Judge Dennis Davis
Film: Breaker Morant

Judge Dennis Davis - Film: Breaker Morant

- Good evening to everybody. This film, which I’m about to talk about, is part of a series which I’ve sort of intermittently been doing on Lockdown University, dealing with the question of law in films, the most famous one which I think I discussed was “Judgement at Nuremberg.” I seem to recall also dealing with “Witness for the Prosecution.” And the idea is perhaps to look over the next number of months on occasions at various films, because it seems to me that so often our views of law are shaped by both movies and by television. I remember thinking to myself in the 1980s when “LA Law” was the rage, that television series, that all of a sudden all sorts of law firms, certainly in South Africa, began to become much posher, almost like having the design that they saw in that film, in that TV series. And, of course, part of the point that one wants to make when one talks about law in film is, what do we get out of the film? To what extent does it tell you about the law, and to what extent does it tell you about the dilemmas which courts face in dealing with these difficult questions? Take for example, “Judgment at Nuremberg” which in many ways graphically showed the argument about superior orders, the idea that the Germans who were put on trial then were ultimately susceptible to orders from superiors. There was the further question about victor’s morality as opposed to those who had been vanquished, et cetera. And we could draw lots of conclusions, in fact, as I’ve done before.

On this series, I’ve actually spoken about “Judgement at Nuremberg,” the actual trial itself, through the prism of Stanley Kramer’s film. Now, I’ve chosen to continue the series with a wonderful film called “Breaker Morant” which was directed by the Australian director, Bruce Beresford, a little bit about more him in a moment, in 1980 and which does, in fact, document a historical event that occurred and which to some considerable extent in Australia has continued to elicit levels of controversy. And the film seems to me, captures some of the same themes that I’ve already outlined. My difficulty in lecturing on this, when I do this live, as I’ve done many times, of course, what one does is to introduce the film as I’ve done now, for us to all then watch the film, and then for me to kind of, as it were, moderate a conversation about the film thereafter. I can’t do that in the hour, so I’ve got some clips and you’ll just have to bear with me. But the film is on Netflix. And it really is a superb movie, which I can highly recommend it, which is why I have chosen it. Let me, however, before we get to the film, sketch for you the actual historical background to this particular film, and then I’d like to show you the trailer, which will give you some taste of what the film’s about before we analyse it any further. In effect, what this film was about is it’s located in the Boer War. Now throughout the 19th century, of course, we know that there was increasing tension as the century came to a close between, on the one hand, the British tenacious hold on their South African colonies, and the Boers, as they were known, who were in control of the then Orange Free State and Transvaal.

Tensions between the group, and I’m simplifying this for those of you who may not know the history particularly well, tensions grew between these groups, particularly during the 1860s and then again in the 1880s by the discovery of diamonds and gold in these provinces respectively. And certainly when gold made the area the wealthiest in southern Africa, there’s no doubt about it that the British wanted control of the resource. There was a refusal by the Boers to give up their sovereignty. And ultimately, war was declared on Britain by the Boers in October, 1899. Again, apologies for the truncated history. The war astonishingly lasted for two and a half years. In the first few months, the Boers were highly successful, besieging the towns of Ladysmith, Kimberley and Mafeking. But from December, 1899, the British in large numbers of, sorry, the large numbers of troops which they had brought in, astonishingly some 500,000, who then fought against about 50,000 Boers. And, of course, the numerical difference led the Boers, in a sense, to employ guerrilla tactics which, I should add, the British followed to some considerable extent as well. Significant for the purpose of the film, which of course was done by an Australian director. there were 16,000 Australians troops amongst the 500,000.

I should add, I haven’t chosen an Australian film for tonight in the light of the further Australian-English War, thanks to the Lord’s Test. That’s for another occasion. But during this guerrilla phase of the war, the British army, which was commanded by Lord Kitchener, sought to cut off these Boer commanders from food supplies and support for their families. And that meant the destruction of Boer farms, the internship of civilians in what was the first concentration camps during a war in which 28,000 Boer women and children and least 20,000 Africans died of disease. It was a brutal strategy which ultimately led to the surrender by the Boers in May of 1902. What, you might ask, has this got to do with the film that we’re about to see? Well, the point is that the film is located within the context of that particular war. Recall that I said that the Australian federal government had provided volunteer troops, as many as 16,000. One of them was Edwin Henry Murrant, known as Breaker Morant because he was a horsebreaker. Apart from being a poet, I might add, and a significant womaniser. He wrote bush ballads for the Australian bulletin, a publication which had started in 1880, I might add, and ended really not that long ago in 2007, and which is a great source of much of the “Breaker Morant” narrative. And the point about him was that when the, excuse me, when the Boer War broke out, he enlisted in Adelaide, Australia, and came to South Africa in February, 1900. He spent nearly a year serving in South Africa before sailing for England, where he was befriended by, and this is significant, Captain Percy Hunt, who had also served in the war. They then returned, both Hunt and Morant, to South Africa to continue to fight in the war in March of 2001.

Oh sorry, of 1901. Now in 1901, the British, in response to the guerrilla activities which had been highly successful on the part of the Boers, started their own guerrilla sort of units. One of these being the Bushveldt Carbineers, which did have many Australians fighting in its ranks. Both Hunt and Morant joined the Bushveldt Carbineers. Morant was commissioned as a lieutenant. They were posted to Fort Edward in a remote district in the Northern Transvaal where the fighting had been particularly grim. Why this is all relevant is for the following reason. On patrol in August, 1901, Captain Hunt was killed by a group of Boers and his body was mutilated. That seems to be common cause. Morant assumed command of Hunt’s attachment, pursued these Boers who had killed his friend. They captured one of their number, a man called Visser, and Morant had him shot. Returning to Fort Edward, Morant ordered the execution of eight more Boers who approached the base, who had wished to surrender. And a similar incident took place shortly afterwards and Morant and two others killed another three Boers. A passing missionary of German extraction, the Reverend Heese, was also shot shortly after leaving Fort Edward. It was alleged as well that Morant had ordered one of the subordinates, Lieutenant Peter Handcock, to do this killing because Heese might have reported the shooting of the prisoners. Morant, Handcock, and four other Bushveldt Carbineers officers were arrested on the 7th of September, 1901. And in October, stood trial on the charge of murder. The defence, as we shall see, was conducted by a solicitor from New South Wales, Major Thomas, ordered at very short notice to represent the accused. And the trial began on the 17th of January, 1902.

Central to the defence, and this recalls some of what I suggested to you in the Nuremberg trial, central to defence was that the officers were acting on the orders of their superiors, indeed, on the orders of Kitchener, who had taken the view, according to the defence, that they should take no prisoners. I should add that in the trial, Thomas acting on behalf of the accused was not able to produce any evidence that Kitchener had in fact made that order. As a result of the trial, Morant, Handcock, and another Australian, Lieutenant George Witton, were convicted of murdering 12 people. Found not guilty of murdering Heese. With the approval of Kitchener, Morant and Handcock were sentenced by executing- Sorry, were executed by a firing squad, 27th of February 1902. Witton was given a life sentence, released four years later. The case at the time created massive controversy. In fact, particularly in Australia, the Australian bulletin for which Morant had written poetry published a series of editorials defending Morant. A biography appeared shortly after his death, taking the view that what Britain had done was ultimately to have sanctioned the trial and the hasty execution of officers as a result thereof in order to appease both the German government over the death of Heese, and to placate the Boers ahead of a treaty which they were going to conclude, and to deflect attention from the death of so many Boer civilians in the concentration camp. That’s the history.

And it was this history which provided the theme for the movie of which Bruce Beresford directed in 1980. Let me just say one or two things about that as we move more closely into the analysis of the film. Beresford was an Australian director who was very much part, if you wish, of that real breakthrough of Australian cinema which produced a whole lot of, Peter Weir being another one of the directors, real kind of really wonderful films that were produced at the time. It’s fascinating to reflect that this production costs no more than $650,000. And there’s a story which Beresford liked to tell, that when he was asked why, what he would have done had he had more money, he said, “I would have been able to actually organise a fight of the Boer War with more than, quote, 18 bloody extras,” which was all he had. The film therefore- The film did extraordinarily well. It was nominated for an Oscar, it won other prizes, and it effectively concentrated on the killing of the Boers by Morant et al., the trial, and the subsequent execution of Morant, et cetera. I will show you a clip at the end, which I think is a remarkable piece of cinematography with regard to the actual execution. But we’ll get there. In the first place, let me give you the clip of the trailer so you get some sense about the film and how it falls in with the context that I’ve outlined. Can we have number one, Emily?

CLIP BEGINS

• [Narrator] South Africa, 1901. The British crown sent an army to fight by the book against Dutch farmers who fought back any way they could.

• It’s a new kind of war, George. It’s a new war for a new century.

• Lord Kitchener himself recognised the unorthodox nature of this warfare when he formed a special squad to deal with it.

• [Narrator] They were soldiers trapped between shifting coats of honour.

• New orders from Kitchener, no prisoners. The gentleman’s war is over.

• It’s wrong, mate. You know it is.

• I just follow orders.

• Harry Harbord Morant, Lieutenant, Bushveldt Carbineers.

• They’ve been quite effective, sir.

• Very effective. We’ve just arrested three of them for shooting Boer prisoners and a German missionary.

• This man killed Captain Hunt. He will be executed immediately. They mutilated him. They mutilated him with knives while he was still alive.

• [Narrator] They were three men pitted against the army for which they fought.

• We didn’t carry military manuals around with us. We were out on the veldt fighting the Boer, the way he fought us! I’ll tell you what rule we applied, sir. We applied Rule 303. We caught them and we shot them under Rule 303!

• [Narrator] One man defended them against an empire.

• Now these orders were issued, sir. And soldiers like myself and these men here have had to carry them out, however damned reluctantly!

• [Narrator] “Breaker Morant” a tale of honour and injustice from the director of “The Getting of Wisdom.”

• If these three Australians have to be sacrificed to help bring about a peace conference, small price to pay.

• I quite agree, sir. No, I doubt the Australians share our enthusiasm.

• You’re a liar!

• Order!

• [Narrator] “Breaker Morant.”

CLIP ENDS

• I think you can get a sense just from the trailer what the film is about. And, of course, as I indicated to you, it comes at a point of really an extraordinary run of Australian films. Give you illustration, “Sunday Too Far Away” 1975, “Mad Dog Morgan” ‘76, “The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith” 1978, “The Club” 1980, “The Man from Snowy River” in 1982. There were series of these films, all of which were in their ways really pioneering cinematography. And this one is one of them. And effectively, the film concentrates to a large degree on this debate about where responsibility lies. It’s something which is central, of course, to all of these kinds of cases, the messy feature of war, the fact of who is responsible. We actually debated those issues and canvassed them together when we looked at the Nuremberg trials and the development of international law. And in a way what this film is focusing on in very sharp measure is something not entirely different. The question, obviously, which is posed by the play written by Kenneth Ross, is where does responsibility lie? Where’s the act of murder rest in the context of war? If these three men were following orders given, and, of course, in the film, they’re kind of shadowing the British commanders, including Kitchener, then how are they to blame?

And of course, we saw just very, a clip, a wonderful performance by Jack Thompson who acts as the legal representative of these. And he’s trying to show that the case revolves around this particular dilemma. If these men are guilty, then who else is guilty in this particular context of a war? Who is guilty in the situation of the British generals who had ordered concentration camps, who were responsible for 28,000 women and children and 20,000 black South Africans dying at the time? It’s an astonishing amount of people. And so the film poses that particular dilemma. It also poses another dilemma which comes out of the text of the play and which is reproduced in the film. I couldn’t find the clip of it but I have got the text. And Emily, if you could just put the text up? This is from Major Thomas, obviously being acted by Jack Thompson: The barbarities of war are seldom committed by abnormal men. The tragedy of war is that horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations. Situations in which the ebb and flow of everyday life have departed and have been replaced by a constant round of fear and anger, blood and death. Civilian laws cannot be applied here. That was one of his central submissions. So he made two central submissions in the film. One of them being, they had basically be given orders that no prisoner should be taken. That’s their alleged allegation of Kitchener. The second is this one, is how do we judge people who are sent to war?

And I think, if you look at this particular quote, this is universal stuff. This Beresford was maybe locating the film in the context as I gave it to you, of the Boer War, but think about these words, that essentially most true, that when we got to Nuremberg, the leaders were certainly abnormal men. One can’t regard Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, as normal in the ordinary course. But I suspect that, going back to the controversy which we’ve engaged with about the banality of evil, insofar as Hannah Arendt’s famous phrase is concerned, and the discussion which we did conduct at Lockdown with regard to the trial of Ackerman, that in the vast majority of cases, these horrors are committed by normal people. Now I’m certainly not suggesting for one moment that Ackerman should be judged by different laws to the civilian laws. I think that kind of holocaust clearly comes, as we indicated by the debate dealing with Lemkin and Lauterpacht, both within the context of crimes against humanity and genocide. But in this particular case, which illustrates the killing of a series of people by others, in the context of a war where the British were conducting it on a particularly brutal basis and sent ordinary people into war, this particular quote from the play is an important one, “But if we don’t apply civilian laws, what do we apply then? And how then we hold people accountable?”

We know that under international law, superior orders doesn’t in fact count. But I think the film does pose that particular dilemma of where responsibility lies, and how high you go with regard to that. Take the Ukraine war, is it the person who basically manned the drone or the rocket or is it Putin and his acolytes who ultimately should be responsible for this? And of course then, what responsibility do you attribute to those who take the orders? Well I want to argue that this particular passage from Breaker Morant and therefore from this film is extraordinarily apt insofar as this particular conversation is concerned. And hence, I probably spent a little bit more time than I should have on it. But, of course, central to this film is the trial. And what is interesting, I’ve only got one small clip with regard to the trial, but you’ll see the courtroom where the fate of these people is to be determined, is in the film, it’s in a very bare and understated way. There are no flags, there are no reams of books, which we have. There’s no witness box. All you’ve got are the people there. And the camera sort of focuses on them, particularly on Thompson, the lawyer for the defence in many ways, and his particular attempt to defend Breaker Morant et al. It’s a remarkably sparse courtroom, different to the ones we traditionally have when we watch films. Admittedly, it was being tried, being filmed in 1900 and- sort of taking events from 1902. But still, the cinema is particularly interesting. Let’s just have a look at this clip, Emily, if we may.

CLIP BEGINS

• Lieutenant Morant, Captain Hunt was a particular friend of yours?

• Yes. I mean, I was engaged to his sister in England.

• [Major] So his death was very disturbing to you?

• Well, it was more the way he died. He was mutilated.

• You were present at the action where Captain Hunt was killed?

• [Breaker] No.

• Well then how do you know he wasn’t killed in a fair fight?

• Because I saw his body.

• Sometime later! You can’t possibly know how Captain Hunt met his death. So you cannot produce any evidence to connect Visser with it. So then, why did you order him to be shot?

• It is customary during a war to kill as many of the enemy as possible.

• And was your court at the trial of Visser constituted in any way like this? What rule did you shoot him under?

• Like this? Oh no, sir. No, it wasn’t quite like this. No, no. No, sir, it wasn’t quite so handsome. And as for rules, we didn’t carry military manuals around with us. We were out on the veldt fighting the Boer, the way he fought us! I’ll tell you what rule we applied, sir. We applied Rule 303. We caught them and we shot them under Rule 303.

CLIP ENDS

• It’s interesting to actually think about this for a moment. One of the people who commented about this film after it had been produced, said this, a man called Bryan Brown: Because of the subject matter, the story remains absolutely timeless. It could be set in any era and in any war. In fact, when I was in New York doing publicity for the film, a journalist actually said to me, “So this film isn’t a real story, is it? It’s about Vietnam and the My Lai massacre and the William Calley trial, right?” Of course, as you may remember, during the Vietnam War, troops infamously brutalised and murdered approximately 500 unarmed citizens in that small little hamlet of My Lai. And William Calley was the only officer convicted of war crimes. And Brown then says, “And I said no, this really happened. This is our own bloody story.” But it’s true that whilst it’s his own bloody story, the story of the Australian contribution, in inverted commas, to the Anglo-Boer War, it’s also true, is it not, that what Beresford is trying to do in this particular film is ask a series of questions, which is, to use this particular event- And it was, as I indicated to you, it was particularly controversial in Australia. Almost to this day, it’s been controversial in Australia. But to lift the movie out of this localised text to question the very legal and moral boundaries of warfare. In other words, the film poses the question, can a soldier killing an enemy even by execution, be committing murder?

As Morant says in that particular clip that I’ve shown you, isn’t that the object of the exercise? There’s that wonderful movie which would be useful to watch too, at least parts of it, fantastic film called “Patton,” in which George C. Scott performs the monumental role of General Patton. And in that classic opening scene of that film, which I’d recommend to anybody just in terms of acting, he basically says nobody won a war by being killed. You win a war by killing the other person. He used much more savoury language than I am. But that’s basically the point. And so what Beresford is asking is, how do you answer these? Can a soldier killing an enemy, even by execution, be committing murder? And I think the brilliance of this film, which I certainly hope that you’ll watch after this if you haven’t watched it already, is how it’s so hard to answer these questions. And of course, inevitably in this particular film, we know that these people were convicted. And I think the last scene, which I’m about to show you, which at least will give you the sense, a real sense of just the magnificence of the actual filming of this, really ends in perhaps a very pessimistic way. One is not entirely sure how to react there too, but perhaps you want to judge that for yourselves. But let me play you this clip. It’s a classic clip and I want to talk a little bit about it once you’ve watched it.

CLIP BEGINS

• [Sentry] You want the padre?

• No, thank you. I’m a pagan.

• [Sentry] And you?

• What’s a pagan?

• Oh, it’s somebody who doesn’t believe there’s a divine being dispensing justice to mankind.

• I’m a pagan too.

• There is an epitaph I’d like, Matthew 10:36.

• All right, gentlemen.

• Well, Peter, this is what comes of empire building.

• Matthew 10:36.

• And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

• [Breaker] It really ain’t the place nor time to reel off rhyming diction, but yet we’ll write a final rhyme while waiting crucifixion. For we bequeath a parting tip of sound advice for such men who come across in transport ships to polish off the Dutchman. 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. Let’s toss a bumper down our throat before we pass to heaven, and toast a trim-set petticoat we leave behind in Devon.

• [Firing Squad Captain] Aim!

• Shoot straight, you bastards. Don’t make a mess of it!

CLIP ENDS

• It’s a remarkable last scene. Two men walk hand-in-hand towards two chairs. A soldier offers each a piece of material, a blindfold. They both refuse. The air around them, there’s a kind of almost orangey crimson colour, as if the gates of the afterlife are creeping open for them. The soldiers aim towards them. The doomed men look straight at their killers. Morant shouts words that have been replicated in so many Australian films, “Shoot straight, you bastards. Don’t make a mess of it!” Of course, the execution didn’t take place that way, but the fact that the filming is done in that fashion, and you may recall in the trailer, the extraordinary way in which the sun comes up, is just quite amazing, the whole filming of it. So he used this last scene, it’s really a classic scene. It’s one of the sort of really great classic scenes of this kind of genre for all of the reasons that I’ve advanced to you. And it basically ends in a fashion therefore, that you’re left with the tragedy of it all. Boers have been killed brutally but these men are now executed in this particular fashion. And the trial centrally leaves you with considerable doubt as to what the answers are. And it is interesting. It is very interesting that there’s been a controversy about this particular history for a very long time. And it’s on that aspect that I’d like to conclude our session. The point I suppose I’m making is that at the time, there was a view that in fact Morant had not, should not have been committed to execution. Indeed, shouldn’t have in any way been subject to the treatment he got. And the reason for that was the question as to whether there truly was evidence which suggested he might have been acting on orders when he authorised the shooting of these Boer prisoners.

And it was that particular point, which has made the Morant saga almost, as it were, relevant as the Ned Kelly one, which, of course, has also been a significant part of Australian history. In the 120 years since the death of Morant is a mythology which has sprung up. And, of course, this film certainly only inspired further development thereof, including further books. But the simple point I’m making is that the question is, which was raised by the film and has begun to be raised in history thereafter, was whether in fact, notwithstanding this history, that these were men who were literally expediently executed at the hands of the British for all the reasons I’ve advanced. And interestingly enough, there was a trial which was conducted in the 1980s, a sort of a trial done in a place called Burra in the mid-north of South Australia, in which I think in the 1980s there were about 500 people in the Town Hall for the retrial. Organisers said it was not a mere reenactment. They, the crowd, gave a verdict of not guilty. Less than a quarter favoured a guilty verdict after all sorts of evidence had been led. The trial in which local citizens played the accused and witnesses, including Lord Kitchener, was run largely on normal court procedures, although there were touches of theatricality, as I understand it. And eventually they were found not guilty on this, as it were, second trial. I wonder whether, and let us just have a look at a clip which effectively reflects upon this contested history.

CLIP BEGINS

• History could be rewritten.

• You’ve actually come across some proof.

• Now a new document has emerged.

• I discovered the documents in British archives.

• [Narrator] Two Australian soldiers were executed at dawn by the British Imperial Forces during the South African War. Their treatment at the hands of the military court martial has been disputed since the day they faced the firing squad.

• You shoot straight, you bastards.

• Fire.

• [Narrator] Over 100 years have passed and Morant’s story is still creating controversy. But how much do we really know about the man who made the Breaker a legend?

• They were not given any of the human rights that international treaties required.

• They were stitched up by the British military in 1902.

• What I know is that he was a murderer.

• [Soldier] Hands up!

• Stand over there! You stay down!

• [Soldier] Fire!

• [Soldier] Fire!

• They shot people that had surrendered and were disarmed.

• [Narrator] The question remains, what really happened in the Northern Transvaal in 1902?

• I am recently returned from South Africa.

• What is so tragic about this war is that about 28,000 women and children died in the camp.

• They died of hunger and disease.

• Kitchener was the sort of man that the British army has often used when things get tough. He’s the sort of man who gets things done. When we look back at him in the cold light of history, we’re pretty appalled. He’s the sort of man that made the empire.

• We want an inquiry by the British government to get this matter finalised. The buck stops right there with her majesty. I want her to grant these pardons.

CLIP ENDS

• I think this, the retrial and everything related there to this two-part series is somewhere on Google. Uh, sorry, on YouTube. Couldn’t find the whole thing but I did find this particular short version. And it’s interesting, again. So, just to reflect, Beresford takes the facts, he does change them to some extent. Clearly, the dramatic ending didn’t actually end the way he suggested, but it does effectively give both poignancy and reflectiveness to what actually happened. And, of course, we see in this latest little clip that I showed you, the same problem which essentially comes out over the film and which, if I had more time to give you so we could watch the whole film together, I would have shown how much Beresford emphasises the complete hypocrisy of the British, who meanwhile back at the ranch, to put it mildly, had started concentration camps of the kind that had never been used before in war, and then since therefore preceded the horrors of what engulfed us in the 20th century. And, you know, 48,000 people died. Under a relatively small population, it’s an extraordinary percentage of death. Which created its own havoc in South Africa thereafter. But Beresford’s focus was greater than just South Africa. I think it’s true that he did focus on Vietnam and he focused on war as a whole. And if I, when I was preparing for this, and I’ll leave you with the thought before I turn to any observations and questions, it did strike me how relevant that film made 43 years ago is, to the very dilemma of war in general and what we facing now. And to go back to the quote that I emphasised at the beginning, it is a case of sending ordinary people, ordinary men in the main, out to do things which human beings should not be allowed to do and yet, which are sanctioned, sanctioned by their governments, one way or the other.

And that, of course, occurs in every part of the world where we have armies and people are called up essentially to get involved in various expeditions, wars, et cetera. And so I want to suggest you that the reason I chose this film was because, of course, it focuses on a trial of these men, and the trial essentially then allows us to debate these really pressing moral issues, kind of in a way which is more focused, more nuanced than would otherwise be the case. And which has benefits by the incredible cinema photography of Beresford. It’s amazing to me, not because I’m anti-Australian, far from it, but it was amazing to me that a relatively small country at that time produced these absolute gems of theatre, as good as anything you were going to get. And I hope therefore that by showing you this and discussing it the way I have, limited, of course, by the fact that I couldn’t show you the whole film, you get some sense of why I want to show films and discuss various points of law. One of the films I propose to show in the future is the wonderful film called “The Verdict,” which has a great performance by Paul Newman and is very much about the redemption of a lawyer. But we’ll do that later. So let me turn if I may, to the points that people have made.

Q&A and Comments:

Q: Hi, Warren. Long time no hear. But I see you’ve said, “Were the camps called concentration camps at the time?”

A: I don’t whether they were precisely called that at the time but there’s no doubt that they were the first form of concentration camp which we saw in war. The point is made very often. And whilst they may not have directly led to the Germans developing camps, the truth is that the British were the first to actually put people in these camps in circumstances where so many of them died.

Stan, you say you should read the book “Barbed Wire” by Reviel Netz which discusses use of barbed wire to create concentration camps during World War. Yes, it was the first barbed wire to create a concentration camp and they were the first of their kind. Which is a shameful reflection on history.

You’re quite right Anne, Anna, that Vietnam was exactly the same. And, of course, many wars after that. We talking about one right now in Europe! But the truth about it is that Beresford, of course, was producing it in 1980 at a time when the Vietnam War was very much in our minds. And to that extent, yes, he was talking about something way beyond the simple point of the Morant case.

I agree, Claire, I think it is probably an anti-war film. I think the brilliance of the film, if you see the whole film, is he doesn’t shy away from what they did. He doesn’t shy away from the sort of, as it were, the unfettered conduct of the soldiers who killed. But I do think at the end of the day, he poses the question, particularly by the way in which Kitchener, et al., are depicted, and we saw a clip of that, precisely how irresponsible- Not irresponsible. How much we kind of allied over the responsibility of those who lead us into war, who encourage us to have war, and who ultimately lead these men, ordinary men, into abnormal circumstances, as I suggested.

Yes, Paula. I love the fact that he can create a poem as he- He was a poet. And in fact the reason that the Australian bulletin punted him so much, for all of the reasons I advanced, 'cause he wrote a whole lot of ballads for them. This was a curious person, a curious person, Morant. But there’s no doubt about it that he had a sort of poetic part to him. And that, you know, and there’s that classic line, “I’m a pagan,” and the other man says, “What’s a pagan?” Someone who doesn’t believe that there’s a God who basically, you know, introduces morality in the world. To which the other person says, “I’m a pagan too.” There’s a kind of contrast between Morant and the others, and a contrast in a way between Morant and Kitchener, you know, who’s the sort of stuffy upper class British general, and Morant is a sort of more basic person, but with that poetic part to him, and therefore a greater deal of complexity.

There is a, as I say, Sam, there is a retrial which was done. There is that little documentary, a two-part series. Perhaps you can get it. I was unable to access it.

You’re quite right, Monty. That’s an absolutely wonderful point and I want to read it out: Alfred Taylor was the British officer in the Second Boer War who was a ruthless sadist murderer. He killed blacks and Boer men, women and children in cold blood. As a result, he was a defendant in one of the first war crimes prosecutions in British military history. Acquitted and walked free, ended up in Southern Rhodesia. And you’re absolutely right about that. In fact, you know, he had really worked, I should tell you, with Hunt’s predecessor to murder, consistently murder, both blacks and Boers during that particular war. And witnesses also started to die. Van Buuren, a member of the Carbineers, and the Reverend Daniel Heese later. But Van Buuren was killed by Taylor. And so Taylor was the precedent for all of that. Your point is absolutely well-made and it does reflect on just precisely the cruelty under which that war was fought in the first place. No I think that’s right, Monty.

I’m not quite sure, James, how Shakespeare resolved the issue in Henry the Fifth. I’ll have to think about that.

Q: Serena asks, “What is the difference between murder and declaring war on a country? War equals declaration of intent to murder a whole country. Is there a way distinguish between wars of sheer evil and wars for noble ideal and principle?”

A: I find that rather difficult to distinguish. And let’s be honest, Serena, Putin’s entire propaganda is that he’s fighting the noble principle of defending Russia against the evil NATO and the anti- And a bunch of Nazis. The answer is, all wars ultimately lead to precisely the consequences that Beresford was speaking about. I think that’s what he’s saying in the film, and what he luminously illustrates. I think the point about it, however, is it comes back to a proposition that we discussed when we did “Judgement at Nuremberg” which is this, that it all depends upon who wins. That the narrative then is shaped by that. Which, of course, is problematic. And I think the thing about the film, which is so good, is that there, 78 years after the events, Beresford takes that history, reflects upon it in a manner which essentially is no longer the victor’s justice but justice in a broader sense, and then asking us to make our own call on that. Which is why I think it remains a classic film, both in its genre and more generally.

I’ll keep on, uh I think that is- I spoke to many Afrikaners, South Africans, we never covered this history in school as I grew up. I think that’s probably true. And I think the point about it, Barbara, and perhaps when we get on to talk about South Africa, it’s not a bad point to remember that the complexity of the Anglo-Boer War definitely shaped so much of the psyche of what dominated South Africa. I’m not making any excuses. Apartheid was a crime against humanity. But the simple point is, that when one tries to understand a whole range of events that occurred in South Africa, I think you can’t do so without thinking about that history. I’m not sure that’s what Beresford intended, I’m not sure that was the focus. His focus, as I said, was very much on war in general in which he took this particular case. And obviously it had links to Australia for virtue of the fact of the people who had been executed, and by virtue of the fact that 16,000 Australians, which I didn’t know until I started researching for this, actually fought in the Boer War.

I think that concludes all the questions. Thank you. Oh. Thank you very much, Rita, for putting on the fact that “Patton” is available on YouTube. I cannot recommend it strongly enough. Fabulous film. Difficult to talk about because it’s three hours but maybe we should have a chat about that in one of my film lectures going forward, albeit that it’s not on the question of law and trials. Thank you very much for everything and have a good evening.