It's Petersburg, Transvaal, South Africa 1901. During the Boer War, three Australian lieutenants Harry Morant (Edward Woodward), Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown) and George Witton (Lewis Fitz-Gerald) are on trial for killing some Boer prisoners and a German missionary after their Capt. Hunt was killed. They are scapegoats and Lord Kitchener needs to convict them to appease the Germans. However they claim that they were following the rules of war laid down by Hunt which comes from the top Kitchener. It's a show trial where the judges are predisposed and the defense lawyer is inexperienced in military court. The Boer attack the prison and the three men heroically beat them back. The show trial goes on.This is not an anti-war movie. These guys are portrayed as heroes for much of the movie. This is more or less anti-British military. That's an easy target. These characters are complicated and I wish they are played just a little bit more complicated. They need to be a bit more brutal. During the Boer attack on the prison, they are more like Rambo. There is a fascinating but a little slow court procedural where the defense starts out strong and turns murky. The final defense closing arguments are awkward. It's a movie that leaves me questioning the need of the movie to make martyrs of these men.

"Breaker Morant" is set during the Boer War--a particularly ugly war fought in South Africa around the turn of the 20th century. Both the Boers (Dutch South African farmers) and the British committed a lot of nasty atrocities and many of the standards conduct during warfare were violated in the course of this war. Concentration camps, a scorched earth policy and the like were used to subdue the Boers.In this film, three Commonwealth soldiers from Australia are up on charges for war crimes--they are charged with executing prisoners and the like. While the defendants do not deny doing this, the problem is that this was common practice and those in command heartily approved--at least until word of the atrocities leaked. Now, to maintain the facade of civility, the three soldiers are being prosecuted--scapegoats despite doing exactly what they were expected to do. This is based, on part, on a real case--though how closely they stick to the original is uncertain.While most of the film takes place during the court martials, through flashbacks you see many of the events that led up to the trials. Some of the behavior of the men seemed incredibly savage (such as shooting prisoners who had surrendered on their own) and much of their actions seemed to make sense in light of the guerrilla warfare being committed against them. Regardless, what is clear is that the court really seems to want nothing more than to make examples of these men.Not surprisingly, "Breaker Morant" struck a chord with many who fought in Vietnam and recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like the Boer War, soldiers had no idea who was and was not the enemy and vague or politically motivated rules of engagement made fighting very difficult. The parallels are many--making this story rather timeless. This, the excellent writing and acting make for a very good film--one well worth seeing--even if it is a bit stagy (belying its roots as a play).

Reviewers have compared Breaker Morant with Paths of Glory, The Caine Mutiny and A Few Good Men, all involving courts martial. Suppressing my dislike of Kubrick, ignoring the naval jingoism spliced into The Caine Mutiny, and erasing the last 5 minutes of A Few Good Men, these weren't bad films. They were interesting, well-performed, raised provocative issues and all that. Breaker Morant, however, is everything those three are not. It's not in a different league, it's in a different dimension, stratospheric. It is real, as Woodward points out in his interview. It's visceral, gritty, organic, flawless. There's no Hollywood gloss, no pandering to the public, or vested interests. The other three movies are mechanical artefacts; you can see the machinery. Morant is dramatic art, at the topmost level. The editing is superb, the variation in scene after scene, close-ups, long-shots, is utterly masterful. Again, the dialogue, the sardonic humour, the tragedy, the irony, are all real. These men are rough and ready, in crumpled uniforms, truly in the field, on active service. There's no staging –-- well, there is, of course, it's a film --- but it just feels dead right, every time. It's not fancy. I'm reminded of what my boot camp drill sergeant told me, in 1956. This was a man who'd been busted two or three times, and who'd seen WWII in a British tank regiment, in the desert from Tobruk to Alamein. He told the rookie squad that the finest bunch of men he'd ever known were the Ozzies, and I've never forgotten that verdict. Anyone who gives this fabulous masterpiece less than ten stars needs his/her head examined.

I have been a fan of "Breaker Morant" for many years. It is brilliantly written, acted and shot and is definitely one of my ten favourite movies of all time. Among Australian movies only "The Year My Voice Broke" comes close. There is but one problem - the central premise is a load of nonsense.Morant shot no prisoners until his friend Captain Hunt was killed. The vague and conflicting orders under which he supposedly laboured, at the behest of cold blooded cynical politicians, did not, up to that point, move him to murder. And judging by the fact that he remained in his command there was apparently not, up to that point, a backlash from higher authorities. He was praised as an effective officer - so he did actually manage for most of his career to fight an unconventional war while remaining within some bounds of basic decency. What happened subsequently was purely an act of personal revenge. The crimes were not committed in the heat of battle. There was no pressing military exigency at stake which may excuse a blurring of the lines. No doubt Morant was disturbed at the loss of his friend, but you could say the same of many murderers. The law permits self defence, not revenge. In any case how did he know that the missionary was passing on information? Could he not have questioned him or impounded him for a couple of days instead?I appreciate the power of the "new war for a new century" sentiment and agree that we live in difficult times where the enemy are not always in uniform. But I cannot make the logical leap to the next level of self-justifying amorality. The British had plenty of facilities for prisoners in the Boer War - they ran entire concentration camps. I fail to see the moral complexity that is involved in the decision to shoot an unarmed prisoner or even the particular military purpose that could possibly be served by it. This is not The Caine Mutiny - Morant did not save the lives of his crew. It is precisely because your friends and enemies now look the same that you need to be more careful, not less. No doubt this is difficult both in Africa and in Iraq, but hey that's your job as a professional soldier (Morant was not a conscript). The alternative is the slippery slope to fascism upon which we've recently embarked. The power of this film is that it succeeds in making you believe that black is white.