Willem Van Lancker - Film Review "The Battle of Algiers"

First released in 1966, "The Battle of Algiers," written and directed by Italian filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo, is an historical epic based on the events of the Algerian War opposing French rule from 1954-1962. The film highlights the themes of cultural misunderstanding, terrorism, torture, and counter-insurgency on a level that had not been witnessed previously in the film world. Its effectiveness in connecting with all sides, not just one face of the revolution, has lent the film a longevity and relevance for generations.

The film opens up on one of its many protagonists, Ali La Pointe. La Pointe is depicted as an illiterate, petty criminal, who later rises to the top of the Algerian Independence movement, the FLN (National Liberation Front). From the onset of the film, Pontecorvo demonstrates the tension between the native Algerians and the ‘pieds-noir,’ the white European settlers. Ali is arrested minutes into the film for punching a white Frenchman who trips him in the street. He is sent to the infamous Barberousse prison where he is recruited by the FLN.

The film is by and large a visualization of the conflict during the Battle of Algiers, Algeria’s capital city, as well as the exposure of the organization of the rebel Algerians and the introduction of the French paratroopers. Using the “European District” and the Casbah as two separate and distinct regions of the city, Pontecorvo depicts the entire Algerian conflict in the context of the city.

The struggle initiates with numerous attacks on French police officers which escalate with each side trading blows. Following the murder of several police officers, the French army forms a ghetto in the Casbah. Later, Algerian women place bombs in public places in the Euro-quarter only to see retaliation by French civilians who mistakenly destroy the wrong man’s home in the Casbah. This back and forth narrative creates a view of the struggle that does its best not to be a romanticized version of the cause for one side or the other.

Given the film’s realist cinematography, many initial viewers actually believed that the film was a documentary and not a reenactment of events. Pontecorvo, in the interest a strong screenplay, took many of history’s actual players and synergized them into singular or cause driven characters. The first example is the depiction of Colonel Mathieu. In reality, Mathieu is a conglomeration of several French military leaders including General Massu and Colonel Bigeard who both played critical roles in France’s military strategy in Algiers. In doing this Pontecorvo was able to use Mathieu to represent the institution of the French Army and, on a broader scale, Colonialism. His suave, genteel manner underscored his judiciousness with the press. His beliefs and dialogue in the film provide an important commentary on how the French empire operated its Algerian colony. On the other side of the conflict, Pontecorvo utilized several significant figures. The film begins and ends with Ali La Pointe who is recreated rather precisely as a petty thief that rises through the ranks of the FLN, representing the “everyman” of the Algerian people. Furthermore, Ali represents the force of the FLN, the branch that believes victory will only be achieved through violent assaults on the French. His counter persona is portrayed in Larbi Ben M’hidi, the voice of political rational thought for the FLN. Pontecorvo uses M’hidi to convey the tenets that a revolutionary group must hold close in order to achieve victory. The final protagonist for the FLN is the character, El-hadi Jafar. Jafar was played by his real-life counterpart, FLN leader Saadi Yacef. Having an actual member of the FLN provides the film a unique glimpse into the bona fide world of the Algerian rebels.

Pontecorvo’s lack of a singular protagonist is uncharacteristic of the historical epic genre. However, it is supremely effective in fashioning a mood of detachment within a conflict of larger ideas and players, the FLN and the French rulers. This nonaligned status plays throughout all facets of the filming and score. In whichever of the bombing scenes either side endures, the score is identical, highlighting the verity that their evils are equal and inseparable.

As the film winds down, the French army is able to isolate and eradicate the several braches of the FLN. Finally, with the assassination of its leaders, thus removing the ‘head’ of the FLN organization, they render it lifeless. The film concludes with a post-script depicting the riots and protests of thousands of Algerians. In this final chorus, the narrator dictates that even though the paratroopers ‘won’ the Battle of Algiers, the people did not give up. The inevitable demise of the colony was finally realized as the French were forced to pull out of Algeria after many violent conflicts with the natives.

At the surface this film can be interpreted as an important perspective on one of the bloodiest revolutions in history but it is clear that Pontecorvo sought to present numerous themes for deliberation in this film.

One of the most noteworthy of these themes is the interaction between Ali La Pointe and Larbi Ben M’hidi. This discourse, on a roof of a building in the Casbah, sheds light on nothing less than the philosophy of revolution. Ali, a hard-nosed character set on violence, is admonished by M’hidi that though terrorism is an effective fire-starter of a uprising, it cannot sustain a revolution. M’hidi is convinced that “acts of violence don’t win wars. Neither wars nor revolutions. Terrorism is useful as a start. But the, the people themselves must act. That’s the rationale behind this strike: to mobilize all Algerians, to assess our strength.” This speech, reiterate by the people’s revolt at the film’s conclusion, is a central lesson to be taken from this film from the rebel’s perspective; nothing can be accomplished solely through violent insurrection.

On Colonel Mathieu’s side of the conflict, he is coming under fire from the international and French press because of his use of torture tactics to unearth the leaders of the FLN cells. Here, Pontecorvo opens an important discussion around torture which is especially relevant to our country’s present situation in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. He argues that his troops are not engaging in “torture” but instead, interrogation that is producing results, something the courts are not doing. When pressed by a journalist, who asserts that following the law is often inconvenient but that it is still the law, he cites that the Algerian’s propensity for exploding bombs in public places is not respecting the law, so why should the Army obey the law in pursuing the enemy. He goes on to elaborate that if the French people really want to stay in Algeria that these are the sacrifices that will have to be made. This discussion is one that also helps force the viewer of the film to maintain a neutral outlook on the situation; everywhere you focus, they are fighting an eye for an eye.

This film’s staying power is largely due to the fact that unlike most historical epics, it does not take sides. It is the essence of a ‘plastic’ film; all parties can relate. The film has been utilized as a training video for liberation groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Provisional Irish Republican Army as a guide on tactics of guerrilla urban warfare and insurgent terrorism. Other groups and thinkers also have cited the film as important, including the Black Panthers, Andreas Baader, leader of the German Red Army Faction, and the United States government.

Connecting this film’s significance to the present is extremely simple, what is more difficult is attempting to read into what it implies for our current situation in Iraq. When the US Pentagon screened the film in 2003, it released it with a flyer, “How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas.” In the film, the French were able to overthrow the uprising in Algiers but lost positive public opinion, which eventually crushed their efforts to maintain their colony. Paralleling France’s use of paratroopers in Algiers, America’s “surge” today in Iraq is doing its job, but at what cost? Are we creating a generation of Iraqis, and on a larger scale Arabs, that resent the presence of an occupational American power? The sad truth is that the writing is on the wall and it seems that the United States government is fully prepared to simply let history repeat itself. Could this be why the French were so vehemently opposed to our invasion of Iraq? It is clear that "The Battle of Algiers," not only provided important commentary on the specific incident of French Algeria but also provokes a discussion of how we will approach cultural tension, terrorism, and counter-insurgency in the 21st century.

References:
The Battle of Algiers. Dir. Gillo Pontecorvo. 1967. Screened, 1 Apr. 2008. Brown University, Watson Institute Occupation/Liberation/Collaboration Film Series.

"The Battle of Algiers." Rialto Pictures. 5 Apr. 2008 .

Lecture: Barrymore Bogues, Professor of Africana Studies. Konstantinos Kornetis, Professor of History. Reda Bensmaia, Professor of French Studies. James Der Derian, Professor of International Relations. Watson Institute. The Battle of Algiers: Discussion. Joukowsky Forum, Brown University, Providence RI. 1 Apr. 2008.