is good, who is bad, who is right, who is wrong, who is hiding the truth, what is the truth?), and especially the biting dialog. I have mentioned this movie to others interested in military history; sad that so many have not seen this film. Happy that you have reviewed it! -- retired U.S. Navy chief petty officer. 👍
Very thoughtful and thought-provoking. Of course, as you think about the history, you also have to think about the agenda of the filmmaker and why he/she tells the story in a certain way.
Excellent--a favorite movie of mine--a complicated back story--a lot of nuance. I'm impressed that you found a photo of the real Breaker Morant! Somehow I didn't realize this was based on a real story.
Thank you and I am glad it expanded your enjoyment of this classic..
This offers another example of the power of movies because the version of events and viewpoints they offer are often embraced as the "historic reality" by an audience. I was emotionally stirred to anger as I watched it again - the head of the court was so perfectly loathsome. But when you do the research and consider the many Boers and other shot, yes, it gets a lot murkier.
As I noted in another reply, I recall discussing the case with an Australian court official in England after its original release and he emphasized how well known, complicated and divisive the history was in his homeland.
The original book has been reprinted for the first time since 1902. Written under the pseudonym of Frank Renar by Sir Frank Fox, it provides a vivid account of the Boer War with drawings by Norman Lindsay and contemporary photographs.
@@edgoodson5528 Wonder why the book wasn't reprinted in the aftermath of the film's great success? Looking at SA conflicts I am soon reviewing Zulu which I hope you find of interest.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I don´t have a good reason for that, other than he had died 20 years before and we have only recently begun republishing his books as executors of his estate. (Sir) Frank Fox was the Acting Editor of The Sydney Bulletin where he worked with Norman Lindsay as Illustrator, and Banjo Paterson as Poet and Author. He subsequently founded The Lone Hand and became the Editor recruiting his former Bulletin colleagues as contributors.
There is an excellent film called Sirens with Hugh Grant about Lindsay which would be well worth a review! Thanks
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Looking forward to it!
It's a favorite film of mine - although Morant was a complex person who (almost certainly) lied about being an illegitimate son of a British Admiral - who married and abandoned a series of women in Australia and who, to my knowledge, lost his mind after the ugly death of his friend, and carried out war crimes. Of course we still don't know if Kitchener really did order the summary execution of Boers caught wearing British khaki uniforms - which would certainly change the view of Morant's actions.
Complicating the whole thing is the political aspect: peace negotiations were ongoing, that would end a very ugly guerilla war - and Morant's trial & execution may have prevented a breakdown in those negotiations and lengthening the war. Nations use up soldiers, and when they end (to paraphrase "Zero Dark Thirty") "You don't want to be the last one holding a dog collar & leash". Morant's orders, if a year or two earlier would have most likely been ignored or covered up - they were sacrificed to the peace process whether they deserved I or not.
excellent comments _ I've recently been reading a book on the Boer War and Morant, and he certainly was a "character" skilled at spinning histories about himself, borrowing money and rarely paying it back. The book also sheds more light on the British horrific treatment of Boer families in detainment camps. As a Canadian, I know that this was the first war in which Canadians fought abroad but it was hardly a noble cause.
Thank you for this!
I've loved this film, ever since I first saw it, shortly after its release.
As you note, what makes the movie great is precisely the moral ambiguity of the eponymous Morant.
Again, as you note, both Woodward and Thompson give outstanding performances, but the whole cast is terrific.
You are very welcome - I'm finding this kind of dialogue is motivating to do the work.
I also saw the film when it was released. I recall I was taking my first international trip - to England - when I met an Australian court worker and we discussed the film. He was aware of more of the back history at that time and it was fascinating. He stressed what a divisive figure Morant was in his country. I wanted to mention this in my summing up but I find I need to keep things tight.
One last note, coming back to the film I was interested to learn that the dramatic veldt locations were actually shot in South Australia. They really add to the film.
I can’t agree with you more. This is a under the radar great film, IMHO. As you said every performance is way above average. The production too! If you have Turner Classic Movies, watch for it. You won’t be disappointed.
Thank you for your astute and balanced critique of this Classic Film. The film was shot in the town of Burra South Australia.. an old copper mining town. Thus, the native Mallee flora had been cut down to provide fuel for the smelters. The prison featured was part of a school
Camp
Thank you for your comments - when I saw it when first released I had no idea it was filmed in Australia. The school/court room being so confining worked out nicely for the tension in the film. (I wish Canada could produce some decent films on our history.)
I think everyone misses the main point of this film. The need for a scapegoat is the ultimate driver of “justice,” whether for war crimes or before a KY Medical Board 1994 case #467 in the accidental death of a patient for which I, the treating physician, was blamed. I wrote about it, mentioning this movie in my memoirs “My Medical Legal Back Pages.” Archway. Bruce Sterling pen name. An even more obscure memoir relegated to the dustbin of books that bombed but which was nevertheless based entirely on true and easily sourced events, unlike whether the Carbineers were operating under orders from Lord Kitchener.
The hypocrisy of the English as seen by the Boer concentration camps really moots the question. So what happened? Sure, like in nearly all wars, bad things happened. Morant was probably what to those of us, sitting behind our computers and never having been in a real war, would call a war criminal but the English looked the other way as long as the Aussies effectively did the English’s dirty work- until the English needed to end the war for fear of German entry into the war on the side of the Boers. A plausible concern of the English already facing a classic Thucydides trap and later entry into WWI.
But in view of my circumstances Breaker Moorant has to be my favorite film of all time, and is a companion to another court martial farce in “Mission of the Shark” film, played by Stacey Keach.
Sub commander Hashimoto: “Captain, you are a man who believes in fate?
USS Indianapolis Captain McVay (Keach): “No. I am a man who is trying to accept it.”
The epitaph on Morant’s grave marker in S. Africa says it all.
“And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Matthew 10:36.
A lot of understandable passion in your reply. Also, I did not know that the unfortunate captain of the Indianapolis was subjected to a court martial - or that Keach, always an interesting actor, was in a film about it. Thanks for this.
Very fair summary although the war crimes of the Boer Kommandos almost always goes overlooked. In Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) Captain Taylor was known to the Matabele as "the man who kills and steals".
Interesting trivia, several sources report that Breaker Morant was a favorite movie of Ronald Reagan and it is included in the list of movies he watched at Camp David.
@@henricoj.cronje9071 Interesting. What is the subject of your project and where do you go to school?
@@henricoj.cronje9071 Hi again. Ok, please send me the email for your teacher. If he/she confirms the assignment, I will be pleased to email you my script and notes.
@@henricoj.cronje9071 I would copy and paste email address into my own email account and then delete your comment. If I cannot check with your teacher, I cannot send my script.
7:26 The British did NOT put Boer non-combatants in 'Prison camps'. This is a very emotive and serious issue, which needs to be handled factually. During the later part of the war, the British created what were referred to at the time as 'refugee' or 'Concentration' camps. Since WW2, the term 'Concentration camp' has subsequently taken on an entirely different meaning than the one it had in the period that we are talking about. It's also important to understand the background issues that led to these camps becoming necessary.
Boer Commando units, by their nature were irregular units, comprised of civilians. They were no more of an army than the Taliban or ISIS would be considered an 'Army' today. They operated outside the rules of regular warfare, and one of their tactics was to both hide out in and operate from civilian premises such as farms. They would even snipe at passing British troops from farms. The farms were supporting and offering refuge to active fighting units, and this could not be ignored.
Eventually it led to retaliatory measures by the British, the burning of farm buildings (to remove the refuge cover for active Boer units) and also the crops (which the Boers relied on for sustenance). The displaced non-combatant civilians had to be placed somewhere. The British felt responsible for the Non-Combatants and the army (at first reluctantly) provided some kind of accommodation for these displaced people.
It should be noted, that at the same time, many Pro-British non-combatant civilians had also been displaced by Boers burning and looting of Pro-British farms. These displaced people were given no assistance by either Boers or the British and had to fend for themselves and many protested that the British treated the Boers better than loyalists. The British also guaranteed IOU's given to people whose property or goods were 'requisitioned' by both he British AND the Boers. Under this (quite ludicrous) arrangement, Boers could go to pro-Boer merchants and 'Requisition' food, arms and ammunition and offer astronomically high IOU's, knowing that the British would reimburse the merchant and not the Boers. The British ended up also paying ALL reconstruction costs for the war, something no other victorious nation has ever done.
Furthermore, the idea of the 'refugee camps' was actually supported by the Combatant Boers themselves. They supported them for two reasons. Firstly a perverse sense of satisfaction that their families were being housed and fed at their enemies expense, but also because the Boers were growing ever fearful of their vulnerable women and children being attacked by vengeful natives when they were away on active duty.
The Boer commando units also made extensive use of the camps by 'playing the system' and using them as a place for rest and recuperation when ill or low on food and then slipping away back to their units. The British had a very lax (and ultimately counter productive) 'Parole' system for 'surrendered Boers'. Boers could surrender, hand over their 'weapons' (usually something obsolete such as a Blunderbus after burying their actual arms for later retrieval) pledge an oath of allegiance to the King and be given a 'parole pass' and either set free, or sent to one of the 'camps'. On multiple occasions, dead Boers were found with multiple 'Parole passes', showing that they had 'surrendered' and returned to their units multiple times, thus did the British softness perversely prolong the war (and the suffering of the civilians both Boer and British).
The camps undoubtedly had their failings, especially initially when they were overwhelmed with occupants and under resourced with medicines and food. However, the fact remains that the camp occupants had a greater chance of survival in a camp, than they did outside one, without food or shelter or protection from native tribesman.
The deaths in the camps, from epidemics of cholera and other diseases caused an outrage in BRITIAN, just as much as the rest of the world (even though worse conditions were to be found in the 'Concentration camps' that were in existence under similar circumstances in Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish American war and subsequent annexation of both and the rebellions that followed. Yes, the use of concentration camps (and the blockhouse system) was first employed by Spain and the US in Cuba and the Philippines).
The outrage in Britain led by people like Hobhouse and Fawcett was also at times subjected to hysteria and whipped up by the press. Some of the pictures used in British newspapers at the time to whip up this anti-British sentiment were actually pictures from the Indian famine from 1898. When the reforms of the camps led by Hobhouse and Fawcett took effect, the death rates plummeted.
However, the same focus was not given to the occupants of the camps for native displaced Africans, where the death toll was much worse proportionally.
It's a very good film. And viewed dispassionately, as a film (and an anti-war film that that) it has many positives, including humanising the perpetrators of what are regarded by most people as 'Barbarous acts'. The speeches by Thomas do this very well. However, where the film fails is that it uses a real life incident without giving the full facts. Morant and Hancock were not on trial for the deaths of Visser and Heese, but for the murder of dozens of Boers (including women and children) in multiple acts of summary execution. The film makes us think that it was only a few Boers and the (obviously duplicitous) missionary who were killed. But the reality was that Morant and the carbineers murdered many Boer prisoners and also murdered sick Boer women and children. The other important point (which is given the briefest of mention in the film) is that no matter the veracity of the 'Take no prisoners' order, there is a lot of legal difference between 'taking no prisoners' and taking someone prisoner and then shooting them. (This same issue would rear up multiple times in WW2). The 'orders' also in no part could be interpreted as advocating the execution of women, children or the clergy.
Full disclosure, I watched this movie as a teenager in the mid 90's and was immediately taken by it. I believed it as fact and felt the sense of burning injustice (As I also did when watching Gallipoli), especially the idea of 'Scapegoats of the Empire'. I have always been a fan of military history and was working my way through 'Colonial history' books after devouring WW1 & 2. However, when I read more about it, it soon became apparent that there was more to the story.
Far from being 'Scape goats of the Empire', they were an embarrassment that was probably destined to be swept under the carpet until the issue was raised by Australians in their own unit. Again, as the video points out, but the movie omits, the whistle was blown by Australians in the Carbineers who were outraged by the atrocities and did not want the good name of Australia to be tarnished by countrymen acting so beyond all decency. I feel Morant and Hancock would have most probably had fully blown PTSD and had become deranged to the Colonel Kurtz 'Heart of Darkness' level. But that is no defence for their actions.
However, it was the Australian whistle blowing that brought the matter to light, and the fact that there were so few instances of these summary executions in other units, showed that there was no widespread 'Imperial order' basis for this (else many other instances would have occurred if people felt it was 'state sanctioned'). Therefore it was not the 'Empire' that was feeling like it had any need for 'scape goats'. It could be better argued, IMO, that it was actually the 'Empire' that was being 'Scape goated' in the film.
The fact that the main accused were Australian actually complicated things for the British. If Hancock and Witton had been true born English (and Morant had never travelled to Australia) it would have been much easier to sentence them to death and be done with it. However the fact that they were Australians in a BRITISH unit, made the British responsible for their actions and caused the tension between a desire to display a sense of fairness to the Boers (during a period of attempted reconciliation) and the desire to appease their Australian allies.
On reading more history and coming to realise some of the politically motivated 'Myths' perpetuated by this film and others such as Gallipoli (with it's falsehoods about the British drinking tea on Suvla beach whilst ANZACS died), films such as this and Gallipoli (and even Braveheart) lose their meaning. They become a tool of Anti-British resentment, rather than accurate portrayals of history to help us better understand the past. You can't ever hope to understand the past if you can't admit the truth.
Excellent analysis of what clearly appears to be a cinematic masterwork. The content seems to reflect both the idealism of antiwar sentiment while not negating the reality of that war seems to be part of the dark side of human nature.
Thanks. That was a goal of the director, but the power of the film makes the three accused into pure victims for many viewers but the reality of the real events are not as clean cut.
I watched this movie as a teenager. I loved it and have watched it many times since.
Great film review and story. At the time the film came out most people only knew about WWI as it pretty much dwarfed any earlier conflicts. But the film even though it's a 'dramatised' version shone light on Australia's early military history, particularly as Australia had only just been Federated in 1901 and a national Parliament created. Before 1901 each State Parliament dealt directly with London and there was no 'Australian Army', it was the 'New South Wales (NSW) Contingent', the 'Queensland Contingent', etc. Lieutenant George Witton upon return to Australia (AUST.) would write 'Scapegoats of the Empire' (1907), although as always it's hard to separate fact from fiction (some disputed it at the time); but it's a contemporary source from the era by someone close to the events and the people involed.
Thank you. It was interesting doing some research on this one as it is a film that had an impact on me ever since I saw it when first released. You can totally understand patriotic Australians seeing Breaker as a martyr, but naturally the families of his victims feel very differently. But to me the key find was the "disappearance" of the transcripts. I only wish Canada could do one or two historic movies approaching the quality of the Aussies, but that does not seem likely to happen.
Good review, our British overlords were quite capable of stunning missteps , the Canadian soldiers"mutiny " in 1919 by soldiers held back from going home and the execution of "ringleaders " comes to mind
great comment, thanks. I wasn't very aware of the 1919 incident and will read up on that. Thanks again.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews There was a really informative movie which is how I found out ( hard to find though) & I found it looking for a really bitter song about WW I
@@crackmonkeynet Do u remember the name of that movie?
This took place during the Boer War, not WWII. Still, a good review of a great movie.
Thanks - to clarify, the narration states the events happened during the "Second Boer War" not "Second World War". Glad you liked the review.
Edward Woodward had such amazing and beautiful singing voice also he was amazing actor
0:07 It’s after seeing Humphrey Bogart in _The Caine Mutiny_ that a jobbing actor, in London, named Maurice Micklewhite, who had already chosen “Michael” to be his given stage name, finally chose a surname too.
And a great choice - that film showed Bogart's bravery choosing a complex character with a negative side, as in Sierra Madre
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Indeed, when Bogie gets his worry balls out, at the tribunal, and cooks his own goose: it’s a tribute to the man’s talent. I particularly liked how the drunken doc turns up, at the celebratory party afterwards, where they’re all toasting their reprieve, to chide their consciences. They’ve saved their skins but at the cost of destroying a formerly great man and war hero.
@@michaeljames4904 Yes; I'd also strongly recommend the Caine Mutiny Court Martial remake from Robert Altman in which the doc is Jewish and even more intense.
Woodward was a god. And a bloody talented one.
I am also a huge fan, as you can judge from my video. The fact that he was a tabletop wargamer (as I have been for decades) also shows he was a man of keen intelligence! (The hobby was worked into his character on TV's Callan.)
its odd that the whole question of shooting prisoners in africa where the movie is set only seems to have applied to white captives.only a couple of years earlier at omdurman kitchener who in this case was deemed by the court incapable of signing an order to shoot boer prisoners gave clear instructions to his men to finish off all the wounded dervishes left on the field after the battle of omdurman.similar short shrift was given to zulu matabele and pondi prisoners in earlier conflicts.
Worthwhile point. In my review of Zulu I do point out that Zulu wounded were sometimes killed, though to be balanced we must note that the Zulus killed all British and Indigenous troops after Isandlwana.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews no i cast no approbrium in a no prisoners war but the british were eqaually ruthless against the dervishes who did often take prisoners albeit men of rank who agreed to convert.the mahdi was horrified and gordons death for example as he wanted him a prisoner.however wolseleys and kitcheners campaigns expressly ordered no prisoners be taken on the march except for interrogation after which they were shot.no wounded were to be spared either at kitcheners express order.the boer war had its origins in the jameson raid where the invaders were treated well by the boers and returned to england for trial.both sides were keen to show to europe their chivalrous side as basically the war was a sqaulid attempt to control the diamond and gold fields caused in no small part by the machinations of rhodes.the scramble for africa had begun in earnest so the boers supported by germany portrayed themselves as victims whilst the british tried to appease their european allies and enemies by an appearence of fair play.shooting prisoners would be seized on by the german press much as belgian atrocities in ww1 by the germans were played up by the british.the germans showed no such compunction themselves during the herrero revolt in namibia killinf hundreds of thousands indiscriminately including women and children.forgotten now mainly due to the furore over the belgian congo it again shows a completely different set of rules for fighting non white enemies.
There is another feature, hidden within this review. The German Keizer was apparently threatening to enter the Boer war on the sdie of the Dutch (he was insanely jealous of all of the British colonial conquests) . The severe punishment exacted on the Aussies was in part to placate him. But imagine if he had... Could one result have been preempting WWI?
Absolutely. There are mentions of the "peace process" in the film and a recent book on Morant (and other texts) underline that the shooting of the German missionary was the greatest concern for British command. Thanks for watching. (As a younger man on my first trip to Britain I recall a great discussion with an Australian court official in our B&B about the case and its importance and debates in Oz.)
Thanks for the review and detailed research. This remains a popular film in Australia and although perhaps not as iconic as Beresford's later work Gallipoli it was in my view a least, a more complete film from a dramatic perspective.
Thanks for your support. I agree that I find Morant a more compelling dramatic experience given several factors: specific true story, the David vs Goliath odds, and the mature force of the lead characters - the gravitas of Woodward as Morant is hard to beat. Of course Gallipoli is a fine film too, dealing with another far larger Australian historic controversy (and much more successfully than Canada's WW I near epic, Passchendaele).
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I've not seen Passchendaele but will look it up thanks. I agree that Gallipoli was also a great film. Well cast and although a little jingoistic in parts the film is layered than it first appears. In particular the way in which the film balanced themes of youthful naivety and enthusiasm, the exploitation of trust (both in the context of Australia as a nation and the individual characters) and the notion of responsibility and 'giving a good account of yourself' was very effective. Epecially on an emotional level, and provided a strong insight into the attitudes and expectations of the period.
@@keithforbes4213 Very well said. Sadly for the species, there seems to be a universal youthful enthusiasm for proving yourself in battle whatever the cause. Meanwhile, I wouldn't spend too much time on the Passchendaele project - it is a Canadian film that meant well but is far far from the class of the two Aussie movies.
Excellent review of a truly classic film.
Much appreciated.
Correction, the ONLY Equalizer.
Well said!
Brilliant film. It's one of my all-time favorites. Thanks for this excellent discussion about it. It seems to be largely under-appreciated in the US. That's a shame. It certainly deserves its place among the great court-martial films of all time (as you show in the intro).
I always loved it and meeting an Aussie court worker who discussed the controversies during my first trip to England really cemented that.
I love Edward Woodward, but I have to repeat the famous Olivier anecdote. Apparently when Sir Laurence first heard EW's name, he said "Sounds like a fart in a bathtub."
Thanks for watching and commenting. I have to say that pronouncing "Edward Woodward" was a bit challenging and you can hear me take my time with his name in the video. I was a huge fan - and also like that in his private life he shared my hobby of tabletop wargaming.
Best line is “I’ve seen it.”
Never heard of this one. I’ll give it a watch. Thank you
@@mfranssens excellent. That is the goal of the channel.
In the genre of courts martial, take a look at "Conduct Unbecoming" with Michael York as a reluctant defence counsel in a kangaroo court of fellow junior officers.
This movie was great! Makes me interested in Australian cinema along with Mr. Inbetween
It is a tremendous film with a central character who is seen as both a victim and a villain by different people.
Australian independence in 1986? Where did that weird graphic come from? Either 1901 or 1931 depending on definition.
The Australia Act of 1986 granted the country legal independence from Britain by removing any British parliamentary control over the nation.
I'm no historian. I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was about a trio of Aussie soldiers fighting for the British empire who, despite following orders, were scapegoated by the British Empire to keep Germany out of the Boer War.
And to sacrificed to ensure a peace conference
I'm watching the true story of Breaker Morant now on UA-cam and he a bloody Pomme as Aussies say. I'm so glad i asked for a review of this film but nearly more so that i found ur brilliant site as ur narration and talent for detail are very addictive. Fantastic site!! I've subbed ok
''Shoot straight you bastards'' lol..what a classic line and so in character of Australians of that time..
It was an amazing line to spit out just as you were entering eternity.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews He actually said that too...along with his earlier "Rule 303" statement.
Dude, the movie came out in 1980. I think the statute of spoilers expired decades ago.
the channel's goal is discussion but also to sometimes direct movies they haven't seen yet so I steadfastly avoid or warn about spoilers - thanks for watching.
The Boer should have taught the British to not march into battle at the beat of a drum. They had to use Australians to fight the Boer at their own game, and they crucified them for doing it.
Totally riveting for me.
Great film, great cast, great music!
"They say a slice off a cut loaf is never missed!
Simon Hunt was Breakers Boss not Percy
Quite correct - and noted.
Really excellent, to the point synopsis on a very involved and contentious subject. Edward Woodward, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Martin Scorcese & James Mason were all very keen model soldier collectors and, (except Lee, who never seemed to stop work) wargamers. By all accounts they were very well versed in military history.
Thanks. I've been a tabletop wargamer for ages, which is why I added the bit on Woodward (even though the old show was pretty danged boring, I admit The Yanks on Little Wars TV do a good job). Thanks for your support. I hope you have subscribed. I am not going to "monetize" but I'd love to get to 1,000 subs just to do it. And thanks again.
Matthew 10:36, very apt.
Excellent review
Much appreciated!
A little known, excellent movie, very well done..."We applied rule .303"...
Thanks - I always hope this will give it even a little more attention.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews An interesting side note about that scene....
The British rifles used in the movie were genuine Boer War-era rifles, that had long ago been sold off as surplus in Australia, converted to civilian hunting rifles, then bought up for the movie and reassembled to original standard, using original parts from the same outback gunsmiths that had sporterized many of them. They were "Frankenrifles", good for props or (maybe) shooting, but that was all...no collector value left.
To enhance the "Rule 303" scene, some unknown prop handler stamped ".303" on the wrist of the rifle closest to the camera, without asking permission. The owner was FURIOUS when he got them back, and soon after sold them off.
He later said ruefully in an interview that somebody out there has Australia's most iconic movie rifle and doesn't know it.
@@MA-wq2ih as you probably know, the 303 speech actually happened in some form during the trial - and while it was powerful - it also served as an admission of guilt. And from my readings, it was the shooting of the German mercenary that was Morant's greatest problem, with the Kaiser making noise about the war. If it had "only" been Boers, the sentence may have been less severe
Thank you!! Very good job. I love this movie. One of my favorites. I was just curious..I saw at the beginning of your video, you showed a clip of Paths of Glory (another great movie). Will you ever do a video on that movie?
Thank you for your comment. I did spend some time digging into trial's history and am glad when that's appreciated by a fan of this great film. As my "niche" is films with British themes or casts or writers I don't have Paths of Glory on my list. However, I do have other videos on historically related subjects (Day of the Jackal, Sink the Bismarck, Ice Cold in Alex, A Night to Remember) and am currently working on 1984's The Bounty.
Like your reviews - hope you've figured out how to record your dialog in stereo or at least put the mono on both sides.
Thanks for that. If you watch my later reviews (I've done 31 to date) you should find they improved in technical quality as I improved my equipment and knowledge of the files I was working with. (I do wish Breaker was technically better as it is one of my more popular titles.) Thanks again.
Appendium; Have you viewed " Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence "?
Despite being interested in WW II films and being a massive Bowie fan, I have not seen that one yet. I must get to it sometime soon.
"Best Foreign Language Film". That made me laugh.
I guess the poor 'Mericans, had to struggle with "Strien".
Really glad you liked that detail - I was hoping it was a cheeky way to end the review. As a longtime fan of the movie I found it interesting doing the research, especially the bit that all the trial records "vanished" in London.Thanks for subscribing, appreciate the support, and please do share your thoughts on some of my other subjects.
Some of it was in afrikaans
Hey, they dubbed the original release of "Mad Max"....
Its good to get the South African slant which I have noticed in the comments of this subject
I'd like to know if any films were ever made of the Boer War from a South African perspective.
@@MA-wq2ih I know there were terrible atrocities commite by both sides,a lot of it involving innocent civilians,it needs many perspectives to get the whole picture
I was cross-scheduled against you, but I loved the earlier sneak peak I got!
Really glad you enjoyed it especially as someone who has been to Australia. I note there are a number of other videos and specials placing a microscope on Morant and the trial.
Well done, a fine commentary on the movie.
US soldiers fighting in the Pacific and in Europe in WW2 said there were times when they had prisoners and they could either have a number of men keep them and get them back to be incarcerated, leaving the rest of their group to fight without them....or....they could shoot them.
It absolutely happened that they did, at times, shoot them.
Of course this happened. The killing of prisoners is as old as warfare. It was brought up a few times in the Band of Brothers series. It's often "officially discouraged" by senior command, if only to make enemy soldiers more likely to surrender and stop fighting. In the current war, Ukraine emphasizes good treatment of surrendered soldiers in videos to undermine Russian resolve. As you know, the entire point of contention in Morant was whether troops were unofficially order to kill prisoners or not.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I'm glad that the Ukraine is emphasizing good treatment of Russian soldiers. It could hardly be worse than the Russian Governments treatment of their own soldiers.
My favourite story comes from the Spanish Civil War, and isn't strictly about treatment of prisoners. The international brigade were dug in up in the freezing mountains. They had hardly any ammunition, so avoided shooting at all costs. They did want to undermine the moral of the Fascist troops, & encourage them to surrender. So they'd shout "Buttered toast. We're eating buttered toast.. It's hot and delicious. Butter is dripping through the holes in the bread!"
Ah the evils of propaganda.
Just to make us English awful is that we were the first to do Death Camps and Scalping plus much more lovely torturous trivialities!!
TOP MOVIE GREAT CAST 😊
Fantastic analysis and good video all round mate. The only thing I'll pull you up on is that the rank 'lieutenant' in the UK (subsequently the commonwealth and other places like Australia) it is pronounced 'left-tenant'. Regardless, love your work.
Thanks, Jack. I'm a North American "colonial" myself - I'm aware of the UK version of lieutenant but went with the RCA version. Really glad you enjoyed it - I loved the film since it came out and the research was interesting - especially the missing court records.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Ah didn’t know that the Canadians pronounce the same as the yanks. I’ve recently gotten into your channel and I’m enjoying your content. And mabey someday we too can shed the shackles the poms have on our phonetics. Also have you thought about doing some kiwi cinema as it be good to see our cousins represented.
@@jackcrispin1286 Really enjoyed hearing from you - hope you subscribed and can comment on some of my other efforts
RULE 303
Top review. Very perceptive in regard to the film itself and to the history behind it.
I truly appreciate that. I need to get moving and do my next project soon - The Dam Busters.
The lesson is Australian Army never again serve under British officers, same thing happened in WW1 western front .
Not a great review but better than many.
You said that many Australians regard Morant and Handcock as heroes. That's not true; they regard them as victims.
The controversy revolves around whether Kitchener gave the order to "take no prisoners.” He did give that order and the evidence is overwhelming. I refer to the St Clair document and the testimony of many Boer War veterans. This should have been mentioned, although you did mention that the British "lost" or suppressed the court transcript, which may or may not have settled the question.
The fact that the prosecution ensured that Kitchener and others were made unavailable as witnesses to support Handcock and Morant in regard to their defence regarding them obeying the order to take no prisoners should also have been mentioned. It was not.
Nor was the fact that unlike today’s soldiers who declare in writing that they will obey LAWFUL orders, Morant and Handcock signed a statement while enlisting which said they were to obey orders from commanding officers, as in ALL orders. The word LAWFUL was conspicuously absent, meaning it was not up to the soldier to decide what was and was not a lawful order. The soldier was to presume that all orders he received from commanding officers were lawful and as such he was to obey them or face disciplinary action.
A soldier today would be in trouble for obeying such an order because it would obviously be unlawful, but what is now known as the Nuremberg excuse was at that stage irrelevant.
Peter Handcock was not escaping his domestic life. I have researched his life in detail and the evidence suggests he had a successful marriage, although his motivation for joining up may have been financial given that he had a family to support. There is no evidence to suggest he was a womaniser. All evidence suggest he was a good family man.
As someone who has obviously put time and effort into careful research you bring up some worthwhile points. Having not the time to research Handcock in detail, the way his character was written and acted by Bryan Brown, he did come across as a "lady's man" who liked action and might have been bored with a working life and family at home. ("a slice off a cut loaf is never missed.")
Also, it is tragically interesting that you write "today" a soldier would be in trouble for obeying such orders, given many news reports about atrocities and mass graves in the Ukraine war. (that's very personal for me.)
Anyway, I'm at least pleased you found the piece "better than many" as my intent is to encourage people watching movies of this quality.
Thanks for the reply Walt. If you want a more thorough understanding of Handcock's character it is worth visiting the site owned by his great grandson, Richard Williams, who has researched the subject in great detail. See the link below.
Richard, like me, has found nothing that suggests he was having a relationship with the two Boer women who provided alibis for him when he was accused of shooting Rev Heese. The film, "Breaker Morant" however, maintains he was. I also believe it unlikely. It is unlikely because one of the women, Mrs Schiels, had two sons who gave the same evidence as their mother. The other lady, Mrs Bristow, had a husband who also gave evidence of Peter's whereabouts. So, other than the fact there is no documentary evidence to suggest he was servicing those women, Mrs Bristow's husband would be highly unlikely to testify on Peter's behalf if he thought he may have been servicing his wife, and the same could be said for Mrs Schiels' sons if there was any suggestion Peter was servicing their mum, (particularly when their dad was absent as a POW of the British).
So again, even though there is zero proof of him servicing the Boer woman, or any other women for that matter, we do not know for a fact whether he was a womaniser or a faithful husband. However, given what has been said about him by those who knew him well I would suggest it is more than likely he was a faithful husband. I think it likely he was portrayed as having been intimate with the Boer women because sex assists in the selling of books and movies.
The film also has him saying he enjoyed "chasing tarts around Bathurst." There is no evidence to suggest he engaged in that pastime.
www.lieutpjhandcock.com
@@DAVE57571 Yes, the film also has him referencing that home had "a family and a depression", and mixed with how he was portrayed in the movie, it made it appear he simply wanted to escape the "trap" of that life. One of the things I enjoy about this channel (I certainly don't do it for the money) is digging into these issues with viewers. Handcock's portrayal is certainly more "subtle", but now it reminds me of the blatant demonizing of Henry Hook's character in Zulu. Of course Hook is shown to be a malingering drunk in the film while in real life he was a model soldier - researching my Zulu video I learned his elderly relatives angrily stormed out of the premiere!
@@Vlad65WFPReviews You're doing a good job Walt as you have the right attitude.
@@DAVE57571 Appreciated.
I enjoyed this video.
Thanks so much. I hope you can find some time to see some of my other history-related videos on the channel.
Sorry mate you have history mixed up it's the bore war from 1899/1902 in South Africa. The 3 Australian officers serve under British command under Lord Kitcher a formed regiment as commandos .Morant was Englishman , who come over too Australia about 1888 got off ship in Townsville Queensland,made his way too charters Towers, married Irish lady called dasy Bates , did wrong by her and made his way from Queensland drove cattle all the way too south Australia ,was horse breaker ,are bush poet ,who wrote for bulletin in South Australia,before departure for South Africa,who enlisted in the south Australia 2nd Contingent. Started as lance corporal.NCO .in Australia was promoted to Sargent in that unit .And Promotion too Leautent in Bush Velt Carabineers . Mainly made of Australians in that Unit .the British government regarded Australian's 🦘🌏 As colonials .That is Were Australian Army was Formed.In South Africa.when Australia becomes a Federation in 1901 Australia army were renamed as the Commonwealth Horse and out break WW1 is renamed as the Australian Light Horse ,during the Trial of Lt Morant Lt Hancock Lt Whitton during British Court-martial.The The British Government Lied too Australian Government during Court-martial, only too learn fate a year after the been shot 27 Feb 1902 .these men were not given a fair trial ,what about thousands of Southern Bore Farmers killed by British in Concentration camps.woman children . Many of Australia's soldiers from 1880.too 1943 were made of mixed bunch of from First nations Australians Japan Australia, Chinese Australia, Danish, Australia, English Australian, Irish, Australians Scottish Australian, Welsh Australian, German Australian, who were farmers ,shop keepers ,timber cutters .they hard working families,most were very poor .lived of out back hunting trapping ,fishing,I am great great grand son of British, German settlers who came too Australia for better,life .my great grandfather was Englishman from Somerset,just like breaker Morant .who was gold miner then join the Australian Army.
To the point of the movie and the defense of Morant in the movie: were these soldiers following orders from superiors?
Since the war crime trials of Nuremberg in particular, it has gained moral, ethical and legal standing in the minds of many that there are orders from military superiors that are illegal (as well as immoral and unethical) and therefore MUST be disobeyed. I say that such was not always the case and it was most likely NOT the case in 1903 in the British Empire of South Africa during the Boer War. And here is why I say this.
In the 1920s in Ireland following the 1916 Easter Uprising, the end of World War I and the allowance of Great Britain to allow the beginnings of freedom for an Irish nation, rebellion was found throughout Ireland and Great Britain chose NOT to go to war (as it had in South Africa against the Boer in the early 1900s or as it had to help France against Germany in 1914). However, Great Britain DID hire a large number of unemployed veterans of WW1, sent them to Ireland and asked them to keep order and to put down rebellion where they found. These British troopers were called the Black and Tans (for the mismatched colors of their uniforms). Finally to my point: the British commander of the Black and Tans gave orders to kill suspected Irish guerrilla fighters OR civilians whether justified (ex. being shot at by fighters) or not without fear of court marshall OR inquiry by him. This is historical fact; please look into it.
Therefore, I say if a British military commander in Ireland in 1920 could give such orders, how much of a stretch is it to think that similar orders (to shoot Boer prisoners in this instance) COULD have been issued in South Africa as the movie and Harry Morant's defense contended at court marshall? I'm thinking it's a very short stretch.
To anyone wanting to use the war crime standards coming out of Nuremberg after World War II and applying them to Hancock and Morant's court marshall in 1903 have to also keep in mind that the British Army also put into practice the first concentration camps during the Boer War over 35 years before the German Nazis did the same thing. There were no trials or court marshalls for THESE war crimes or "crimes against humanity".
I'm not a deep expert on this matter, but I agree it seems very very probable that some kind of unofficial order from Kitchener about shooting Boers, especially Boers "wearing Khaki" did exist - as I found it remarkable that the trial records were "lost". Sadly, as someone with relatives in Western Ukraine in our "modern times", the entire issue of soldiers being ordered to commit war crimes against prisoners and civilians is all too current. Tragically, too many of Putin's draftees are felons only too eager to kill and rape. And thanks for the historic details on the 1920 Irish situation - very enlightening.
Sir, I'd never heard of this film and only asked for a review as it's on Freeview now!!!! The part where the brilliant- (Equaliser)-Edward Woodward is telling his pompous higher ranked officer about Law 303 which i took as their 303 Rifle and that he's the only one true Law as without that ur screwed baby but gettin back to Edward W he was just a fantastic and i think highly under rated actor who was capable of some just outstanding and memorable acting!! He was married to the on screen wife Michelle Dotrice of Frank Spencer the bungling idiot played expertly by now Sir Michael Crawford in Some Mothers Do Ave Em in case anyone gives a toss!!? He also, Edward W had a fantastic voice, a bass tenor if i recall sort of deep Welsh singing voice? An actor deffo missed by all who have seen him in action so to speak!! Enjoying the film so far that's for sure and even Alf from Home and Away is in this!! If ur American uve got two hopes of knowin who Alf is, there's Bob Hope and effin No Hope!!
Good to hear from you. I am not American but a proud citizen of the Great Dominion to its north
Too hard to say who was guilty -- or not guilty -- of what without a lot more information,
Nice review about a movie unknown from me . Thanks for a new subscriber .
Hello, thanks for the comment and subscribing. I'm a miniatures tabletop gamer myself (as was Edward Woodward, both onscreen and privately) so I will take a good look at your channel.
Most of all, I am so pleased that you noted this "movie is unknown to me" as shining a light on great movies that are relatively obscure is the ultimate goal of my channel - along with chatting with existing fans - so I trust you will enjoy it - and other films that will be showcased. Thanks for writing!
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Do much appreciate your reply . I will take my time to watch your videos and discover other movies Of course my preference goes to the historic ones ! Greetings , Robert
as you will see, a lot of my early titles deal with historic themes - such as war and espionage. Ice Cold in Alex is a great example, a memorable war drama based on a book by a serving officer, but which was basically "lost" in North America. Hope you enjoy the videos and this kind of feedback is encouraging for me to keep working on new ones.
Will check this film out. Thanks
Tremendous - plz post your thoughts when you do.
For context:
ua-cam.com/video/x0w9LFDYW1s/v-deo.html
PLEASE SUPPORT THE CHANNEL: Remember to click Like and Subscribe.
SEE MORE WFP Review videos: find them here: ua-cam.com/channels/Lk0imh2GnMR9aV1oQr4iUQ.html
Thanks. I recall visiting England for the first time just after the movie came out and meeting a Court worker from Australia and having a wonderful conversation about what a famous but controversial figure Morant was (ans still is) in Aus,
You may have been told this thousands of times, or it could just be me, but your profile photo makes you look like Mark Rylance with spectacles.
Well, I and others in my household are big fans of Mr. Rylance - Master Thespian - but I have never heard that comparison before. Of course, I will take it as a fine compliment.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Please share my post with the others in your household just to see what their reaction will be.
England and Australia needs to correct the wrong and pardon them.
as covered in my video that would be difficult to do, though many people would agree with you
An Excellent Film
An excellent film that made me a huge fan of Mr Woodward - what a presence!
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I think it is one of the better cast films ever. Thanks
I love this movie, but it basically was the Nuremberg defend
yes it was
That statement might be an oversimplification. The rules of war covered conduct when dealing with civilians and uniformed combatants. Boer guerrillas, however, subverted the civilian-combatant divide by fitting into neither, instead being able to make devastating strikes while hiding behind civilians. That would mean that the rules of war did not cover them, so doing what would normally be considered "illegal" might not necessarily be the case here, and even the soldiers probably felt the same when they had to fight such guerrillas (and they might have to make life-or-death decisions very quickly).
@@sksolaris0045 This will always remain a fascinating debate and discussion. Looking into it I was struck that other men from Morant's unit were also concerned about what was happening.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I am sure that other members of the unit weren't the only ones who were concerned or were debating the issue with themselves and amongst their colleagues. You'd hope you could go high when your enemy goes low (i.e. obey the laws of war to the strictest of standards even while your enemy breaks rules left and right), but that becomes difficult when it becomes a matter of life and death (i.e. the enemy subverts to rule so that it becomes easier for him or her to kill you). When too many of your own die, you start to distrust your senses, and you can't feel safe even if you seem to be surrounded by civilians. I guess even Lord Kitchener struggled with himself over those rules to shoot, and he was far from the last (debate has since emerged over the Malayan Emergency, the Vietnam War, and the War on Terror, all of which have involved guerrillas hiding behind civilians to strike with extraordinary deadliness)...
It's a 40 year old movie. I can't imagine anyone NOT knowing how it turned out
I try to reach people who might not have seen it before - so I always avoid spoilers if I can.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I respect that and I honored that.
Good review
Well...
If The British Empire...
The Commonwealth
To dissappear?
Do you welcome that...
Which will replace it?
I live in a Commonwealth country and like the historical connection to Britain. The history of all nations is imperfect, especially ones with imperial pasts, but I value Britain's democratic and justice traditions - and its culture.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews
Awww..
The Rule of Law...
Brings liberty...
I never bothered to research the Prosecution side of things, so I am of the opinion that he was a Martyr.
I believe it's clear he was strongly motivated to avenge Capt Hunt, whatever the unofficial orders were - but the suppression of the trial records does raise questions about the prosecution.
A scapegoat for the press to keep British as the good guys which at the time they weren't and public opinion was changing making it more akin to a Vietnam problem public sympathy slipping ie concentration camps (bad in the national papers at breakfast)especially since the women and children were white Europeans not foreign natives of a different colour living in mud huts and yes sometimes soldiers do bad things in emotional reactions we are only human was he innocent or guilty only he really knows same position would you do the same ??? FYI I would standing orders and my best friend blood on there hands in War
Murderer....you need to go read the actual history.
@@johngoosen1962 After reading the actual history, the man was definitely rail roaded by the kangaroo court, pun intended
@@thorgodofthunder3204 Name of your source?
They were scapegoated by upper class officers....ordered to kill all prisoners by Kitchener
Well, it was most interesting that the trial records are seemingly lost forever.
Best foreign language?
I guess they didn't think it through - but at least the film was recognized.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews I’m just curious how they watched the movie, did they watch with subtitles enabled? Or were they all fluent in Australian?
They were in New York, where it seems both Australian English and American English are considered foreign languages.
@@MRFlackAttack1 I think in New York, any American English from outside the city is a foreign language.
Some was in afrikaans if that counts
Thankfully 14 Australian soldiers and 1 New Zealand soldier exposed this murderer for what he was.
Morant remains very controversial to this day - someone else wrote recently and wanted him pardoned - he will remain an "open wound" in history
Aussies have a history of making movies where they are the victims of 'Pommie' oppression, note that there are no significant Aussie movies about their involvement in the Vietnam war, Britain wasn't in that one so there's no one for them to blame.
one of the best aussie movies made.