The war was initially an embarrassment for England, whose army's training was based on fronts and flanks. To win a guerilla war, the British had to adopt some of the tactics of the Boers: small, mobile, remote units that took no prisoners and destroyed the farms and crops of enemy sympathizers. This "new war" defied written rules, a fact that came in handy when scapegoats were needed.
You see, England wanted out of this unpleasant war of attrition. One way to coax a peace treaty was to court martial a group of soldiers for war crimes. This would show that England was serious about obtaining peace.
But which soldiers? Certainly not British soldiers, when Australian soldiers were available. And, for that matter, Australian soldiers who were considered rebels, or even scoundrels, by their own home country. If they were actually guilty of war crimes, so much the better.
Aussie officers 'Breaker' Morant (Edward Woodward) and Handcock (Bryan Brown) were ideal candidates. The same harsh tactics those two officers had used to shift the tide to the British were now used to court martial them. A conviction, on murder charges, would lead to a firing squad.
Morant and Handcock are hardened and defiant. They contrast with the third defendant, Taylor (John Waters), who is younger, earnest, and who looks the part of a model soldier.
Unfortunately, the court martial is a sham, like so many court martials. The court's decision and sentence is predetermined. But procedure must be obeyed, and that means putting up with the vigorous defense led by the soldiers' attorney, Thomas (Jack Thompson). Thompson, a fellow Aussie, smells injustice, and his outrage and passion is no match for the defense witnesses, who seem poorly prepared. Not that it makes any difference.
How others will see it. Injustice is a great theme, and a court martial provides an ideal, dramatic setting for this theme. Stanley Kubrick demonstrated this with Paths of Glory (1957). If 'Breaker' Morant doesn't resonate as deeply, it is because two of the accused, Morant and Handcock, did commit war crimes. But then again, so did all the other officers in the field. However, those officers weren't "black sheep" Australians. That, of course, is the injustice. The British class system, in all its unspoken hubris, decides the scapegoats.
How I felt about it. I respect the film for how it depicts Morant and Handcock. These officers don't resemble those from World War II Hollywood movies, the ones where John Wayne, Henry Fonda, or Gregory Peck fight the noble war. Morant and Handcock seek to beat the Boers, and that means heartlessly shooting prisoners and spies. Which is just fine with the Brass when the war needs to be won, but undesirable once an armistice is wanted. That makes the Brass hypocrites, but British reserve will never betray such doubts privately, much less publicly.
Less convincing is the portrayal of Taylor, who (here) is so naive that he is aghast that Handcock lied to Thomas about killing a missionary. Did Taylor really have so pure a heart? And Thomas is allowed one (or two) too many courtroom speeches that the Kangaroo court would surely have cut off.