The movie starts as the flashbacks of Ali la Pointe (played by Brahim Hagiag), a member of the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN). The scene is 1957, and the first flashback is about how Ali, a petty thief convicted and imprisoned, joins the freedom fighters after seeing the oppression meted out by the French colonialists. This builds the story as it concentrates on the struggle and the mercilessness shown by both sides of the war of the Battle of Algiers, a segment of the Algerian War. The freedom fighters employ guerrilla tactics, while the French paratroopers use unconventional and ruthless means to quell the violence which eventually escalates into a nationwide revolt.
The flashback ends when Ali and other FLN leaders are executed. The scenes depict the French paratroopers as winning the battle, but the eventually losing the war and Algeria gains independence in 1962.The full length of the Algerian War is 8 years (1954-1962).
Description of the movie
Battle of Algiers was released in 1966, 4 years after the end of the war that the story is based on. It is a political movie that concentrates on the war aspects of the Algerian War for independence and has indiscriminate depiction of the occurrences. One of the most notable things from the beginning is the lack of bias; the movie shows the atrocities committed by both sides despite the fact that its budget was partly footed by the Algerian government. It is a movie that rebuilds the events that were witnessed in Algeria in 1954-1962 in what came to known as the Algerian War. The events in the movie are a true reflection of the War of independence in Algeria. It also shows how the insurgency crept into the Algerian society. The people rose in defiance of colonialism and eventually defeated the French. It represents a time when a wave of nationalism was spreading through Africa (Ausenda, 121).
The movie is set as a reflection of the struggle in the North African country to gain independence. The film is set in Algiers, the capital of Algeria, a French colony. The brutality of the insurgents and the resultant counter-insurgency is the main themes of this movie. There is ruthlessness from both sides in the war; the insurgents want to win independence for the country and the French want to show that they are still in control.
The movie goes to great lengths to show effects of war on the society, the horror and despair it brings to the people is evident throughout the movie. The movie was later described as one that "'cautions people about war and the consequences it brings to the entire society'. (Ausenda, 12). The flashback shows the radicalization of Ali Pointe and his conversion from living a life of personal gain to fighting for the freedom of the people. He is a petty criminal convicted for his crimes. It takes the act of him watching a fellow prisoner being led to the guillotine for lesser crimes for him to recognize the real situation in the country. This seems to have been an attempt to show that the growth of the insurgency was the fault of the French colonial government itself.
The focus on the fictional character Ali La Ponte gives the initial stages of the movie a firsthand account of how people were radicalized to join the insurgency and fight for freedom (Hughes 45). It is after serving a jail term and being granted his freedom that Ali's political consciousness is awakened (Hughes 45).
The film begins in a French prison where Ali La Pointe, who is the leader of the rebellious movement FLN, has been captured and imprisoned.
. In the movie Colonel Mathieu is the commander of the French military in Algeria. (Evans & Morgan, 44). This is a man who is determined in everything that he does. He is the true representation of the efficiency of the military at the time that it displayed its most draconian and evil character. He is more than determined to wipe out the FLN and its leaders. His pre-operation talks are riddled with sentiments of a ruthless military leader. When he drives his point home, he gives strict instructions that these paratroopers must accept the consequences that come with war; Mathieu depicts the reality which the police and the military operate. It clearly demonstrates how people who are in power end up abusing that power without caring about the poor and the innocent people who are going to suffer the consequences of war and brutality (Harmon et al 23).
This film provides a deeper insight and understanding of the dynamics of conflicts; this is done in the way it provides a detailed arm race between the warring factions that normally accompany conflicts. In short the idea of reciprocity in conflict which describes how each side attempts to outflank and outmaneuver the other help us tremendously understand the dynamics of the real world conflicts (Rainer, 10).
Although circumstances forced the locals were to start the war, the script is quick to show that they did not support terrorism as those who engage in it in the film have their reckoning moments (Ebert 123).They did not sanction the methods employed by the militants, but they were part and parcel of the gains. A memorable scene is where several, belonged FLN insurgents were forced to drop their veils and dress like Europeans in order to penetrate their territory to plant bombs. An example is the scene that shows businessmen relaxing in bars, some people waiting for a bus, teenagers having fun and a child who enjoying her ice cream and suddenly, a bomb explodes. This brutality has affected all those involved. These people live in fear of being ganged down and this explains why they were never at peace (Ebert 87). Another bombing occurs in a coffee house at around the Casbah area. This is a true indication of a group that is formed with genuine reasons of freeing their society from some of the things that kept them exploited for centuries. Just when one would have thought that the war is over, bombs leaving hundreds of people dead and others injured.
Analysis
In short, what the author wishes to communicate is laying the exposure of all the human tragedies that happen amongst us but people do not seem to pay a lot of attention on them (Ebert, 67). The movie reveals the realities of the atrocities of the war between the army of the French and the soldiers of the National Liberation Front. However, it may superficially seem justified for the FLN insurgents to use such methods to fight against the French rule; their struggles and methods are crude and inhumane. They have caused suffering by killing and maiming people in cold blood as a result of the bombs they plant targeting the Europeans. The attacks by the FLN were reciprocated by the French military in a much more treacherous way due to superior training and weaponry (Evans & Morgan, 234).
The visual style used in this film was convincing with the initial recording being done in black and white due to the infant nature of color technology at the time. The sound infusion as well as the music back up employed shows that the producer and the directors took time to select a good infusion as well as the background music that helps bring out the various themes in the movie as well as heightening the emotional impact of the movie (Bob 54). The background music captures the moments with precision and brings out the reality in every inhumane thing done by the warring parties.
There also some drumming that reflect the indigenous Algerian culture. It is used in a scene where one of the FLN women plants a bomb. This creates situation where dialogue is not necessary. There are also some instances where Pontecorvo engaged sounds of gunshots, truck engines and helicopters in a way to symbolize the approach of the French for a battle. On the other hand, the Algerian approach was symbolized by ululations, blasts chanting and wailing (Arnold 122). It is widely recognized that as a result of foreign influence, drug abuse, and immorality cases such as prostitution that were not there in the original African setting started to emerge. These intolerable behaviors hence they also fuelled the resistance (Hughes 45).
The casting of the entire movie is based on a majority of non professionals thus the dubbed lines. Pontecorvo engaged only one professional who played the role of Colonel, Jean Martin, a French actor. Though he would have preferred more professionals, he did not wish to use someone who was familiar to the crowd because this could interfere with the initial goal of the movie was developed (Arnold, 122). Ironically, Jean Martin had some legal issues in Algeria but this did not prevent the producer from using him in the movie. In short, the development of this movie was superb and indeed it led to the realization of the goal that the producers intended. The movie was developed so many years ago but till today it remains relevant. This is because it shows the effects of any war on the natives and what both sides lose when they go to war. The film is indicative of a thorough choreography and splendid script. These are sure indications that there was thorough input by the assisting crew to live up to the original script.
It is an electrifying accurate movie that was completed in as a major project by Gillo Pontecorvo that still remains relevant. This is a political film that has been used by leaders in the world to teach society of the consequences of war. It has also been widely used to show why war should be avoided. It employed the creation of fictional characters to tell a real story.
Saying that the coverage of this movie is good is an understatement, as can be demonstrated by Pontecorvo's camera omnipresent, recording every nook and cranny. The production had a knack for detail that is absent in many movies. The scenes of the French Legion's torture cells, the deliberations of the Algerian resistance organization (National Liberation Front) top brass in the Casbah meeting room, their battle hardened and fearless soldiers on the rooftops, cafes, checkpoints as they detonate bombs, are all a product of a breathtaking casting. One can not help having to remind himself or herself that each and every frame of this frame has been staged (Solinas, et al, 124). The scenes of a bombing of civilian not only in cafes but also in the dance halls and hit and run assassinations of police officers from the French side, provides the few who witnessed the gruesome experience or those who have read the descriptive narrative of the resistance movement with a feeling of sorrow at the experiences. It creates a sort of nostalgic disgust, but it is unbiased because both sides are depicted for having committed atrocities.
The superior script is further demonstrated by the fact that the several military organizations that are involved in one way or the other with terrorist organizations operating like National Liberation Front (NLF) have found this film a starting point in their military strategy. It has been used as they plan how to confront and defeat such organizations while keeping the casualties at a minimum. For instance, Pentagon has been screening it to its staff headed for terrorist hot spots like Iraq and Afghanistan. The aim is to show them the two sides of the war and what will happen if they do not take care of the natives. (Solinas, et al, 154).
The flow of events in the film also adds to its finesse, which improves the degree of reality in it tremendously. One important thing about this is that it lays the background of why the (National Resistance Front) NLF had to take up arms against the French forces. This is normally the important part of any work of art, to achieve its primary aim. If this movie had no achieved this, there would be no convincing reason why they are fighting in the first place and it would make the movie pathetically hollow and amateurish. This further reinforces the fact that the film is devoid of any propagandist stuff despite the fact that it was subsidized by the Algerian government. It was tailored to guard and respect the real happenings of the Battle of Algiers and to tell the real story of the war.
The choice of the characters in the film is another feature that further set it apart from a majority of the films in the same genre. The role of Ali la Pointe, played by Brahim Haggiag, is one such choice that fits into the part he is supposed to play. His prole-hero features are so riveting that no one can dispute that he was the real FNL actual leader. By portraying Ali as a down trodden Muslim in dire need of liberation from the French occupation, the directors of the film again match the cast with situations (Gilbert, 10). Ali is not only the perfect embodiment of the downtrodden Muslim clamoring for emancipation but also a representation of the ordinary Algerian. His eyes are the fervid center of this movie as the vivid flashbacks explain his story.
On the opposite side is Colonel Mathieu, a role played by the equally talented Jean Martin, the only professional actor in the entire film ' and which has also been molded on General Massu who was the then military commander of the French forces in Algeria. The two characters have clear differences in character. This was later explained as 'If Ali is fire, then Mathieu is ice' (Gilbert, 12). Colonel Mathieu represents efficiency in the military at its extreme draconian. His lesson to his paratroopers on how best to decapitate the FLN is an objective lecture in the calculus of anti-terrorism combat. He depicts ruthlessness and military order only evident in actual combat.
Another section that exposes his expertise is where a press conference is staged by the French military. One of the FLN leaders has been captured, and the sympathy that his words stir is evident even on the journalist's faces. Colonel Mathieu sees the danger in this and quickly ends the press conference (Gilbert, 12). This shows that he is archetypal of colonial thuggery, but as is always the case with film villains, Pontecorvo gives him (Colonel Mathieu) the best lines. When he tell reporters that it is important they accept the implication of the war, either good or bad, if they are serious with Victoria, he is exposing the soft under-belly of policing. People in power loath having their power centers exposed (Bowker, 325). This is a clear demonstration of Pontecorvo directing prowess. He ensures that nothing that is required in the acting of this movie is missing. This explains the movies huge success. Zbigniew Brezinski, the former US national security adviser, said 'If you want to understand what's happening right now in Iraq, I recommend The Battle of Algeria' (Bowker, 356). He was alluding to the mastery with which this film has been developed. The current situation in Iraq and the Algeria liberation are two diverse conflicts but the reality of terrorism as a complicated war strategy still remain unsurpassed. The people will almost always rise against exploitation and torture. They will organize themselves in militant groups and result to unconventional war methods to achieve emancipation.
The question that bogs the viewers mind is whether Pontecorvo, the film director, is saying all these people are part of collateral damage for a necessary conflict. However, eventually, the terror that is unleashed in this film cannot be fitted into an orderly partisan formulation. This is the reason why security organizations and institutions such as the Pentagon and the Panthers have showcased this 1966 film to their staff (Zuhur, 152). What exposes the movie as a serious work of theater and not just propaganda or fictional genius, is the effortless depiction of both sides as using unconventional methods to achieve their goals. The activities of militants and French paratroopers are clear and the underlying message is impossible to miss.
Just like the majority of movies of this genre, there are a number of lessons that one can learn from film. The first such lesson is the amount to reciprocity in this conflict (Zuhur, 231). Reciprocity means both sides to the conflict are responsible to the conflict. That each side attacks or defends in retaliation to the other side implying in the absence of either of the two there would be no conflict. The same applies to the likes of trade and so many other endeavors in life that requires 'two to tango' (Burr, 10). This reciprocity is normally what identifies one party to the dispute as a villain or aggressor and the other a victim. For instance, it is tempting to view the Algerians as victims while the French forces as the aggressors. This is a fallacious conclusion; if anything the French who annexed Algeria in 1800 and it is only a century and a half later that the revolutionary war begins.
Nonetheless, as is made clear by the film, the French also have their fair share of victimization and revenge, primarily brought about by the need for resources that would enable them to dispel insurgencies of that nature not only in Algeria but in all colonies that were in the French sphere of influence. It is obvious that the Algerian would not have taken up arms had the French agreed to meet their legitimate demands. Given that the French policy of assimilation had made the Algerians second class French citizens. As observed, conflicts are reciprocal in that any of the competing side has an option of discontinuing the conflict by restraining itself from any retaliation. This means that surrender is hardly ever considered an option. However, in most of the cases there would never be a side that would be wiling to do such a thing, until of course, the situation demands it or they are defeated in war. That is the reason why both sides are to blame itself for any undesirable consequences of the conflict that they were part of.
The second lesson which this film teaches us and which is also related to reciprocity in conflict that we have talked of is the significance of normative analysis (Burr, 10). The film sequentially illustrates the successful decisive events of this conflict between the Algerian insurgency and the French forces in the 1950s, without appearing to side with any of the protagonists. This neutral and detached approach is precisely the reason that explains why the film is so powerful, thought provoking and authentic. This makes anybody alluding that the film is a propaganda tool appear utterly ignorant of the glaring description to the contrary. The same can be viewed as the reason why the film is so enriching and compelling. The visual presentation of important events in the struggle for independence and especially the entire colonial rule is so neutral that it can easily pass for a documentary. The hardened French soldiers in the first scene ruthlessly torturing an Algerian insurgent together with the Algerian children and women who we are shown planting bombs in military checkpoint shows that both sides engaged in inhumane, immoral, and illegal behaviors (Rainer, 10). They are both ready to engage whatever means necessary to meet their respective ends, which is the reason there are no heroes in this film (Pujol, 3).
Summary
In summary, at every stage of this conflict we get a clear illustration of how the two sides of the conflict change their tactics in a bid to get an upper hand in the conflict; we also see a slow but unstoppable escalation of fighting into war. In a nutshell, the Battle of Algeria is a good and unbiased description of the revolutionary battle pitting the insurgents against the French forces; a war that escalates until one party emerges the victor. It tries to bring out the suffering of the people, the wanton destruction of property and life. This is important and can be applied to almost all competitive situations that can be modeled in a war with an enemy with better weaponry and training. The film there fore is a true work of art that teaches valuable lessons about the real stories of the African struggle for independence. It is also not based on propaganda but endeavors to capture reality as much as possible.
The makers of the story created a fictional script that captures the real story. The unbiased approach might have been refuted later by some parties to the war but the real story is there for all to see. It is also up to the viewer to decide whether such bloodshed was really necessary in the struggle for independence. It is a remarkable lesson in history and the injustices in war. At the end of the movie, it is left to the conscience of the viewer to decide which side he or she feels was justified to fight with such unconventional methods. This question is left unanswered because the movie shows such a remarkable balance in the depiction that it is almost impossible to pick sides with justified reasons. It also shows how the French lost the battle of Algiers but ultimately lost the Algerian War. Algeria gained independence in 1962, the same year the Algerian war ended.
