The Battle of Algiers is unusual. The 1966 film, co-written and directed by the Italian filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo, is a documentary-style war drama with non-actors playing most of the leading roles. The unique style gives a sense of authenticity to the fictional dialogue.
The film is based on events from the Algerian War (1954-1962), shedding light on the minds of Algerian revolutionaries who fought the French colonialists. Typically, history depicts those who are willing to die for freedom as heroes. But the realistic portrayal of the protagonists in The Battle of Algiers shows flawed individuals using violence for the sake of justice. As revolutionaries have shaped conflicts and governance throughout history, the film examines the fine line between terrorism and liberation.
Colonialism is wrong. In the film, the French employ torture and murder to maintain power in Algeria. In response, members of the Algerian nationalist movement, the National Liberation Front (FLN), use any means necessary to thwart their oppressors. These "urban guerrillas" commit acts of terrorism, indiscriminately killing French civilians.
The principal revolutionary fighter depicted in the film is Ali La Pointe, who the French kill in the final scene. A man with a long history of non-political criminal activity, La Pointe became a leader of the FLN. And the insurgency movement remembers him as a martyr.
Brahim Haggiag as Ali La Pointe in The Battle of Algiers
Although the French defeated the Algerians in the film, the FLN eventually won their war of independence in 1962. But if the revolutionaries' portrayal is accurate, one has to question whether the victors could successfully govern a nation. To their admirers, these uncompromising individuals are righteous heroes hell-bent on overturning injustice. However, the revolutionaries view French oppression as a license to kill. Thus, how will these violent individuals restore peace in Algeria and resolve internal conflicts?
Revolutions are important landmarks in world history. There are numerous instances when a government is so tyrannical that its people are willing to risk their lives for freedom. However, there is no guarantee that the new government will rule in peace, especially when the revolutionaries gained their independence through violence. For instance, the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror, and the Russian Revolution established the brutal Communist regime. Although the dethroned monarchies were atrocious, flawed individuals with a penchant for violence also led the new governments.
Not all post-revolutionary governments were immediate corrupt failures. The American Revolution led to the creation of the oldest constitutional republic in the world. Gaining independence from the British gave Americans freedom. Unless, of course, you were black, Native American, a woman, or anything but a white male landowner. The oppressed became very successful oppressors. Those who thought "taxation without representation" was a greater sin than slavery maintained relative peace in their new nation for nearly a century. Then they started killing each other in 1861.
Declaration of Independence by painter John Trumbull
The Algerians could not escape the fate of other nations that faced post-revolution violence. Following the end of the Algerian War, the FLN orchestrated the Oran Massacre, which involved the mass killing of French-Algerians (Pied-Noir) and European expatriates. Subsequently, 900,000 Pieds-noirs left for France. Also, many Algerians who served in the French army were tortured and murdered. FLN then created a one-party-state, outlawing political opposition. Subsequent internal conflicts resulted in several coup d'etat that eventually led to the Algerian Civil War in 1991 that lasted until 2002.
When the public perceives the government as unjust, people want change. And they demand that the new government be clearly different from the status quo. With the attitude of "what have you got to lose," the disgruntled citizens call for the disruption of norms. But a change is not necessarily for the better. And people are not always presented with good options. No one should have to decide between an oppressive colonial government and violent revolutionaries.
In 2016, many Americans wanted someone to "shake up the system" and "drain the swamp." They demanded an outsider, not a career politician, to lead the nation. Experience, civility, and honesty were no longer desired traits. But history teaches us that leaders' values will shape their governance. Therefore, when a narcissistic con-man without morals is elected, it should surprise no one that he rather play golf than care about thousands dying each day from a pandemic. It's not surprising that he would spread conspiracy theories to discredit an election or energize his followers to stage a pathetic failed coup attempt. We have learned that a drastic change in governance should be taken with caution because new leadership may come with a new set of problems.
Scene from The Battle of Algiers
Battle of Algiers is a difficult film to watch. Although the use of amateur actors may have been purposeful, it can distract a 21st-century audience accustomed to overacting professionals. Furthermore, the director enlists a large number of extras who are too aware of the camera. However, the film is thought-provoking. It portrays multidimensional characters, not just as heroes or saviors but also as troubled individuals.
Andrew’s Grade: C
