You are Free Republic.
Please Contribute Today!
Posted on 10/24/2014 4:33:30 PM PDT by DemforBush
First up tonight at the DfB Theater is of the finest movies ever to come out of Australia. Edward Woodward turns in a superb performance in this true story about the real-life exploits - and still controversial - court martial of Harry "Breaker" Morant, an officer fighting on the side of the British during the Boer Wars in South Africa. Co-starring Bryan Brown (Cocktail, the F/X movies).
In English with foreign subtitles.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
An excellent series.
The "Aussies" did not execute him. While Australia had federated as a single nation in 1901, and the Australian Army had been established by the date of Lieutenant Morant's execution, he, along with Handcock and Witten were still in the British Army. Their Court Martial was therefore carried out by the British Army, and the Australian Army and government had no influence on the case at all.
Australian independence was a gradual affair - it wasn't until 1942 that Australia took primary responsibility for its own defence policy - prior to that London still had at least a technical power of veto - and even into the 1970s, there were still remnants of that (Australian ships began the Vietnam War sailing under the British White Ensign and only changed to avoid the risk of Britain as a non-combatant nation being attacked, and all through Vietnam Australian decorations had to be approved in London - and in the 1950s when General Sir Thomas Blamey of the Australian Army was promoted to Field Marshall, he found himself suddenly holding the rank in the British Army as well).
During World War I, the Australian government successfully took the stance that the British Army could not try Australian soldiers at Court Martial partly because the fact that they had been powerless in the Morant case.
He was. But Jack Thompson as Major Thomas was even better. When he looks up at the first witness and asks, "Well did it?" it's one of the best scenes in the movie.
Yep-————and a good rule it it. We need more of it.
.
Why did he have an aussie accent in the film when he should have had a devonian one? Mind you, my dad is from Devon and he does say ‘strewth’ alot, so maybe they’re pretty kindred...
Rule .303
GREAT Movie
one of the best versions...
“It’s a new kind of war, George. A new war for a new century. I suppose this is the first time the enemy hasn’t been in uniform. They’re farmers. They come from small towns, and they shoot at from behind walls and from farmhouses. Some of them are women, some of them are children, and some of them... are missionaries, George.”
He didn't. Woodward used his natural RP accent.
We don't actually know for certain who Morant was. There's two competing versions. Personally I lean towards the Somerset origin rather than the Devonian one. But as to what his voice really sounded like, I'm not sure what accent he had. Australian accents have altered substantially even in my lifetime and depending on social class and background can differ a lot. I'm Australian born, but a lot of people assume I'm English when they meet me for the first time, because I've got what would probably be described as an "Upper class Victorian/South Australian accent" which is what I was raised as from the age of 9 or so.
Well I must watch the movie again and pay attention to Jack Thompson.
My opinion hasn't changed...I assume yours hasn't either! ;-)
Oops...forgot to ping you in my Post #35.
And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household - excellent......
My opinion hasn't changed...I assume yours hasn't either! ;-)
More or less, although I will make the distinction between being convicted and being executed (I believe it was right they were convicted - but I am not convinced the sentence was fair), and also some distinction between the defendants.
As a number of British officers (by which in this case, I mean, those regarded as British by the Court, rather than seen as colonials) convicted of similar offences were merely cashiered, I think Morant, Handcock, and Witten could be regarded as having been unjustly treated by being sentenced to death and life imprisonment respectively (Witten was released from his life sentence after only two years suggesting there would be quite a lot of agreement with that). But Morant was educated enough to know the rules of war, and to understand that he was breaking them, so I believe the guilty verdict was justified, and the sentence would have been justified in my view as well, if not for the comparison with British officers (in particular Lieutenant Henry Picton who not only sat on Morant's 'court' but personally commanded the firing squad and personally shot Visser in the head.).
Handcock is a different matter. He was not a well educated man, except in his very limited field of providing veterinary care for horses. He probably did not know that Morant's orders were illegal, and that he should have therefore not obeyed them. While ignorance of the law is no excuse in law, I find it rather suprising his sentence was not commuted as Witton's was - especially seeing Morant had specifically accepted personal responsibility and sought to clear him.
There is a current petition to issue a posthumous pardon on the grounds the three men did not receive a fair trial. If that succeeds, I certainly won't see it as an injustice - even if guilty, they were entitled to a fair trial and if they didn't get it, they should be pardoned.
Right then - shot in Pretoria SA. Death sentence signed by Kitchener.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.