"The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situation." To what extent does Breaker Morant seem to legitimise war crimes?

On the other hand it is also true that Breaker Morant makes excuses to legitimise war crimes. It attacks the war in general and may attack Kitchener and Hamilton, but without a doubt, it is surprisingly gentle on Morant and his comrades. The very first flashback scene shows the Carbineers betrayed in an ambush. Viewers are made to sympathise for them and for the loss of men on their side. However, no thought is given to why they are in Boer territory, or even that would have happened to the men in the farmhouse if an ambush had not taken place. The cut to the follow on scene – the one where the film argues was the turning point for Morant’s “changes” from a normal man to a “madman,” is the one in which he discovers Hunt’s “mutilated body.” The “revenge” which follows suddenly seems normal since the Boers were held accountable for his death. Even the cold-blooded execution of Visser seems excusable as a crime of passion. When Hesse is linked to Captain Hunt’s atrocious death, his death seems reasonable too. The “war crimes” in the film are not presented in particularly shocking ways. Beresford does not force viewers to think about the pain of the Boers since there is no real detail of their deaths. We don’t see Visser shot, just his dead body. We don’t see the Boer prisoners shot. We don’t see the murder of Hesse explicitly; just a brief shot of his body, eyes wide open yet strangely this moment is completely separated from the scene in which we se the distant figure of Handcock shooting him. The focus is always on Morant and his comrades: not on the victims of their actions. The whole argument of the film is that “war changes men’s natures”, and that its barbarity makes judgement impossible. Thomas’s defense of the three accused men is that “we cannot hope to judge such matters unless we, ourselves, have been submitted to the same…provocations as these men, whose actions are on trial.”

Beresford admittedly does not completely excuse the immorality of war crimes. There is Witton’s concern over the shooting of Visser, and later his anguish over the execution of the Boers who gave themselves up under a white flag. There is Morant’s own uneasiness when told by Taylor that they could not take prisoners. However, we are disturbed as we watch Taylor finish off the Boers on the veldt and this perhaps gives reason as to why the prosecution’s case could bot be dismissed entirely. Thomas confirms this, acknowledging that the murders were committed.

Breaker Morant does not ‘legitimise’ war crimes, in the sense of saying anything that happens in war is permitted. It never says shooting unarmed prisoners of war acceptable. It does question the morality of the ‘take no prisoners’ order. It does acknowledge that war eventually leads to “barbarity.” However, by focusing our concern to primarily the injustices of war, Beresford portrays their crimes as insignificant, softening any blame we might hold to their actions. The “tragedy” and the “horrors” are finally less important to us than concern for the “normal men” who commit crimes in the belief that anything is justified in such “abnormal situation.”