Rule 303
March 15, 2016 6:52 PM   Subscribe

 
I'm definitely on the guilty side. A lot of people base their understanding from the admittedly great movie, as you show there's a lot more to it than that.
posted by smoke at 7:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


It is a source of constant amusement for me that Australia is so desperate for heroes it attempts to immortalise - and constantly agonises over - thugs, bullies and murderers like Ned Kelly, Breaker Morant, and Chopper Reed. It's either them, or people who can play cricket (who often turn out to be thugs of a slightly different kind).

It does of course make sense in our own normalised and entrenched national culture of bullying and thuggery, embodied by our political leaders.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


If action had been taken at the time, Morant might have been given a fresh trial. He wouldn't have been pardoned; his earlier conviction would simply have been voided. There's not much point in voiding his conviction now, because even if he was convicted wrongly, the outcome was almost certainly correct. A pardon at this time makes even less sense: it implies that he was guilty but that the actions were justifiable. It's a really dumb idea.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


''The issue,'' Unkles says, ''is not whether Morant and Handcock shot Boer prisoners, which they admitted to, but whether they were properly represented and military law properly and evenly applied.''

Even Unkles doesn't think they were innocent. So why waste time on acquitting two long dead war criminals?

Genuinely perplexing.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, I enjoyed the movie, and the poetry is really bad, but still kind of fun. But the history, not so much. Sounds like he was pretty enthusiastic about his killing.
posted by BlueHorse at 8:13 PM on March 15, 2016


His thoughts were red thoughts: "Even Unkles doesn't think they were innocent."

While his primary argument is that they didn't get a fair trial, secondarily, I think he's also claiming a defense based on condonation which, as near as I can tell, is roughly the "I was just following orders" defence. Or rather, more precisely, a "my superiors never stopped or reprimanded me, so it must've been fine" defense which apparently was a legal defense in 1902. So, my interpretation (which could easily be mistaken) is that Unkles acknowledges that they committed atrocities but that those atrocities were legal (or at least legally defensible?) at the time... which seems to me like not the best reason for pursuing this. From a legal theory standpoint, how different is this from trying to get a slaveowner who got the death penalty for murdering his own slave pardoned because that kind of thing was supposed to be allowed back then? Why is this the cause that Unkles chose? I guess that movie really must've been something.
posted by mhum at 8:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


The movie doesn't make them out to be anything other than guilty as hell. It's more about how war makes ordinary people act like monsters. That they were railroaded isn't the point - the point is war makes people awful. And they were awful.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:22 AM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


The movie doesn't make them out to be anything other than guilty as hell.

Yeah, I remember the movie as 'everyone was doing it and it's unfair that just the Australians went to trial for it, let alone were executed for it'. I too think no pardon is due. 'Everyone else was doing it' is a poor excuse.
posted by Bee'sWing at 5:49 AM on March 16, 2016


Fanfare link to film
posted by TWinbrook8 at 5:49 AM on March 16, 2016


Shoot straight, you bastards. Don't make a mess of it.
posted by radicalawyer at 6:44 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bee'sWing: "I too think no pardon is due. 'Everyone else was doing it' is a poor excuse."
Faint comfort for Eddie Slovik.
posted by brokkr at 9:22 AM on March 16, 2016


It never helps to be unlikable.

Also, not nearly as good a movie.
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:56 AM on March 16, 2016


Maybe the movie makes him look gallant and whatnot (I haven't seen it) but that last poem, "Butchered To Make a Dutchman's Holiday" (yep), is a real tour de force of self-pity.
posted by ostro at 11:41 AM on March 16, 2016


« Older Do we have a source on this? Uh-huh, a bunch of...   |   “Remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.” Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments