Anti Australian Film example essay topic

Breaker Morant is a film set in the 1900's during the Boer war where the British were in battle with farmers is Africa. As part of the alliance, the Australians were involved in the war almost automatically because of the British. As the film unfolds, it's revealed that the British Army were involved in a court case with the Australians for disobedience during the war and the killing of the Boer prisoners and the murder of a German missionary who witnessed the murder of the six Boers. This film portrays the fact that it's an anti- Australian film and tends to favour the British. From the onset of this film, it's evident that there is tension between the Australians and the British. Reasons for this being an anti-Australian film is that they were only allowed 1 day to prepare for this case, an inexperienced defence lawyer was given to the Australian men, and the verdict was already made prior to the case, leaving the Australians only to be convicted of the accused charges.

Harry Morant, Peter Handcock and George Whitton were the three Australian men who were tried before the court martial and were all found guilty on all three counts. Morant and Handcock were shot the next day and Whitton was given a life sentence. The trail itself was a "bloody sham" and was a set up to sacrifice the Australian men to keep the name of the British clean. Morant and Handcock were the scapegoats in this case to aid the British to keep its position in the Empire. The sacrifice of these men was the way the British apologised for the war. The men were tried in an atrocious manner.

These convictions had to be made and to be executed to keep the Germans from entering the war, as they were seen as a threat by Lord Kitchener and the Bushveld t Carabineers. The inexperience of the lawyer was enough to ensure that the Australian men were made an example of and the false accusation supported by false witnesses and inaccurate evidence ensured the trio were sentenced to death. Under Lord Kitchener's orders, these convictions had to be made. It's apparent that this is strongly pro-British film as the men were convicted of crimes which everyone involved in the war were guilty of and could all be convicted like these men have.

A number of the accusations put forward by the British were that they murdered innocent people and didn't have a right to do so in that manner. As this was a war, there are very few rules that restrict a person from killing people on the opposing side. The transfer of defence witnesses were timely transferred to India replaced by false witnesses that were bought by Kitchener to get the desired results, guilty on all accounts. The hearing, which was a sham, is not rare in countries such as Australia as it was shown during the Vietnam War.