Breaker' Morant and War Crimes

This film is essentially a morality tale thinly disguised as a courtroom drama. The dupe here is thinly veiled because it makes no attempt to sway the viewer away from the morality tale since it has no desire to. Its structure is designed from the classic screenwriting style of using a few characters to represent the trials and tribulations of the many; the three defendants are used to symbolize the issues that are at the forefront of the Boer War as well as the decades leading up to World War É. These issues range from the most serious corruption charges against almost all characters in the film, to much more personal questions of basic spiritual beliefs. The fact that it is based on a true story is irrelevant because it is common knowledge that events such as these have occurred in similar situations throughout military history. There are no acute answers here, only more questions that are brought up from the original questions.

The fact at the forefront of the film tells the viewer the simple truth about wartime politics; people are treated as pawns, commodities, and tools. They are also expendable and able to be sacrificed for the "right" motives as high army officials see fit. The film dramatizes this when two of the high army officials in the British army discuss the trial, and the higher of which openly states that he wishes that Morant and the other two defendants could just be sacrificed for the good of the movement. The result of this would be the possibility of a peace council some months later, which has the possibility of a peace treaty as the main result. This is the reason why the individual defendants in the film are given personalities that are stark contrasts to one another, where often times the only thing linking these characters is their desire to live out their lives as they choose. Morant is a poet who wishes to become immortal through his work no matter what happens at the conclusion of the trial. Handcock is a free spirit who is loyal to his comrades as well as to the various ladies who he spends his free time with. And the last is an earnest young soldier whose only fault was to follow orders on something that he would be punished if he did not.

This brings us to another question, whose purposes do war crimes' trials serve? On the surface the army wishes to weed out the bad seeds from service, but under pressure they answer to their superior, which leaves them with utterly no power. The high army officials wish to present a front of "action" to the community as well as their friendly politicians who can get their gears working in regards to treaties. This also can be related to each person's loyalties, which also usually lie with their superiors. High army officials answer ton themselves/politicians. This class system in the military makes it impossible to get to the truth in any matter. And from the perspective of the military, too easy to get anything done in their favor, since the orders are always passed down from the highest offices. In the film, the lawyer on the defendant's side both believes and acts in good faith on behalf of them. He attempts to truthfully defend them to the best of their ability. I believe that this is probably the exception at the time. These lawyers can easily be changed and there is also a scene where the high army officials speak about replacing the defense to quell a good defense in their name.

The answer to the question was justice served in this particular situation is entirely subjective; it depends what your interest are. It is actually entirely valid to point out that the execution of these three soldiers brought in results that included the beginning of the end of the Boer War. However, justice is not included in this result, since many of the charges of these men had been in fact deflected during the trial. The interests of the individual soldiers were not looked after before as well as after the conclusion.

The most potent issue that is contained in this film deal with the difficulty of prosecuting soldiers for war crimes in war crimes' trials. It is dangerous to judge the actions of soldiers on the battlefield during wartime because it is extremely troubling to attempt to distinguish between what is a war crime, and what is just one of the many adverse effects of war. It is possible for an edge to be taken away from a particular force if a war is fought from a police action standpoint; however a situation can easily deteriorate in regards to safety of soldiers and officials if civilians and/or the enemy is constantly subjected to war crimes.

The film is a secondary source because it was not created from the absolute truth; it was based on what the filmmakers perceive as the truth. This directly relates to the issue of the absolute truth on the battlefield because it is almost impossible to discover the absolute truth during wartime. There are too many loyalties and interests to think about to attempt to decipher all of the events in question. This is the essence of the film because it brought the brunt of the decision to desks of the high army officials and politicians, and past experiences tell us that we already know what their decisions will involve; sacrifice.