Breaker Morant and Magic

In  his  eight-page  reply  (Vol  2 No 3)  to  "P.SI'  and  "M.C"  on SteokeA  lioiuxnt,
Michael  Vaughan accuses  himself  of  being  "over-laconic"  in  his  criticism.
Over-whai?  What was that?  "M.V."  may be a  number  of  things,  but  laconic
he  isn't.

He s t i ll  insists  that  the  "fundamental  question"  of  the  "justice  of  imperial-
ism"  was "remarkably  absent"  from  this  film;  and  as  for  the  aloof  black
clerk  at  the  court-marshal  (a  metaphor  for  History  and for  Africa),  he  re-
sponds  with  a rather  solemn  question: 
dignity  and  independence  ascribed  to  the  clerk  with  the  subordination  of  his
role  within  the  imperial  system?".

"How does  M.C.  reconcile  the  untainted

I  don't  reconcile  them.
— that's  the  point!

On the  contrary,  the  two  are  utterly  irreconcilable

The same  imperviousness  to  metaphor  is  shown  by  Susan  Gardner  in  the  same
issue,  when she refers  to  the  clerk  as  "a  marginal  figure".  Alfred  Hitch-
cock  used  to  say  that  one could  be  interested  in  cinema  without  "wanting  to
make a  religion  of 
i t ".  M.V.,  S.G.  and others  want  to  make a  sociology
of 
mentary  treatise  --  something  to  be  taken  l i t e r a l l y,  and  needing  a "method-
ology"  to  see  it  --  you will  certainly  tend  to  suppose  that  brevity  and  in-
consequence  are  one and  the same.

If  you  reduce  every  film  from  a work  of  imagination  to  a docu-

i t, 

However,  there  is  another  scene  in  SneakeA  Uoiuuvt,  which  (though  brief  too),
is  not  metaphorical.  Pace.  M.V.,  I  am not.one  who  "bases  everything  on a
single  Image"  (I  said  — twice  —  that  there  were  others).  This  particular
image  is  a piece  of  straight  incident,  in  which  the  race  relations  of  the
era  are  exposed directly,  suddenly,  and with  shocking  effect.

I  refer  to  the  scene  in  which  the  wagon bearing  the  body  of  the  mutilated
officer  (the  cause of  Horant's  anger,  leading  to  his  own atrocities)  arrives
at  a camp or  field  hospital.  A detail  of  Bush Veldt  Carbineers  (including
Morant)  are  approaching  at  a gallop.  A white  regimental  doctor  throws  back
the  covering  over  the  body,  and  his  face  expresses  horror.  He is  helped  by
a black  assistant  (possibly  the  wagon-driver,  who has  not  seen  his  load  un-
t il  now).  With Morant  and his  men approaching,  the  black  driver  takes  one
look,  and  instantly  slips  away  sideways,  off  camera: 
for  his  l i f e.

that  is  to  say,  he  runs

It is true that there is conflict about those mutilations:  the British
blamed the Boers, the Boers blamed the "witchdoctors".  If you wish to take
a simple pro-Boer view of this scene, you can say that the black driver
"recognised"  the mutilations, and fled believing that the soldiers might
recognise them too.  If you prefer (as I do) to give the director more credit
than that, then you have another motivation —  one revealed in a savage flash-
exposure of what a black man could expect from white people at the time:  the
black assistant knows full well  that white men are dangerous when enraged;
because —  no matte*, what the. cause —  the nearest black man will  bear the
brunt of it.  So, he darts away.  The scene is brief indeed.

For that reason, again, it is all  the more effective.  In contrast to the
heavy hammers of propaganda, understatement  increases the impact —  that's
art.  And  if Michael  Vaughan  is really concerned about the imputed association
with propaganda, Tet him show a little more interest  in these "brief and
marginal  images" on the screen:  directors, who are artists, are using them
to tell us something.  As for my emphasis on the act of aeaduj —  who can
say it wasn't necessary?

Which brings us back to his "fundamental  question" --  "the justice of im-
perialism".  Does he still maintain that this film has "not an inkling" of
that question?  Does he still  suppose those claims and concerns to be "re-
markably absent" from a*eafee/t Uonantt

One last point:  it would be dishonest to pass without conment Michael
Vaughan's description of me.  I am not "broadly on the Left".  I am broadly
on the Right  (I suppose —  it depends who  I'm talking to, and what  about).
But  I certainly do believe in "art per se" —  which is not the same thing as
Art for-Art's Sake.  I also believe that art is magical.  I believe  in magic.
I believe that Table Mountain  is alive, for instance.  You can see it think-
ing, and throwing off its moods.

That is my methodology —  and  I think I've done rather better with  it, in
respect of the film BieakeA Hoitant. I wonder how many of your readers will
write in to disagree?

C/UUcal  A «4  Vol 3 No 3  79X5

38