Breaker Morant
Fri, 1 Aug 2003, 11:48 pmWalter Plinge12 posts in thread
Breaker Morant
Fri, 1 Aug 2003, 11:48 pmI saw the Old Mill Theatre production of the Kenneth Ross play last night and was most impressed. Despite the small theatre, narrow stage and big cast of mixed experience, Garry Lawrence has achieved an amazing result.
In real life, Morant was among other things a contemporary of Ned Kelly. Interestingly, they were both executed without fair trials and both ended up national legends. I sometimes wonder whether, had he not died at the age of 25, Ned might not have gone on to be an Aussie war hero too.
The play deals mainly with the 'trial' of Morant and his comrades Handcock and Witton for the murder of Boer POWs. It raises issues of justification of violence and the politicisation of the military which are as relevant today as they were in 1902. We end up sympathising with the soldiers who were 'only following orders', although what they did was really inexcusable.
Production-wise, I found the set design, AV, light and sound all very slick and supportive of the on-stage action. The cast also all handled their roles in a professional and convincing manner. I don't usually like to single anyone out for particular praise, but the two characters that linger in my recollection are Handcock and Hamilton.
Well done, all. Hope the house is full for the rest of the run.
stinger@iinet.net.au
Thou tottering reeling-ripe burn-bailey!
In real life, Morant was among other things a contemporary of Ned Kelly. Interestingly, they were both executed without fair trials and both ended up national legends. I sometimes wonder whether, had he not died at the age of 25, Ned might not have gone on to be an Aussie war hero too.
The play deals mainly with the 'trial' of Morant and his comrades Handcock and Witton for the murder of Boer POWs. It raises issues of justification of violence and the politicisation of the military which are as relevant today as they were in 1902. We end up sympathising with the soldiers who were 'only following orders', although what they did was really inexcusable.
Production-wise, I found the set design, AV, light and sound all very slick and supportive of the on-stage action. The cast also all handled their roles in a professional and convincing manner. I don't usually like to single anyone out for particular praise, but the two characters that linger in my recollection are Handcock and Hamilton.
Well done, all. Hope the house is full for the rest of the run.
stinger@iinet.net.au
Thou tottering reeling-ripe burn-bailey!
Re: Breaker Morant
Mon, 4 Aug 2003, 12:48 amWalter Plinge
A timely production in the event of David Hicks's present incarceration at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The introduction of the Defence Act of 1906 played a large part in stopping the execution of Australian troops in the First World War, unlike other Empire troops. Canadian troops had no similar legislation to fall back on when they were executed for military offences.
However, this act does not protect Hicks.
I suspect that Handcock and Morant were executed because of the German missionary's death rather than the deaths of Boer prisoners of war, and this wasn't made too clear with this play (apparently this was changed in the script). It seems their deaths were needed to placate a hostile and powerful Germany, so their deaths were certainly political in that respect. Certainly my German guest liked the idea of seeing an anti-British play rather than an anti-German play. It should go down well with the Gaelic-Irish people as well.
I don't agree with one reviewer's assessment of Breaker Morant as some great Aussie hero. That kind of Nationalistic mythologising is shortsighted and naive to say the least, and that's putting it mildly. I certainly would not agree with the view that they were just innocent saints (not every soldier is after all!) but seeing them as
exterminating angels that went too far may seem a bit extreme as well. The truth lies some where in between.
The production started off a bit too slow but the pace quicken a bit and by the second act it seemed to run comfortably. Accents were generally pretty good, but sometimes it sounded as if Australians were playing British and British were playing Australian. I'm not sure if that was deliberate. The actors who played Afrikaaners handled their accents superbly, especially the actor who played van Rooyan who sounded like a true blue Afrikaaner. The set and decor was fine.
The court-martial scene was nicely understated, which is no mean feat. I did this play some years back and one actor in the cast who had the misfortunate of being court-martialled in the British Army, said that a court-martial is a much more subdued, informal affair. It came across this way really well. The scene with the last night of the condemned men was nicely done and the use of sound effects was good too.
The actor who played Morant was fine. He was particularly effective in the poetry scenes where he seemed to to have great feeling for the text. I thought the chap who play Witton was too old for the part though. I think he should have played Handcock.
The other actor who played Major Thomas had some effective moments, but at times he seemed a little unsure of himself, which was fine at the start - as Thomas was meant to be a little green at the start of the play- but he seemed to lack strength or authority at the end of it.
Minor roles all round were handled ably by the actors and there are too many of them to consider at this point although there were some moments when some actors were giving away too much with their faces. One scene stands out when Kitchener's aide-de-camp, when asked about the standing order about the execution of Boer Prisoners by Kitchener himself, gave a guilty facial gesture that would not have looked to out of place in a murder whodunit, but was really inappropriate for this kind of drama. It also gave the impression that the aide-de-camp was responsible for this standing order, not Kitchener the prime villain of the piece. There was also another problem which I take issue with.
I cannot possibly understand why there was the Daisy Bates/Katherine role in this play. I have no objections to the actress herself, she did the role well, but the monologue that she was using was supposed to be Major Thomas'. I can't quite understand the logic of this, other then the fact that the monologue was too much for the young actor to learn, or the director decided to have a female role in order to 'soften' the cast, as an all male cast can be a bit much for an audience. This monologue for Major Thomas is a nice piece for any actor worth his mettle to chew on. It seems a bit of a cop out to give this away to someone else. Also the play loses the impact of Major Thomas' role as the narrator as it were. He lacked any kind of emphathy with the man he was supposed to be defending.
And why Daisy Bates? A character briefly connected to Morant, so to speak. She is really irrelevant to the story even though she is something of an historically relevant figure. But then so is Lord Baden-Powell and I didn't see him walk on the stage and say 'dib dib dib'. I also thought it was a bit confusing when the actress (Rebecca Bauert, is it?) reappeared as katherine.
Aside from that , there was a nice touch when Harry Morant reappears at the end of his firing squad scene to offer a postscript on the principle characters. This was not in the script but it actually works well. But why wasn't Kitchener mentioned? There is an irony of sorts that in his placating the "Hun" he would lose his life when his ship struck a German mine in 1916, an amusing irony not lost on an Englishman like me or my German girlfriend sitting in the back row of the theatre.
However, this act does not protect Hicks.
I suspect that Handcock and Morant were executed because of the German missionary's death rather than the deaths of Boer prisoners of war, and this wasn't made too clear with this play (apparently this was changed in the script). It seems their deaths were needed to placate a hostile and powerful Germany, so their deaths were certainly political in that respect. Certainly my German guest liked the idea of seeing an anti-British play rather than an anti-German play. It should go down well with the Gaelic-Irish people as well.
I don't agree with one reviewer's assessment of Breaker Morant as some great Aussie hero. That kind of Nationalistic mythologising is shortsighted and naive to say the least, and that's putting it mildly. I certainly would not agree with the view that they were just innocent saints (not every soldier is after all!) but seeing them as
exterminating angels that went too far may seem a bit extreme as well. The truth lies some where in between.
The production started off a bit too slow but the pace quicken a bit and by the second act it seemed to run comfortably. Accents were generally pretty good, but sometimes it sounded as if Australians were playing British and British were playing Australian. I'm not sure if that was deliberate. The actors who played Afrikaaners handled their accents superbly, especially the actor who played van Rooyan who sounded like a true blue Afrikaaner. The set and decor was fine.
The court-martial scene was nicely understated, which is no mean feat. I did this play some years back and one actor in the cast who had the misfortunate of being court-martialled in the British Army, said that a court-martial is a much more subdued, informal affair. It came across this way really well. The scene with the last night of the condemned men was nicely done and the use of sound effects was good too.
The actor who played Morant was fine. He was particularly effective in the poetry scenes where he seemed to to have great feeling for the text. I thought the chap who play Witton was too old for the part though. I think he should have played Handcock.
The other actor who played Major Thomas had some effective moments, but at times he seemed a little unsure of himself, which was fine at the start - as Thomas was meant to be a little green at the start of the play- but he seemed to lack strength or authority at the end of it.
Minor roles all round were handled ably by the actors and there are too many of them to consider at this point although there were some moments when some actors were giving away too much with their faces. One scene stands out when Kitchener's aide-de-camp, when asked about the standing order about the execution of Boer Prisoners by Kitchener himself, gave a guilty facial gesture that would not have looked to out of place in a murder whodunit, but was really inappropriate for this kind of drama. It also gave the impression that the aide-de-camp was responsible for this standing order, not Kitchener the prime villain of the piece. There was also another problem which I take issue with.
I cannot possibly understand why there was the Daisy Bates/Katherine role in this play. I have no objections to the actress herself, she did the role well, but the monologue that she was using was supposed to be Major Thomas'. I can't quite understand the logic of this, other then the fact that the monologue was too much for the young actor to learn, or the director decided to have a female role in order to 'soften' the cast, as an all male cast can be a bit much for an audience. This monologue for Major Thomas is a nice piece for any actor worth his mettle to chew on. It seems a bit of a cop out to give this away to someone else. Also the play loses the impact of Major Thomas' role as the narrator as it were. He lacked any kind of emphathy with the man he was supposed to be defending.
And why Daisy Bates? A character briefly connected to Morant, so to speak. She is really irrelevant to the story even though she is something of an historically relevant figure. But then so is Lord Baden-Powell and I didn't see him walk on the stage and say 'dib dib dib'. I also thought it was a bit confusing when the actress (Rebecca Bauert, is it?) reappeared as katherine.
Aside from that , there was a nice touch when Harry Morant reappears at the end of his firing squad scene to offer a postscript on the principle characters. This was not in the script but it actually works well. But why wasn't Kitchener mentioned? There is an irony of sorts that in his placating the "Hun" he would lose his life when his ship struck a German mine in 1916, an amusing irony not lost on an Englishman like me or my German girlfriend sitting in the back row of the theatre.