Algiers revisited

Last week, CineVerse dissected "The Battle of Algiers. Here are some of the talking points of that discussion, which may shed light on better understanding the film.

KNOWING THAT THIS FILM IS A FICTIONAL ACCOUNT OF THE ALGERIAN INSURGENCY AGAINST FRANCE THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED SEVERAL YEARS EARLIER, WHAT IMPRESSES ABOUT THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS?

• Shot in documentary style for heightened realism
• Black and white chosen: meant to mimic the look of grainy, high contrast newsreel footage of the day
• Filmed on location in Algeria using real locations in the European quarter and the Casbah and in areas that were previously bombed and attacked
• Use of long lenses and intentionally awkward and jarring camera movements and angles, suggesting that what we’re seeing is real
• Scenes are presented as if they are snippets of history, when actually many of the events in the film quite possibly never happened
• Many nonactors and native Algerians are cast, and an actual FLN leader who had been imprisoned produced, acted and wrote the original script
• The film works as a thriller, adventure picture, war movie, and pseudo documentary
• It’s timely, topical and relevant today, considering the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, especially between the Israelis and Palestinians and between American occupying forces and Iraqis and Afghans.
• The picture presents a fitting example of 21st century warfare: a superior military presence forcing its will in a foreign land that craves its independence
• It’s gripping in its suspense and forces a conflicting emotional reaction of out viewers: for example, on one hand, you may be rooting for the bombs planted by the women in the café and elsewhere to fail; conversely, you may be rooting for their side and thus hoping the bombs go off

IS THE FILM BALANCED IN SHOWING BOTH SIDES OF THE WAR, OR IS IT TOO HEAVILY BIASED IN FAVOR OF THE REBELS?

• It shows atrocities on both sides: the Algerians bomb and kill innocent Europeans, and the French forces bomb innocent Algerians in an apartment building, too
• You could argue that the filmmakers’ sympathies are with the FLN, as evidenced by touches like Ennio Morricone’s mournful score that kicks in after the French blow up the home of a terrorist; the score is silent when Algerian bombs are used against French police strongholds
• The film objectively shows the tactics of both sides, although it’s obvious that the French tactics failed because they eventually granted Algeria its independence
• The film presents a moral paradox: even if it seems as if it’s subtly rooting for the Algerians, it does show their ruthless, bloody methods, warts and all

THEMES EXPLORED IN THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS

• The chicken or the egg: would the Algerians resort to horrific terrorist actions if the French were not controlling their country? Would the French be so harsh in its military offensives and defensives if the opposition weren’t so ruthless?
• This film asks the question: What is the difference between revolution and terrorism, or between colonialism/foreign occupation and state-sponsored terrorism?
• No change of this nature comes without inflicting a terrible price, and no country can always afford the final bill

NOTES:

• The tactics used and details depicted in this film were studied by the Black Panthers, the IRA, and even the Pentagon, and many of the methods used by the Algerians were later adapted by Guevara and Castro in Cuba, the Viet Cong, the Palestinians, South African militants, and Iraqi insurgents.

DOES THIS MOVIE REMIND YOU OF ANY OTHERS?

• Schinldler’s List, in that natives from the ghetto are tensely rounded up in both films
• Z (1969)
• State of Siege