Why so even-handed? - La battaglia di Algeri (1967) Discussion

[–] Trouter2000 16 years ago

The film succeeds because it is so unbiased, and because it keeps to the historical record. Is imperialism always a bad thing? Is it always a good thing? Was the civil war appropriate? Or should have more peaceful measures been taken?

The Battle of Algiers doesn't point the finger at either side, it accurately gauges what happens and leaves it up the viewers own political mindset. Partly why it succeeds so well, it isn't held down by the opinions of its creators.

Last film seen: One Wonderful Sunday 6/10

reply

[–] randycoates 16 years ago

Yay fairness!

reply

[–] lovelygreebo 15 years ago

*beep* THOSE FRENCH *beep* THO! CHEESE COMPLAINING SNOBS!!! THEY DARE INSULT NEW ZEALAND CHEESE!

reply

[–] lovelygreebo 15 years ago

Impierialism is always a bad thing. Peaceeful measures will achieve nothing. "Terrorism" always works.

reply

[–] Trouter2000 15 years ago

What would you say in regards to Gandhi's success in India through peaceful measures?

reply

[–] obiewanshinobi 15 years ago

Gandhi's success can be found in the racism, religious warfare, starvation, lack of a dutiful government, and revolutions that currently transpire in the country. Contrast the situation in India with the situation in China. China is stable, growing economically, and generally on course for supremacy in the world. The only thing they lack, and indeed share with India, is civil liberties.

So was it Mao or Gandhi who did more his country (if we are judging history by the actions of individuals)? If body counts are your thing, then Mao (much maybe to the chagrin of everybody in the world) wins out. Ditto everything else.

reply

[–] dosware 14 years ago

Wow, I didn't realize Mao was responsible for China's resurgent economy (Most suggest Mao's DEATH was responsible).

reply

[–] forestar44 14 years ago

Yeah man, Mao's ghost has returned to rule China and slowly reverse all his old policies.

reply

[–] SunPapushi 14 years ago

Gandhi's success can be found in the racism, religious warfare, starvation, lack of a dutiful government, and revolutions that currently transpire in the country. Contrast the situation in India with the situation in China. China is stable, growing economically, and generally on course for supremacy in the world. The only thing they lack, and indeed share with India, is civil liberties.

You're dodging the point. Gandhi's non-violent methods achieved what he set out to do: achieve independence.
To blame Gandhi for India's post-independence problems is imbecilic. Gandhi died almost immediately after partition and had very little to do with post-independence India.
Oh and have you missed how India's economy is booming. India's reforms started later than China's so it'll take time to catch up. But India's well on it's way to world power.

Women, you can't live with 'em and you can't have heterosexual sex without 'em.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] valoriez 15 years ago

Having just watched all the material in the Criterion box set, I would say that while the film is even-handed, it is NOT completely historically accurate. It was made as a FILM, not a re-creation of history. So some important people and facts were left out, to show the essential truth of the situation as it was, and as it evolved.

I actually think that it points the finger at BOTH sides. You see the torture by the French, and one of their bombs - they planted many before the FLN finally retaliated by planting three simultaneously. You saw the fist bomber look around the cafe at those whom she was going to kill, including a baby licking an ice cream.

You aren't meant to have sympathy for the leaders of either side, I don't think. The choices they both made, to take violence on the other, comes back to bite both of them in the end -- although you have to look at the history of Algeria since their independence to see that they reaped as they sowed, just like the French. One can only sympathize with the majority of people, both native and colonist, who suffered because of colonialism and its inevitable end.

If you get a chance to see the box set, the most chilling bits for me were the interviews with the chief torturer for the French, and the Vice-President of the Algerian Senate, who was one of those three original bombers.

reply

[–] kirby-37 15 years ago

The film works because a work of art is different from historical events and must be judged differently. But no rational argument can justify imperialism or colonialism, though many (consciously or unconsciously) guilty consciousnesses trying in vain to justify the evil of colonial imperialistic oppression try to make the case that the "benefits" outweigh the damage. This may be marginally true for the colonialists and imperialists reaping the profits off the backs of those whose lands they have seized, whose liberty they have taken, and whose lives they have sacrificed in order for the empire to prosper. It's like taking YOU into slavery and expecting thanks for the occasional meal you are given by the master.

As for the question posted, could a peaceful means have been found to end the conflict? It is unlikely because land that is taken and controlled by force ordinarily is not returned for the mere asking. But a counter questions must be asked here: if YOUR country, the USA, France, Britain, whatever, were run over by another nation's soldiers, and YOU were subjected to exactly what the Algierians were subjected to in their own land, would YOU question your or your countrymen's use of force? I don't think so.

When another nation occupies your land, and controls your destiny, do you think resistance is not called for? Is it more evil to kill innocent people in defending your land than it was for the invaders to sieze it in the first place?

reply

[–] ContinentalOp 11 years ago

''The film succeeds because it is so unbiased'' _ Trouter

Actually the director (Gillo Pontecorvo) and screenwriter (Franco Solinas) were not really unbiased as they supported the Algerian struggle, hwoever, they knew that the French were humans and didn't need to demonize them.

''Is imperialism always a bad thing?'' _ Trouter

Yes, and the makers of the film would say so.

''The Battle of Algiers doesn't point the finger at either side, it accurately gauges what happens and leaves it up the viewers own political mindset. Partly why it succeeds so well, it isn't held down by the opinions of its creators.'' _ Trouter

I'll agree with this completely. The filmmakers felt that they didn't need to manipulate the viewers as the truth speaks for itself.

''Impierialism is always a bad thing. Peaceeful measures will achieve nothing. "Terrorism" always works.'' - Lovelygreebo

I agree with you, apart from your claim that ''terrorism'' (and we both know that we are talking about a leftist guerrilla war here) always works. Unfortunately this is not always so, hence Pinochet was not ousted from power.

---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.

reply

[–] Kawada_Kira 11 years ago

Is imperialism always a bad thing?

Why don't you ask the victims of imperialism? The mere fact that you would even ask such an absurd and offensive question is downright astounding.

R.I.P President Hugo Chavez 1954-2013

reply

[–] sillyhat 10 years ago

Visit Africa and you will find many people who will tell you that things were better under European rule. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but it's a surprisingly widespread view. Things are never as black and white as you think.

reply

[–] johnmgbrowniii 16 years ago

I guess it doesn't demonize the French entirely because Pontecorvo is a great director, and realized that one-dimensional characters (imagine Matthieu as an American-movie bad guy who has no motivation but his love of torture and murder) just aren't very convincing or amusing to watch.

As an interesting side note, this movie is practically required viewing in Algeria, it's one of those movies every kid watches half a dozen times growing up. Which is interesting since its not a straight up nationalist propaganda film.

reply

[–] fearnotofman 12 years ago

"As an interesting side note, this movie is practically required viewing in Algeria, it's one of those movies every kid watches half a dozen times growing up. Which is interesting since its not a straight up nationalist propaganda film."

If it was, it probably wouldn't be so popular in Algeria. Popular for a certain group of people, sure. But the majority of people, at least after decades have past and emotions have died down, can usually see through propaganda BS. We in the West look back at WWII propaganda films and laugh at how ridiculous they are, even if we generally agree with what they're saying. They're just too one-sided to be taken seriously.

Pontecorvo talked about how the original script was seen through the eyes of a former French officer-turned-journalist, played by Paul Newman, who goes to Algeria to cover the events taking place. Presumably, he would have gone there as a French nationalist in favor of colonialism and been changed by the end of the film. Yacef Saadi hated it, and wrote his own screenplay that Pontecorvo rejected for being too much on the side of propaganda. I imagine if either of these ideas had been filmed, this would have quickly become a forgettable movie. Instead, because of its relative objectivity, it is a classic.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I think that's the movie's greatest success, actually. The movie's clearly on the side of the FLN, and yet it's willing to acknowledge the sins that the FLN commits. That shows a degree of maturity, intelligence and complexity that few movies display. I loved reading an interview with Pontecorvo when he was asked why he made Colonel Matthieu an intelligent and cultured individual, he said something to the affect of "Because many Europeans are intelligent and cultured". This is very true; I actually think Matthieu is as sympathetic a character as Ali, even if he's nominally the bad guy.

Good call on Cache. It's also interesting to watch The Day of the Jackal in the context of this film - Jean Martin even has a small role in that movie.

Mr. Rusk. You're not wearing your tie!

reply

[–] Dashkatt 15 years ago

Call me crazy, but watching FLN members planting bombs among innocent men, women and children gives me little reason to exert even a remote bit of sympathy.

You would think that since this film was made in 1966 that future terrorists would have learned that killing innocent civilians just doesn't work. Not then, not now.

As for that "hero" Ali... Do his fans remember the recitation of his criminal record before his "miraculous" conversion to sanctified terrorist? As is usually the case in this type of activity, society's low-lifes are usually at the helm.

As for the French, weren't they the biggest critic of the United States and their posture on the Iraq war? Perhaps they've forgotten Algiers?

I do agree the film did an excellent job of remaining neutral. This had to be difficult at times.

reply

[–] Emerald-S 15 years ago

That's the point. Placing bombs in the middle of a crowd of innocent people is obviously wrong, but so is invading a nation and raiding peoples' homes because they're on strike. That's war. I mean this movie could be applied to nearly every generation in human history. Look at Britain's plantations in everyplace from Ireland to India. Or the Islamic conquests. Or the Roman Empire. The people who fight these powers are underdogs and revolutionaries. Maybe it's not right what they do, but in a sense isn't it necessary? I mean when the Algierians drove down the street and started shooting innocent people on the road at that point they took it too far. I guess what I'm saying is that extremism is sometimes necessary, but the problem is that it's usually thugs and punks who actually go through with it.

And for the record, I'm not condoning Al-Qaeda or any of the attacks that have taken place in the US, Europe or India in the past seven or eight years. The difference is these organisations fight out of hatred as opposed to the Algerians who fought for freedom

reply

[–] jorauk 15 years ago

Haha, "innocent," whatever. The people in the cafe and disco might not have been active military, but they were French colonists and thus actively complicit in the French domination of Algeria. I'm not condoning the murder of civilians (especially children), but c'mon, the idea that only active duty military aren't innocent is patently ridiculous, especially when you have a situation of naked imperialism like French Algeria.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Oh come off it. France had been in Algeria for 130 or so years and was technically a province of France at the time, not a mere "colony". Thus, calling the French citizens of Algiers "colonists" is simplistic and misleading. That doesn't excuse France's continued control of Algeria, but on the other hand one could hardly say that anyone who just happened to live there were the equal of a gendarme or paratrooper killing and torturing Algerian civilians.

Let's kick some ICE!

reply

[–] Scaar_Alexander 12 years ago

"Haha, "innocent," whatever. The people in the cafe and disco might not have been active military, but they were French colonists and thus actively complicit in the French domination of Algeria. I'm not condoning the murder of civilians (especially children), but c'mon, the idea that only active duty military aren't innocent is patently ridiculous, especially when you have a situation of naked imperialism like French Algeria."

You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. And by that I mean, not only the history of Algeria and french colonization, but also people in general.

reply

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

Haha, "innocent," whatever. The people in the cafe and disco might not have been active military, but they were French colonists and thus actively complicit in the French domination of Algeria. I'm not condoning the murder of civilians (especially children), but c'mon, the idea that only active duty military aren't innocent is patently ridiculous, especially when you have a situation of naked imperialism like French Algeria.

That is quite a bold statement to make. How can you not condone the murder of civilians when you're generalising them into pro - colonists. Just because the French Government were colonialists does not automatically make their citizens of the same mindset.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

In regards to the French, their police still engage in torture (or "rough interrogation") in extreme cases, and they are essentially occupying the Ivory Coast, whatever spin they try to put on it. In that regard, also considering their pre-war dealings with Saddam's government, they're in no position to be lecturing us about Iraq from any "moral position".

I think that the film makes the point that the FLN's methods are terrible and have consequences. But also, that they're excusable to an extent because the French have no justification for being in Algeria beyond self-interest. This isn't like Iraq, where the Americans and their allies can make an argument (however tenuous) to be benefiting the Iraqis or reforming the Middle East, or Israel and Palestine, where Israel can justify its military incursions in the latter as a case of self-defense. France's occupation of Algeria is a bald case of imperialism, without any external justification other than national pride and strength. As Ben Mhidi argues in the film, the French tactics of bombing cities and villages with napalm and cluster bombs, as well as mass arrests and tortures of suspected guerillas, is at least as bad, if not worse, than the FLN tactics. Both sides are monsters, but the Algerians are fighting for a justifiable cause, while the French clearly aren't. Therein, for Pontecorvo at least, lies the difference.

Let's kick some ICE!

reply

[–] Screenwriter_Brandi 14 years ago

As for the French, weren't they the biggest critic of the United States and their posture on the Iraq war? Perhaps they've forgotten Algiers?

Those probably were not the same people.

reply

[–] djmils 14 years ago

I think the quote by the Colonel is very telling, "It is a vicious circle". In that quote I think he is admitting both sides are doing everything possible in order to win. Whether or not what they were fighting for was worth either torture of suspects or bombing children is for everyone to decide and then take a stand.

reply

[–] Professicchio 14 years ago

It is because, despite common Anglo-Saxon beliefs, is not actually compulsory, by any law, to demonize or hate the French!!

reply

[–] RParmly-3 14 years ago

Like a lot of the great war movies of the 1960s, it doesn't point the finger at anyone. The Longest Day is another example. They don't waste any time preaching at you, they just describe the battle as faithfully as they can, from the point of view of the fighting men involved on both sides. That's all there is to it - who's right and who's wrong is really irrelevant.

Would love to see that kind of movie made about the Iraq or Afghanistan wars today, say maybe about the Battle of Fallujah. Probably won't happen, though.

Keep flying, son. And watch that potty mouth!

reply

[–] Sillyhuron 14 years ago

It will happen. Just not for a (few?) years.
"We're all victims of history".

reply

[–] zachanscom 12 years ago

because they were trying to be objective and demonization is a cheap resort of those who don't care about truth.

the torture scenes in this film properly demonstrate the techniques of the french without sensationalism.

reply

[–] Kawada_Kira 11 years ago

I think it's because the facts speak for themselves. Any objective person when looking at the facts ultimately has to come down on the side of the Algerian independence movement. The movie doesn't need to preach right and wrong because it's so obvious who's right and who's wrong when you look at the facts objectively.

R.I.P President Hugo Chavez 1954-2013

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]