The Battle of Algiers/La battaglia di Algeri (1966)
The
Battles of Today
The Battle of Algiers (La battaglia di Algeri) is not only a
cinematic masterpiece, but also a look back at history that asks us to look at
the world today. Directed by Gillo Pontecorvo and scored by the illustrious
Ennio Morricone, the film provides a hyper-realistic and dynamic perspective of
the French occupation of Algeria in the 1950s. Pontecorvo’s masterful
mise-en-scène and graceful cinematic techniques are as revolutionary as the
story they tell. On the surface, The
Battle of Algiers is a historical war film. However, Pontecorvo does not
use war as a vehicle to excite and entertain the audience. War is merely the
historical world in which The Battle of
Algiers is situated, and it is a means of exposing the truth. The
Battle of Algiers is violent and messy, yet it is thoughtful and
beautifully produced. Although the events portrayed and sensitive subject
matter of the film are often difficult to endure, The Battle of Algiers is a powerful story and a crowning
achievement of Italian cinema.
History
is more complex than most war movies communicate to viewers. News media,
politicians, and Hollywood war movies often lead us to believe that there is a
clear-cut line between enemy and compatriot, antagonist and protagonist.
However, The Battle of Algiers demonstrates
that in real life this line is not always as clear and visible as a Hollywood
film. The Battle of Algiers takes place
in Algeria of the 1950s. During that time, the French had occupied Algeria for
several decades. Despite the French colonials’ belief that their claim to Algeria
had solidified, the Arabic Algerians began to feel imprisoned and oppressed by
the French occupation of their country. The Algerian Front de Liberation
Nationale (FLN) formed in response to this oppression.
While
the FLN was a relatively small and radicalized group of freedom fighters,
eventually the Algerian people as a whole began to resist the French occupation
of Algeria. Helpless and without power, the FLN began taking extremely violent
and brutal measures to obtain independence from France. Today, these measures
would quickly be reduced to and labeled as terrorism. However, rather than
automatically condemning the actions of individuals seeking freedom from
oppression, The Battle of Algiers does
not utilize the dismissive rhetorical device to explain the events that took
place in Algeria. Instead, Pontecorvo situates the viewer within the historical
realm of the story, and this enables the audience to draw their own impressions
and conclusions about the events. Pontecorvo does not sympathize or ally with
the FLN. His allegiance, in true neorealist fashion, lies with the common
people of Algeria. Pontecorvo provides a voice for the voiceless, and he shines
a light on a moment in history that the French government attempted to suppress
(Virtue).
At
the center of the FLN is Ali La Pointe, played by Brahim Hadjadj. In the
beginning of the film, La Pointe is merely an illiterate petty criminal. His intellectual
and social statuses have alienated him from society. He is a troubled outsider
with nothing to live for and a rebel without a cause. The alienation and unrest
he experiences naturally compliment his rebellious nature, and eventually, La
Pointe becomes the leader of the FLN. After the first series of devastating
bombings perpetrated by the FLN, the French government sends additional
military forces to Algeria in an effort to snuff out the FLN and the Algerian
uprising. Colonel Mathieu, played by Jean Martin, leads the fight against the
FLN. Martin is the only professional actor in the film and, his performance
blends naturally with the raw and untrained acting of the amateur cast. At
first, it seems as though Colonel Mathieu symbolizes French solidarity,
sophistication, and righteousness. However, as the story proceeds, the audience
eventually learns that Colonel Mathieu is merely another pawn in a complex game
of political unrest. Riddled with uncertainty, Mathieu simply wants to put an
end to the mess and go back home.
Although
Mathieu seems to have pure motives, he proves to be just as violent and brutal
as the FLN when he blows up Ali La Pointe and a child toward the end of the
film. The Battle of Algiers does not
have a clearly defined protagonist and antagonist. While the actions of the FLN
are abhorrent and tragic, Colonel Mathieu and the French military do not seek a
resolution. They do not consider the demands of the Algerian people and the
actions of the FLN critically. Instead, they act in wanton disregard for the Algerian
people and merely meet violence with more violence, under the guise of self-proclaimed
superiority. Neither Ali La Pointe nor Colonel Mathieu is the protagonist of
the film. They are both antagonists that position the Algerian people in the
middle of their battle. The Algerian people are the protagonists that
eventually win the war and their independence.
Conversely, the film
does not end with the sense of Hollywood happiness that comes with winning a
war. Over a million people died in the Algerian War, and humanity continues to
face the same type of conflicts in the modern era (Candela). The Battle of Algiers is one of the most
powerful films I have seen in my life. The line between fictional narrative and
historical fact is seemingly nonexistent. The production techniques, camera
framing, use of score, and a variety of other elements through the film are
captivating and awe inspiring. The film is effectively subversive, and as
stated by Peter Matthews, “An absolute pinnacle of counter-cinema, a ne plus ultra of a mode that seeks to
intervene strategically in the war for social change.” Prior to viewing The Battle of Algiers, I had only heard
of Gillo Pontecorvo. Although I am a fan of violent and bloody films, generally
speaking, I am often not a fan of films that depict war. Pontecorvo’s film is
instantly my favorite war film of all time. The
Battle of Algiers is the first war movie that I have seen that forces the
audience to, regardless of their stance or political views, question the world
of the past and the world of today.
Although the use
of a war film to take reflective look into the past is not an invention of
Pontecorvo’s, his style, filmmaking methods, and choice of historical event
transcend the common war movie. Meanwhile, the film does not merely inform the
viewer; it pushes the viewer’s perspective to new worlds and cultures. At
times, the film utilizes a documentary or newsreel style. However, The Battle for Algiers is not a
documentary. In fact, Pontecorvo was always offended when people referred to
his film as a documentary (Virtue 323).
Pontecorvo’s frustration with the sentiment is entirely reasonable. To
consider The Battle of Algiers a type
of fictionalized documentary merely cheapens and degrades the precise and
masterful camera direction and mise-en-scène of Pontecorvo. The Battle of Algiers is not a
documentary. It is cinema at its finest, and it demonstrates why cinema is one
of humanity’s highest forms of art. One of the most powerful techniques
Pontecorvo uses in the film is the use of score. Scored by Oscar winner Ennio
Morricone and Pontecorvo, the music in the film is graceful and compliments the
camera and action. As the “Fin” title card dissolves at the end of the film, a
brief composition, highly indicative of Morricone’s musical thumbprint, plays
in the background. The audience has learned that after millions of deaths and
years of war, the Algerians won their independence. In this moment, Morricone’s
score sends shivers down the spine. The score acts as a vessel for easing the
audience out of the narrative in silent reflection.
While I am
admittedly fond of violent films, The
Battle of Algiers leaves me questioning both the modern day conventions of
depicting violence and the current state of international affairs. Americans
love violent films, and I am no exception. My favorite films are violent, and
their purpose for cinematic violence is often merely for entertainment.
After viewing
The Battle of Algiers, it is never
more apparent that fictional depictions of violence have meaning and purpose.
The modern world is a wonderful place to be depending on where an individual
lives. However, billions of people struggle to survive, and senseless violence
is committed against innocent people every day. Western civilization has learned
very little from the Algerian War. The American military prominently remains in
several countries throughout the world. The news media and politicians tell the
American people that their military is spreading freedom, democracy, and a
better way of life to foreign countries. However, The Battle of Algiers shows the viewer that France claimed to have
similar motives in Algeria, and those motives resulted in war and death. Gillo
Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers is
a beautifully made film. Throughout the entire film, Pontecorvo remains
sensitive to both the history he attempts to tell and the viewers that watch
his film. He does not seek to alienate the audience from his film. Instead,
Pontecorvo shoves the audience into the middle of the action. The Battle of Algiers urges the viewer
to look at the modern day world critically and seriously considered the
ramifications of our politics and international policies.
After viewing
The Battle of Algiers, it is never
more apparent that fictional depictions of violence have meaning and purpose.
The modern world is a wonderful place to be depending on where an individual
lives. However, billions of people struggle to survive, and senseless violence
is committed against innocent people every day. Western civilization has learned
very little from the Algerian War. The American military prominently remains in
several countries throughout the world. The news media and politicians tell the
American people that their military is spreading freedom, democracy, and a
better way of life to foreign countries. However, The Battle of Algiers shows the viewer that France claimed to have
similar motives in Algeria, and those motives resulted in war and death. Gillo
Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers is
a beautifully made film. Throughout the entire film, Pontecorvo remains
sensitive to both the history he attempts to tell and the viewers that watch
his film. He does not seek to alienate the audience from his film. Instead,
Pontecorvo shoves the audience into the middle of the action. The Battle of Algiers urges the viewer
to look at the modern day world critically and seriously considered the
ramifications of our politics and international policies.
Works
Cited
The
Battle of Algiers. Dir. Gillo Pontecorvo. Perf. Brahim Hadjadj and Jean
Martin. Criterion,
2004. DVD.
Candela, G. “The Battle of
Algiers.” Arizona State University. G. Homer Durham
Language and
Literature Building, Tempe, AZ. 25 Nov. 2015. Lecture.
Matthews, Peter. “The Battle of Algiers: Bombs and
Boomerangs.” Criterion. The Criterion
Collection, n.d.
Web. 6 Dec. 2015
Virtue, Nancy. “Poaching Within the
System: Gillo Pontecorvo’s Tactical Aesthetics
in The Battle of Algiers.” Screen 55.3 (2014). Web. 6 Dec. 2015