The Battle of Algiers - Criterion Collection

Rating:
Summary: Realism at its Best & Lessons for Iraq
Review: by Adam Scheuer

Great works of literature speak to all ages. Does the same apply to masterpieces of cinema? The Battle Of Algiers originally came to the United States in 1967. It spoke to that era's inner-city strife and racial tensions, and the escalating campaign in Vietnam. Re-released across America in January 2004, The Battle of Algiers seems even more relevant now. Set in Algeria from 1954-1957, the film portrays the Islamic Algerian nationalist terrorist campaign, organized by the National Liberation Front (NLF), to drive out the French, who had colonized the city Algiers in 1830.

Contemporary journalists and movie reviewers are not the only commentators to have likened the guerilla uprising in Algeria to the current situation in Iraq. On October 28, 2003, former United States National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said, "If you want to understand what's going on in Iraq right now, I recommend The Battle of Algiers." Even the Pentagon screened the film in August of 2003, advertising it with a flyer that stated forebodingly: "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film."

Irrespective of The Battle of Algiers's newfound political salience and contemporary relevance, it is simply a superb work of visual art. Filmed in 1965, the cinematography, which employs hand-held cameras, natural light, and grainy film, is so visually arresting and looks so authentic that the film seems more like a documentary than a dramatization. The archways and rooftop lookouts of the Casbah, the city's old Muslim section, are the film's backdrop. The city's steep, narrow, labyrinth-like streets and winding staircases provide a claustrophobic setting that creates a sense of underlying tension throughout the film. Press interviews, police reports, and United Nations decisions (or rather indecisions) are incorporated into the film to give it a real-time feel of an unfolding drama that could take any drastic turn.

The dialogue of the film is in both French and a Berber dialect of Arabic, with English subtitles. Though the languages are initially distancing to the American ear, they soon prove absorbing. The two languages and their respective modulations, articulations, and tones highlight a cultural divide between the two warring camps. The film's jarring and rhythmic musical score that fuses Arab and western music complements the narrative. The acting in the movie is distinctive and impressive, not because the casting director employed the finest of cinema's movie stars, but rather because the actors are untrained. Taken off the streets of Algeria to play terrorists and their sympathizers, or brought in from France to play young, disciplined conscripts, the casts' facial expressions and voices remain steely and resolute, yet startlingly realistic. The only professional actor in the cast, the lean, attractive French Colonel Mathieu (Jean Martin), who heads the counter-guerrilla operations, exudes an assured, and vibrant charisma that offers an extraordinary counterpoint to his nemesis, the reserved, yet fierce, Algerian, Ali La Point. Played by Brahim Haggiag, this steel-jawed, black-eyed young man literally taken from the streets by the director plays a brooding, illiterate street criminal who works his way up the ranks of the NLF to command a prominent leadership position.

The Algerian guerilla movement has children shoot French policemen in the back and women bomb vibrant cafés in the French district filled with young people. Repugnant though these murders are, the film shades these acts in moral ambiguity, for the cameras also show Algerians humiliated at identification checkpoints, dynamited by French forces in their homes, and interrogated brutally by the French to extract information. Ultimately, the French are successful militarily. By gaining information through torture, the French capture the leadership of the NLF, and decapitate the organization. But four years later, the country erupts in spontaneous rioting and civil disobedience that ultimately forces the French out. The last scene depicting these riots is awesomely powerful. Scores of Algerians surge in the streets, ululating and taunting the overwhelmed French troops. This looks more like a CNN live shot than a staged scene.

Though contemporary writers have been drawing parallels between the situations in Algeria and Iraq, I had the pleasure of speaking with three distinguished Harvard historians who downplayed the parallels between The Battle of Algiers and the current conflict in Iraq. If any ultimate lessons are to be learned from The Battle of Algiers, it is that the logic of military occupation is enormously complex. On the one hand, occupation produces enemies. "There is no way to occupy a country and a people without creating massive political problems," said Professor Keyysar, a professor of history and social policy at the Kennedy School of Government. But pulling out too quickly could provoke civil war, said Ernest May, an international-relations historian. Stanley Hoffman, also an IR historian, told me, "You can't fight terrorists by pounding cities to pieces."

Looking back to the consequences of the Algerian war of independence with hindsight, the glory of independence that The Battle Of Algiers portrays now seems marred in the disappointing reality of post-colonial Algeria. On the Algerian side, the war itself cost nearly 500,000 lives from a population of fewer than 9 million. The war culminated in the independence of Algeria from French colonial rule in July 1962. But after the French left, Algeria slid from a secular, nationalistic, post-colonial government, into an authoritarian, corrupt one, culminating it the civil wars of the 1990s that claimed a further 100,000 lives. At the beginning of the 21st century, neither human rights nor democracy have made substantial progress in Algeria. Considering this grim reality, one can only hope that movie-goers in forty years will not be drawing parallels between the archaic Battle of Algiers and the re-released Battle of Baghdad.

Rating:
Summary: VERY POWERFUL CAUTIONARY TALE
Review: I finally got around to seeing this 1967 film, depicting the French occupation of colonial Algiers in the 1950s, which eventually led to the independence of this Muslim nation. It is well worth watching in order to learn lessons about the Iraq aftermath, although one should not make too many connections. The biggest difference is that the French wanted to stay and maintain the country as a colony, whereas the U.S. cannot wait to get the heck out of Iraq as soon as it is semi-secure. This film is black-and-white with sub-titles. It is very revealing in its descriptions of how terrorists (or freedom fighters) fight guerrilla war, and it is the last straw (after Diem bien Phu) for French militarism. Read Camus to get a perspective on their mindset at the time. The film ends with the French having destroyed the cell responsible for a series of bombings, but in its denoument shows that a few years later an uprising occurred, out of nowhere really, that finally left the French with the conclusion that they did not have the stomach for colonialization. This story should be studied in light of French failures in Syria, Lebanon, its Foreign Legion's wars (plus Belgium's failure in the Congo), and the determination of this study is that the French have contributed mightily to destabilization of the Middle East, a little known fact in today's discourse.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
...

Rating:
Summary: Ground-breaking film is a must-see
Review: I'll review the actual film instead of rambling on about the politics. The Battle of Algiers is a ground-breaking, must-see film. If you have seen recent films like "Traffic" and "City of God (Cidade de Deus)", then you must see this film, for it pioneered the documentary-style utilized by those other films that puts the grit and gravel under your feet while you watch it. The film does not purport to be a documentary, but rather than the clean, sweeping, over-directed camera shots you may be used to, the camera is usually on the ground, following the characters from their point of view. The action is brutally realistic (for its time). And the film-maker is certainly sympathetic with the plight of the Algerians in their struggle against the French; you will be too, if you do not share the naive view that colonialism is somehow there to "protect" the colonized population. Nevertheless, the filmmaker shows some of the atrocities committed in the name of Algerian independence, such as cafe bombings that killed dozens of innocent people. He doesn't sugarcoat these scenes, and he leaves it up to the audience to decide whether this kind of action can ever be justified (I certainly don't think so).

This film is even more relevent today, as another Arab nation undergoes colonization once again by the West. Watch this film, and you will understand a lot more about the contemporary situation in the Middle East.

Rating:
Summary: EXTRAORDINARY
Review: This film was released in the late sixties at the same time the U.S. was getting involved with Vietnam and the similarities are obvious. This is an emotional film which should be seen by all people(except young children). It's use of black and white film, documentary style look, non-professional actors, music, and realism make this a legendary film experience. It starts off with Ali "La Pointe" joining the freedom fighters against French colonial rule. Both sides start bombing each other and then France sends in its army to squash the rebellion. The films violence is harsh but necessary. The torture scenes were removed from some european prints but is intact in this video. This is the type of film that should be shown in highschool and college classes, it is a part of history. The things that will linger with you after watching this excellent film is what the Algerians went through to get their independence, too many innocent people died in this struggle and the viewer can't but help feeling the tragedy of this type of struggle, the final thirty minutes of this film is heartrending. Watch it!

Rating:
Summary: Gripping
Review: This gripping film is undergoing a revival because of the American occupation of Iraq. Based on real events during the Algerian revolt against the French, The Battle of Algiers depicts the insurrection organized in the city of Algiers by militants of the FLN, the Algerian independence movement, and its suppression by the French military. The story is from a memoir of one the Algerian leaders of the insurrection, who served as co-producer of the movie. The Battle of Algiers is filmed in a very skilful semi-documentary style with quite a bit of cinematography, an excellent score, and excellent performances from the cast, almost all of whom were amateurs. Not surprisingly, the Algerian cause is romanticized. There is no depiction of the considerable strains and conflict within the FLN. The French civilians are depicted as bigoted (which they were), often callous (which they often were), and privileged (which they were) but this falls short of the whole truth. A series of French governments had encouraged European immigration to Algeria, and Algeria had a substantial European minority population. The European population was not just a thin colonial veneer but included significant middle class and working class elements. Algeria was more like South Africa than most of the other French colonies.
The film's depiction of the main adversary of the insurrection, the paratrooper Col. Mathieu, if not exactly sympathetic, is quite interesting. He is presented as a highly disciplined professional, honest, a idealistic French patriot, and a man willing to do brutal things to accomplish what he views as noble ends. In short, he has many of the qualities of the leaders of the insurrection. The violent acts of both sides are shown unsparingly.
For contemporary Americans, the part of the film that will have the most resonance is the effort of the French to suppress the insurrection. Methods used by the French will now be familiar to Americans audiences because they have been used in Iraq. As with the insurgency in Iraq, the key to suppression is obtaining intelligence about the militants committing and organizing violent acts. The French, unhappily but unblinkingly, resort to systematic torture of suspects. The word torture, however, is never used. Mathieu, who is portrayed as remarkably direct and honest with his men, his superiors, the press, and even with the insurrectionists, uses the term "interrogations", even as the movie show graphic scenes of torture. Clearly, the temptation to resort to coercive methods in situations like these is very strong, and perhaps impossible to resist. While the actions of the American military in Iraq fall well short of the brutal methods used in Algeria, this is a quantitative as opposed to qualitative difference.

Rating:
Summary: Realisitc reenactment of a time and place steeped in blood
Review: This is the story of the Algerian struggle for independence from the French between 1954 and 1957. As the Algerians finally achieved independence in 1962, the government was quite willing to allow the Italian filmmakers to shoot the film in 1965 in the very areas of former battle, especially since it is sympathetic to the fight for freedom. Released in the U.S. in 1967, it has the look and feel of documentary, scenes shot with hand-held cameras, the black and white film purposefully scratchy. It looks so real that there is a disclaimer at the beginning asserting that it is not a documentary and there was absolutely no newsreel footage used.

All the actors are unknowns, chosen for their authenticity. There are a lot of close-ups of faces, and the fact that these were real Algerians, with recent memories of the turmoil in their country, certainly comes through. This is not simply a patriotic paean to the freedom fighters however. There is terror and loss of life on both sides. There is one scene where three Algerian women, disguised as French, place bombs around the city. Innocent lives are lost and the tragedy is not lessened because the women are fighting for a cause. Wisely, the filmmakers are willing to look at the tragedy without sparing the horror on both sides of the equation.

The characters were only developed in relation to the battle. I therefore identified with them as a general principle and did not get to experience them as individuals. This was the screenwriter's intent of course. But it didn't keep my mind glued to the story and I found myself fighting off the desire to doze off as I had to be engaged in reading the English subtitles for the French and Arabic dialogue. There was one incident after another of bombing, retaliation and torture. This was certainly not a fun film to watch, which I viewed at Lillian Vernon Center for International Studies in New York where the room was overheated and the hard metal chair uncomfortable. It lasted for 117 minutes, which seemed just a little too long to make its point.

"The Battle of Algiers" is the story of the bloody beginnings of the birth of a nation. Unfortunately, though, the blood bath has continued. Algeria has been engaged in civil wars almost from its inception. And there is still no peace there today.