Respond to the screening in 1-2 paragraphs. You may include what interested you, impacted you, or how your perspective on ME politics changed after watching the film.
11 thoughts on “Battle of Algiers”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
From a personal standpoint, the movie itself really drew me in from a language perspective. I take French and Arabic, and I felt more engaged in the film and in the characters’ lives by being able to understand the French and some of the Arabic they used straight from the source, rather than having to rely on English subtitles and move my eyes away from the main action on the screen. The Algerian characters that spoke French made me pause and reflect a little on French colonialism and the colonization of language, particularly on how the French were able to make their language such a widely used form of communication in Algeria in the span of a century.
One thing I thought the film directors and actors did very well was portray the reasoning for both sides’ sentiments and decisions. The passion behind Ali LaPointe and other members of the FLN’s drive to free their country from an oppressive regime, combined with the seemingly unnecessary killings and massacres on the part of the French, made a very strong case for their rebellion and choice to use violence. Nonetheless, the presentation from the French perspective of pieds noirs and police killings also made a compelling case for the French decision to use force in shutting down the rebellion and in fighting the FLN (though the force was often violently overdone, as tends to be the case with colonial powers facing angry opposition). I thought the film treated each side very fairly, without leaving the viewer with the impression that the Battle of Algiers was either a heartless massacre of innocents or a rebellion of overzealous and violent extremists.
Professor Carmola includes The Battle of Algiers as a mandatory screening for PSCI 235 ‘The Ethics of War’. Looking at this highly-acclaimed film through the context of the international humanitarian law reinforces the importance of the Geneva Conventions as a tool for mitigating the affects of armed conflict in civilian territory.
The Casbah and the French quarter targeted by the FLN are both densely populated war zones. The director highlights the repercussions of such guerrilla warfare on the civilian population by telling the story of women used as agents of war, exposing Ali Lapointe’s family under siege and including frequent clips of the Casbah crumbling over laundry lines; indeed, the modern-day battle is no longer fought on a field.
I revisited the Geneva Conventions shortly after watching the Battle of Algiers and one article in particular popped out. Article 25 of the Geneva Conventions states that
‘all persons in the territory of a Party to the conflict shall be enabled to give news of a strictly personal nature to members of their families, wherever they may be, and to receive news from them.’ In the context of guerrilla warfare, it seems that such personal news could walk a thin line between offering necessary personal communication and enabling retaliation attacks. As the director depicted, the network of the FLN is closely intertwined with family and freedom-fighters; what constitutes necessary personal communication for the French army could provide key military information for the FLN.
This imbalance probably reflects the challenges of insurgents versus a foreign army; a struggle that continues in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya today.
One of the things that struck me about this movie was what I perceived to be the subtle commentary on violent versus non-violent resistance. The majority of the movie focused on the violent back and forth struggle between the FLN and the French, with neither side seeming the gain the upper hand. Then, in the final 10 minutes or so, a mass of people took to the streets and the FLN kicked the French out of Algeria. I didn’t, and still don’t, have enough back ground knowledge to know if this is an accurate portrayal by the film makers, so it is difficult to tell whether the message I perceived is correct or not.
Assuming that I am at least somewhat on the right track, it is interesting to view this movie in the context of the current “Arab Awakening,” particularly Syria and Yemen where pro-democracy advocates theoretically have a choice about whether or not to take up arms or call for international military intervention. Obviously there are many differences between the situation in Algeria, and the current uprisings, but if I were a Syrian or a Yemeni who had just watched this movie (the whole thing), I would be weary of using tactics that justify the type of manhunts and retaliations by the oppressor that were depicted in the Battle of Algiers. As we learned in class today, although the FLN’s campaign led independence, that cost was an extraordinary number of deaths.
This movie is an extremely interesting and intense look into occurrences that still dominate the news today. One of the best aspects of the film was that neither side was particularly favored or the hero. Clearly the French were “in the wrong” in that they occupied Algeria to begin with, however the tactics used against them strike a cord with recent events, most prominently 9/11, that are hard to reconcile and certainly do not make the Algerians who carried them out look like the victims. The actions on the part of the French were not terribly flattering either. Their tactics brings to mind Abu Ghraib and the atrocities of war on the part of a well-developed military. The scene after the bombing of Rue de Thèbes is extremely similar to the footage of bombings in Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq and other conflicts that I can remember from when I was a kid: women wailing, bodies covered by a sheet, and rubble. I think that the most interesting parts of the film were when the Colonel interacted on a personal level with the leaders of the FLN. Each side had an understanding of what war entails and that their adversaries are not doing anything particularly novel, it is all a cercle vicieux. I wonder if the respect that the Colonel had for Jaffar and Ben M’hidi is a common feeling among those who know and understand the price of war and experience it regularly, or if it was a choice by the director to include this strange amiability. It is a sort of twisted respect because in the end, it doesn’t mean one won’t kill the other, however it makes the process (at least in the movie) to be more of a business transaction than the taking of lives.
One of the aspects of the film that struck me was the portrayal of trade-offs in freedoms between the French regime in Algeria and the FLN independence movement. Frequently, I think that the rhetoric, actions, and intent of independence movements and revolutionary groups gets romanticized, and interpreted as a call for total liberation, freedom, and equality. However, the scenes where the FLN announced stricter punishments for drug and alcohol use, and prostitution, and the audience saw Ali La Pointe kill a well-known pimp—those scenes do a fair and accurate job of reminding the viewer that this independence movement was about sovereignty and self-rule, not necessarily Western notions of Millian liberalism and democracy. Because the FLN was a religious organization that touted strict population control, members and supporters had to accept the sacrifice of a few personal freedoms, including some freedoms they had enjoyed under the French. This balance of ideals is an important factor in revolutions and therefore a valuable one to experience in film, especially considering that part of the region of the Middle East and North Africa is still in revolutionary transition today.
The film “Battle of Algiers” indeed deserves its worldwide success – one of its greatest attributes, in my mind, is its thematic sophistication. The movie’s message contains two paralleled lines: one is the horrendous annihilation of the FLN due to the persistent haunting of the French; the other is an ever-increasing strength of the Algerian population, and their growing unification against the colonizers. While the movie presents a detailed story of the collapse of the FLN, the development of the narration strongly suggests that, although the French won the Battle of Algiers, it lost the Algerian War. The interaction of these two aspects reaches its climax at the end of the movie – the Algerian people responded with even fiercer strikes when the bomb finally killed the remaining FLM members, achieving Algeria’s independence in 1962. The emotion of the movie is therefore tragic yet hopeful; and with a documentary style the filmmaker expresses his bias subtly.
In a broader perspective, the Battle of Algiers vividly presents the dynamics of the Middle East and North Africa. Although the picture is black and white, the film portrays the land as colorful, energetic, and rich in different ethnicity, culture and languages. This surely reconciles the image of ME/NA in my mind. Acoustically, the howls and screams of the Algerian women in the movie demonstrate their immense power, even though they seem fragile and are covered from head to toe. Such reflection has added something new to my impression of Arab women, which surely benefits my future understanding of the region.
In my opinion, one of the most interesting aspects of the film was the role that women played in the guerrilla tactics of the FLN. Often women are overlooked in revolutions, because revolutions are thought of as the domain of powerful men; but historically, women have played crucial roles in revolutions all over the world. But I found it particularly interesting that women played such a large role in the revolution alongside women in full religious dress. The women did not have full rights in terms of walking alone on the streets, and yet, when it was advantageous to the revolution, they were allowed to show off their feminine side. This also reminded me of stories from the Holocaust, of people passing in and out of the Nazi enforced ghettos by flirting with the SS guards and showing off their blonde hair. The scene in the movie right before the women plant the bombs in the café, club, and airport, were very reminiscent of such a scene.
I also found it interesting how much the revolutionaries cared about international recognition. They kept discussing what the UN would say or think in the context of their independence, but gave no thought to international sanctions on terrorism and acts of war. They cared about the UN recognizing the strength of the organization, but didn’t seem to care about what the international community thought of their actions. The FLN used violence against even its own people (as in the scene where Ali shot someone who refused to join) – it was an all or nothing organization.
This was my first time watching “Battle of Algiers” and I appreciated how the “Battle of Algiers” captured a realistic sentiment from both the FLN and the French Army. Before watching the film, I remember my French host parents trying to explain to me why the French people today felt guilty towards what they had done in Algeria. They explained the French colonization of Algeria, how France marginalized the Algerians under their direct rule, and that the Algerian independence finally came after much fighting. However, I still could not grasp the enormity of the situation. The way in which the film showed the Algerian women placing bombs in the European quarter, the French creating military checkpoints between the Qasbah and European quarter, the FLN men continuously making dirty bombs, and the mass uprisings helped me understand the struggle for liberation the Algerians endured. In addition, the matter-of-fact answer from Colonel Mathieu when he said he was following orders to keep France in Algeria explained his intent to eradicate the FLN leaders at any cost. In the end, I was rooting for the Algerians.
I was interested by the tactics used by both the FLN and French army against one another. In a male-dominated society, the fact that the FLN disguised women in European looking attire complete with housewife-styled hair to sneak bombs past the checkpoints and used Algerian children as messengers between the FLN leaders meant the FLN were serious for independence. Also, the complex structure of the FLN forced the French army to start from the bottom of the organization in order to kill the leaders. The systematic tactic of the French army in creating a climate of fear in Algiers also showed the French stubborness to not leave. They harassed and tortured civilians and executed house raids. I was surprised at their persistence to break down the Algerian political will during the scene where the French placed speakers on the streets and repeatedly told the Algerians that the FLN would not succeed.
I was most interested in the way in which the film depicted French-Algerians, especially the offsetting of the European quarter with the Qasbah citadel. The polarization of the two sectors was particularly well portrayed and useful as a tool for reflecting the dichotomy between the Pied Noir and indigenous Algerians despite having lived together for over almost a century. The use of terrorism as a tactic was also evocative as it mirrored events in the world today, and showed how the Arab struggle against vastly militarily superior opposition led to the use of such tactics.
The acting was highly effective as the sense of patriotism and passion was well conveyed in several scenes, most notably at the end of the movie when the mass protests through the streets highlight the final push to remove the French. The energy present was only made possible through the use of actors who were themselves involved in the struggle and the short time period between the actual events and the filming. The film is therefore successful in that it both captures the event and manages to function as an intriguing production independent of its historical value.
I think the most interesting parts about this movie were the guerilla warfare techniques used by the native Algerians. They were clever to use kids and women as key figures to pass on information and carry out attacks. They took guerrilla warfare to a new level, capitalizing on the French weakness for type-casting somewhat European looking women to be harmless. The use of civilian attacks rather than military attacks is very similar to the approach of many radical groups in the Middle East today. Another similarity is in the secretive structure of the FLN. Everything is so underground so Colonial Mathieu and the French military have to work their way from the bottom to figure out the “top dogs” and leaders. This tactic reminds me of the United States approach in finding the structure of the Al Qaeda in the Middle East, contsantly piecing names and information together to find the true leader.
I was pretty shocked at how separated the natives were made from the pied noir with checkpoints and actual barbed wire walls separating the two areas. Another surprise was the contrast within the FLN on how to approach the revolution. While I originally had the idea it was a violent organization, the movie showed two sides of the organization: Ali La Pointe’s more violent/active approaches vs. other leaders’ more methodical, passive approaches. Overall, the movie made me wonder why the French wanted to even stay there after the protests/battles had been dragged out. Every day they had to deal with casualties, finding the organization heads (who were constantly changing), and resisting a very persistent Algerian community.
I definitely still think of North africa as a very separate region than South Africa, but this movie showed me that as much as they are very separate regions; perhaps there is a shared colonized experience. The pied noirs, like white South Africans felt that Algeria was their homeland because well, frankly it was. They were remotely connected to the Europe of their forefathers and were born and grew up in Algeria. The native Algerians were on the other hand obviously had a claim to the land of their forefathers. The same applied to South Africa. It would have been hard to come up with a solution that pleased both sides as the oppression of one by another was so ingrained within the system that they lived in.
I think the realist direction they took in using non-actors to play the part was very effective in that it felt like you were watching a documentary. I truly believed the struggled of the Algerian people. I’m obviously not a proponent for “terrorism”, but I understood they literally had no outlet to express/ represent their opinions. Finally, like in the 1950’s the United Nations is still an obsolete institution that to the most part, still does not come to the help of oppressed people.