Esecuzione di un eroe

This is a remarkable film that remains as fresh as when it was produced. Edward Woodward has always been a favorite of mine and he was masterful as the title character. He seems incapable of giving any less than a strong performance in a variety of roles. "The Wicker Man" comes to mind, as well as the many episodes of "The Equalizer."

It is easy to imagine the conflicts that inevitably occur between military superiors and the men on the front, and this film clearly shows that, in those days, command personnel were much more likely to be obeyed without question, even as the enlisted men suffered for their mistakes, errors of judgment or even criminality.

For me, the frosting on the cake was using Woodward to sing "Soldiers of the Queen" during the roll of the credits. His clear and fine singing voice seemed to taunt the military brass. It is a crackerjack movie and NOT a tear-jerker, despite the story line.

This movie shows what a truly hellish thing war can be. Where no rule but rule `3-0-3' exists. A lot of films show war in one slant or another, glorious or horrific. This one just shows it for what it is. A damned horrible mess. Many of the actors are some of Australia's finest and this movie is a credit to their skill and talent. It has simple production values but it is elevated by their acting abilities and the great script. A definite must for those who favor the war genre in films, and a measuring point for those who seek to make a film about war and the people caught up in it.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

The question raised in this film is the same as that raised in the Nuremberg trials following World War II and at the trial of Lt. William Calley during the Vietnam War, namely should a soldier be punished for following orders?

The answer to that question depends not only on what the orders were--that is, were they legitimate orders consistent with the "rules of war"--but also on who is asking the question and why they are asking it. After WWII the Allies asked the question and the reason they asked it was because so many people were horrified by Nazi atrocities and wanted someone to punish. If the Axis powers had somehow won the war they might have tried US President Harry S Truman and others for the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities, or indeed for the fire bombings of Dresden. In Vietnam we asked the question of ourselves during the war because our government and military were being accused both at home and abroad of waging a unjustified war and going against our own value system.

Here the story goes back to the Boer War a hundred years ago in South Africa, as the British command for political reasons puts Lt. Breaker Morant, an Australian soldier fighting with the British forces, and two of his fellow Bushveldt Carbineers on trial for shooting Boer prisoners. Their defense is the same as the Nazi soldiers and that of Lt. Calley: they were just following orders.

The superb direction by Bruce Beresford (from the play by Kenneth Ross) makes us identify with Morant (Edward Woodward), Lt. Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown) and the third soldier because we can see that the horrors of war pervert the usual logic of right and wrong so completely that we can appreciate what drove them to do what they did. Jack Thompson, playing defense attorney Major J. F. Thomas, expresses this when he tells the court that war changes us and that therefore the usual rules of conduct no longer apply. Incidentally this film is based on actual events.

Regardless of which side of this very vexing question you come down on, I can promise you will enjoy this outstanding film, winner of 10 Australian Film Institute Awards. In the annuals of war films and courtroom dramas this ranks with the best of them.

When I watched this finely acted movie, I wasn't really too knowledgeable about the Boer War so I didn't know how historically accurate the film was. However, from reading the posts, it seems more knowledgeable posters then myself agree that the filmmakers were very authentic in their endeavors. Most pertinently, even though the story is about the General Staff scapgoating the three Australian lieutenants to cover their own practice of ordering Boer prisoners shot, in a war obviously long since concluded, its relevance is timeless and universal as soldiers in all times and places are asked to do things that conflict with their consciences. Breaker Morant shows this very powerfully. 9/10.

After first encountering "Breaker" Morant during a bout of insomnia in 1984 on cable, I have repeatedly come back to this film as one of my all-time classics--covering war, politics, tactics, transitions to manhood involved in all wars--and injustice.

Although set during the Boer War, the account of three officers tried for murder during a war in which the opponents were dressed as civilians has its obvious parallels to the 21st Century. It is absolutely amazing how similar a court marshal can be out on the "velt" of South Africa, in Washington, D.C., or during a purely uniformed war in which all protagonists are easily identifiable.

Three Australian volunteers for the "Bushvelt Carbineers", recruited to fight against civilian-clad commandos (reportedly the first use of the term), find themselves charged with murder, and set as an example by the British in order to prevent Germany from entering the war on the side of the Boer (Dutch) inhabitants of South Africa. In one incredulous encounter between a British officer and Lord Kitchener, the officer spouts the British line "they lack our altruism" (referring to German interests in the gold and silver mines of South Africa), to which Lord Kitchener grudgingly responds, "Quite." A sham trial from start to finish, the Australians are defended by military attorney with experience in "land conveyancing and wills" to which one of those charged, "the latter might come in handy." The film is replete with irony and tragicomic circumstances, as this "new war for a new century" presages many of the conflicts that would come later in the 20th century, and many of the clear paradoxes and trying aspects of the war against terror--again, in which one side is not uniformed, does not conduct war according to any known "rules" of "civilized warfare" (an oxymoron if ever there was one). It has lost none of its cutting edge in the 25-odd years since its release.