This is an interesting look at how executions were performed during the apartheid era in South Africa. The way they killed prisoners in groups was heinous in itself. The boys who were made to work in the prison gallows were obviously traumatized by the cruel way prisoners were killed. This film examines how one young man had PTSD from his experience and then kills innocent people in an apparently random way. The film never really explains why the crime happened but that's likely the nature of PTSD which wasn't even a term back in 1987. You also see how the minority white people control every lever of power back then. Apartheid fell for a good reason shortly after this happened.

Giving the state consent to murder it's own citizens is abhorrent to me. No matter what the crime. The state should not be empowered to engage in taking its own citizens lives. Incarceration is the only answer. In my life I have seen too Many people released as innocent from Jail after 10/20/30 years - that I cannot now consider that punishment justifiable. This movie will get you thinking. Watch it!

An excellent thought provoking film. Another great performance by Steve Coogan surely an understated serious actor who grows with every role.

It's such a shame that a really powerful story was turned I to a soap! Poor performance by Steve Coogan. I'd like to see it re-made with better actors and better direction

What detail surprised me? Normally this type of films, they usually take more along the racist road, but this time no, this time the film is not going around, white against black, if not all drifting towards a plea against the death penalty. The funny thing is that on all sides we see that this is requested, except for the defense lawyer. The truth is that it is not a bad movie, but it does not become a great movie, more than anything because I do not believe many of the things. The lawyer and the lawyer should not have passed the casting. She has neither strength nor anything and there are moments when I focus more on other aspects of her face than on her performance. The defendant is very content, but can lead not to believe it very easy. The films of trials are usually boring and must be done very well. This is not the case. Moments of judgment are not the best taken. I do not really like photography. When you try to put the light through the windows, the photograph is horrible. He does not know how to do it. The moments on the street look more like a movie for television than anything else. The management is not great either. It does not get boring, but it's very close. It is very repetitive. He does not know how to do anything but close-ups. You will see it and well you have not wasted the time, but almost

This beautifully filmed drama, set in apartheid era South Africa manages to be at once brutal and sensitive. Steve Coogan and Andrea Riseborough face each other in the trial of a psychologically broken prison guard, accused of a multiple murder. Graphic and harrowing at times, delicately picking an unconventional course to its conclusion. Effectively a period piece, convincingly set in 1980's Pretoria, filmed in Cape Town in pleasing detail. Centred in the courtroom, but repeatedly flashing back to the accused's past as a prison guard on death row and following Coogan's progress through the trial in his defence. The prison and execution scenes play out in sickening detail, with a host of convincing supporting actors. The courtroom too has several well observed characters, from the judge to the bereaved relatives. The accused guard is well played; too, too young, and a mental and emotional shell of a man, opening up painfully slowly during the piece. Coogan though is the star; at first reluctant, then intrigued and finally quite determined as the defence counsel. The camera holds him close in this very convincing portrayal. The whole film is beautiful, cleverly lit and stylish, with great attention to all the details of the time and the place. The Afrikaaner Warrant Officer quietly chilling, the courtroom relatives, glorious. A genuinely emotional and thought provoking film, touching on several aspects of the capital punishment debate. It alternately brought to mind Oscar Pistorius' trial and Billie Holiday's 'Strange Fruit'. Be prepared for mixed feelings at the end!

source: The Hangman: Shepherds and Butchers

This is an interesting look at how executions were performed during the apartheid era in South Africa. The way they killed prisoners in groups was heinous in itself. The boys who were made to work in the prison gallows were obviously traumatized by the cruel way prisoners were killed. This film examines how one young man had PTSD from his experience and then kills innocent people in an apparently random way. The film never really explains why the crime happened but that's likely the nature of PTSD which wasn't even a term back in 1987. You also see how the minority white people control every lever of power back then. Apartheid fell for a good reason shortly after this happened.

An extremely disturbing film, especially being based on truth. It raises several questions regarding the death penalty, and illustrates how apartheid South Africa affects not only the oppressed, but also he perpetrator. Steve Coogan gave a great performance, but for me young Garion Dowds gave an engaging and moving performance that stole the show. What was interesting was the layering of emotions, and the psychological portrayal of what happens to ordinary people subjected to a continual barrage of negativity (in this case hanging & the death penalty), and how this leads to emotional numbing & blunting. A great if somewhat unsettling watch.

"The Hangman: Shepherds and Butchers" is a South African film based on true events of the late 1980s. The film is primarily a courtroom drama that touches on capital punishment, moral responsibility, and the mercurial nature of the judicial process. The narrative introduces us to a troubled young man on trial for the murder of seven athletes, whom he shot in cold blood as they were driving in a minivan. The defendant, Leon Labuschagne, has assigned to him a defense attorney, who slowly pieces together the background of the young man while working as in a prison. Apparently, the defendant was traumatized by having to assist in executions by hanging of over 150 inmates. The case emotional defense presented by Mr. Webber is countered by an icily cold prosecutor, Miss Murray, who argue for the death penalty. The film takes great pains to point out the differences between the two attorneys. Miss Murray seems remarkably detached from her work, calling to mind the nonchalant manner in which the inmates were subjected to gruesome hangings, sometimes lasting as long as fifteen minutes prior to expiration. The presiding judge appeared to have made up his mind early in the trial without hearing all of the evidence. It is clear that on the panel of three judges, the presiding judge was a dissenter in the split vote. This provocative film raises ethical issues on many legal fronts. In the closing credits, we learn that with the presidency of Nelson Mandela, there were much-needed reforms in South African jurisprudence.