Review of The Battle of Algiers

I have been mesmerized by Gillo Ponticorvo's 1966 movie The Battle of Algiers ever since I first saw it. I don’t think I could even count how many times I’ve watched it by now. There is so much about this film which makes it a really unique experience. One could credit Ponticorvo's Italian neorealist cinematography; his use of locally filmed Algerian settings; non-actors taking lead roles; using local residents as extras; providing detailed explanation of strategies; painstaking attempts at recreating real events; or keeping the morality of the belligerents firmly shaded in a grey area. Enough has been penned on this film, but I've decided to share my thoughts as well; including why I think some of the accusations of Ponticorvo's bias are not entirely fair.

Before watching this movie, it would help if you have some pretext on ideological trends during that period, and the situation which led to the formation of the Algerian nationalist guerrilla group FLN (Front de Liberation Nationale), and their desire for self-determination.

France invaded and began their conquest of Algeria from the Ottoman Empire in 1830. Western expansionism during the modern period, including increased diplomatic and missionary presences throughout the Ottoman world, was not atypical (although France, like other imperial powers, were quite brutal in their colonial pursuits). One must bear in mind the typical power dynamic between the indigenous and exogenous populations under metropolitan colonial rule, since that was the experience of the Algerians of that generation. So this factor is more salient to the film itself. There was a clear demarcation between both groups with respect to rights and privileges. The indigenous Muslim population, barring exceptions, were not integrated as citizens of the French metropole, and they were living under the logic of exploitation, to use the parlance of Patrick Wolfe. They were even required to pay higher taxes than the French colons – an additional form of exploitation enriching the exogenous society at the expense of the indigenous people. However, even if they were able to assimilate into the colonial society, the majority of the indigenous people were nonetheless conditioned under their traditional hierarchical and religious norms. The new norms of a radically different society and worldview would have had to supersede the traditional norms – a prospect which goes against what we now value as the inherent right for self-determination. Understandably, this caused a great deal of resentment among the Algerian Arab population, which increasingly fostered practicable ways of organizing channels for their hostility against France to seek independence.

This was not unique to Algerians. Western ideas began to proliferate throughout the masses for a variety of reasons. There were European educational institutions – like the European Christian schools (which educated Muslims and Jews too), or the Alliance Universelle Israelite (which educated Christians and Muslims too) – local schools which emulated the Western curricula, and the Ottoman school systems after their reforms. There was also the print capitalism factor, like newspapers which were read by, or read to, locals, and popular historiographies. Different indigenous "Oriental" peoples became increasingly conscious of different types of nationalist discourses which trickled down to the masses from the intelligentsia and literati. Hence from the late 19^th-early 20^th centuries, you find the rise of nationalist identities emerging among these “non-Western" societies. In some cases, national identities were more distinct, like with the Armenians in the late 19^th century. In other cases, there were larger pan-national identities. For example, in places like Salonika, Ottomanism and Turkism began to flourish, as did Hellenism. Or in the Arab world, you can find complex interactions of movements to establish an identity. Palestinian ayan who were conflicting with each other over pan-Ottoman, pan-Arab, or pan-Syrian ideologies prior to the fall of the Kingdom of Syria in 1920. Sometimes, nationalist identities ran concurrently with, or in opposition to, pan-nationalism. For example, Egyptian literati publishing in the vernacular, and promoting Egyptian nationalism through papers like Abou-Nadara Zarqa, while pan-Arabism began to rise concurrently as an opposing movement. Of course, there were also other Western influenced ideological movements gaining traction in these places, like a growing communist movement in Iraq during the 1920's and 30's who published Marxian papers like Al Sahifah.

In any event, the development of a distinct Algerian national identity, and the drive for independence and self determination, fell under this late-19^th/20^th century ideological purview. Waves of nationalism which had already swept throughout Europe were still in the process of emergence in the "Oriental" and "third world" countries. Indigenous Algerians began to see themselves as a distinct people within arbitrarily defined borders, who have a right of self-determination within those borders. Similarly, socialist influences buttressed the anti-colonial discourse in which Algerian nationalism was couched. In the case of the Algerian national movement, it was more so in the sense that it was a popular revolt of the national group against an exploitative exogenous social class, rather than a universal affinity for workers, the problem of alienation, identification with labor for its own sake etc. The FLN – a guerrilla nationalist militia aimed at forming an independent Algerian state – found their motus of action in these ideologies (as well as other influences).

Of course, it didn’t help matters that the neighboring Tunisia and Morocco both became independent of their French protectorate statuses in 1956. That set an even stronger precedent for the Algerian argument that they, too, are entitled to independence and self-determination. Especially considering that colonies had far less autonomy than protectorates, which were "independent," so to speak.

This pretext was simplified and generalized. But it should hopefully have sufficiently contextualized why the FLN waged war against the French colonial empire.

The war between the FLN and France took place throughout Algeria, as well as some attacks in mainland France itself. However, this film is concerned solely with the events taking place within its titular locale – the formation of the guerrilla movement, and the hostilities between the FLN and the French police, military, and pieds-noirs (a term eventually used in reference for the European population in Algeria, which was also applied to the indigenous Algerian Jews since they were granted French citizenship) in Algiers.

The movie timeline occurs in different stages spanning 1954-57.

• The beginning of the film is the prologue which takes place moments before France's temporary victory in '57.

• Following that prologue, the film goes back to 1954. This is the period during which the FLN recruited its members, and attempted to establish their own sets of laws and authority in the Arab populated Casbah. They were essentially undertaking a crude form of state-building during this period.

• The next stage of the film shows the start of the FLN’s guerrilla campaigns against the French military and police.

• The following stage shows French retaliation against the FLN and Algerian Arab civilians.

• The FLN eventually retaliates by targeting pieds-noirs civilians, while Algerian Arabs are harassed and persecuted by the pieds-noirs.

• As the situation uncontrollably escalated and became too chaotic for the police and local military to handle, an elite paratrooper unit from the French mainland targets FLN leaders in order to systematically disassemble the organization.

• The film ends with a brief epilogue taking place when Algerians begin to riot again a few years after 1957. The renewed violence leads to Algeria's independence in 1962.

Ponticorvo emphasizes realism and authenticity throughout the film. Dates are given for attacks; press conferences are recreated; native Algerians were hired as actors; the setting was filmed in Algiers and within the Casbah; all the main characters were based on their real-life counterparts. Well, except for Djaffar being a fictionalized depiction of Saadi Yacef - who was actually cast to play his own likeness - with his memoirs serving as a basis for the movie. The film's style appears more like a dramatized version of historical events - accurate or not - rather than a typical film with main characters or a cohesive plot.

There are a couple of elements in The Battle of Algiers which make me keep watching it. It is fascinating how the movie tries to give a detailed portrayal of the allegedly real strategies used by the FLN and the French military as the conflict progressed, which shows how both sides adapted as needed. The film has been used to study urban warfare and national struggles even today, and the Pentagon supposedly screened it prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2003 (though I don't think that's a shining endorsement...).

Another poignant aspect is Ponticorvo's emphasis on nuance to characterize both the French and the FLN. He managed to make them both appear brutal and despicable, while simultaneously respectable, sympathetic, and even honorable. The viewer can thus see the rationale from both sides, perhaps feeling affinity for them, even while disagreeing with their actions.

The leader of the elite French paratrooper unit sent to Algeria – the decorated Col. Mathieu – was cunning and calculating. His methodical exposition to his troops was surprisingly detailed, albeit concise, for a war film, which gives the viewers a sense of how the French strategized to combat the FLN’s strategies and multi-cell organization. You subsequently see their efficient handling of the FLN, which gives you an idea of the disparity between guerrillas and experienced military men sent by a global superpower trying to hold on to its colonies.

Similarly, you see the FLN’s thought process with regard to violent and nonviolent resistance. While armed resistance was certainly important for their movement, they also understood that nonviolent resistance is even more necessary. After all, it is in nonviolence, like general strikes, that participation and affiliation with national liberation movements are expressed on a popular level. A store owner, for example, might not be willing to join guerrillas and engage in acts of violence, but is willing to close his shop to show solidarity with the national movement. This is actually a pretty illuminating point for political science, given that this film was released in 1966 when the scholarly literature on resistance movements wasn’t nearly as expansive as it is today.

The FLN appeared honorable earlier in the film due to their attacks not targeting pied-noir civilians. Rather, they attacked the French military and police. They showed totalitarian tendencies when attacking Algerian residents of the Casbah who did not follow their strict laws on drunkenness, drug use, and prostitution, but even that was after multiple warnings. Their laws and punishments, while draconian, were rationalized as ensuring the French could not exploit the vices of Algerians in order to turn them into collaborators; not an uncommon tactic among revolutionaries. The FLN began to attack civilians once French officials bombed the Casbah, and turned the conflict into a total war by killing over a dozen innocent men, women, and children, as they slept at night. That event was the catalyst for the FLN's retaliation against French civilians.

This is the point of the film where it becomes difficult to feel an affinity with either side of the conflict, although still without feeling that either side had clearly become the "villain" of the narrative. FLN guerrillas planted bombs in crowded bars, and even shot civilians in the street. However, even during the FLN’s earlier attacks against civilians, these were attempts at having a more organized response to prevent mob justice. Morality notwithstanding, there is an understandable rationale in preventing disorganized Algerian Arab civilians from retaliation, and eventually being slaughtered en masse by trained officers and military men. Controlled chaos would take fewer lives of their own allies than uncontrolled chaos, and people tend to give preference for the safety of the ingroup.

The French paratroopers were ruthless, but there was a sense of honor and respectability to them. Indeed, captured FLN cell members were tortured, since, as Mathieu explained, it was the only way to extract time sensitive information. Morality and actual efficacy notwithstanding, taken into context, this wasn’t uncommon at the time. Unfortunately, it's still not uncommon today. Nonetheless, Mathieu was often intent on capturing FLN members peacefully; even personally taking part in negotiations and offering written agreements ensuring surrender would lead to fair treatment and trials. He admired the FLN's ideals for independence, and lamented the suicide of one of their captured leaders; even going so far as to call him an inspiration and wishing to honor his memory.

When Mathieu was accused of using torture by French journalists, he did not excuse it as being morally just, nor did he deny its use. Rather, in full disclosure, he simply stated if you (the journalist) think France still belongs in Algeria after all this bloodshed, then you must understand that there are moral consequences and accept them. At no point did Mathieu condone colonialism, nor showed a belief that France belonged in Algeria, the Maghreb in general, or places like Indochina. Rather, he was sent to do a job, and he had to do it regardless of his personal feelings on the matter. While that doesn’t remove moral culpability from Mathieu, he does articulate the culpability shared by those from whom he was delegated the responsibility to restore French-favored order in Algeria. Not by coincidence, the ambitions of his nation, one of the pioneers, beacons, and driving forces of Enlightenment values, were intrinsically tied to activities which they viewed as unethical.

As far as civilians go, Algerian Arabs were shown as being fairly simple and harmless people who were just doing their daily activities amid persecution and mistreatment. Even nonviolent protest resulted in abusive military response. They come across as a very sympathetic group in the film. The pieds-noirs, on the other hand, were shown to very bigoted and antagonistic towards the Algerians. This point should not, however, minimize feelings of sympathy for innocent people being killed and injured. Murder cannot be regarded as a just punishment for prejudices; especially when the harshest actualizations of pied-noirs' xenophobia were motivated by anger and fear.

Ponticorvo's complex and nuanced portrayal of these characters is one of the reasons why I do not feel that the accusations of being primarily biased in favor of the FLN are entirely fair; even if there is a certain degree of truth to it. Sure, the portrayals, both honorable and deplorable, of the paratroopers and the FLN were different in nature. However, they were very different organizations with different means of operation. The gravity of their actions are still shown in a way so that they can be compared to some degree of relativity.

The FLN members were never shown to use torture like the French did, but they were never shown to have been given the opportunity to capture soldiers for torture. They were, however, shown to indiscriminately slaughter civilians on the street by spraying gun fire out of a moving ambulance, or to use negotiations as a stalling opportunity for preparing a trap to kill numerous soldiers. None of these cases are shown as honorable or just, even if one can understand, rationalize, and even sympathize with, their behavior.

Murdering over a dozen innocent people as they sleep in the Casbah, and watching their family members remove rubble to lift the corpses of their friends and family, is meant to be a heart wrenching scene. There's even a somber soundtrack playing in the background, which is noteworthy for a film which barely has a soundtrack. However, the civilian bombings in the French areas are given the same poignancy. Showing a guerrilla plant a bomb and coldly stare at innocent people happily dancing and cavorting - including a toddler licking an ice cream cone - mere moments before their impending demise is a powerful image. All the more so when paired with a frantic, violent, percussive soundtrack. These examples contrast earlier instances of the same guerrillas socializing among each other, getting married, and caring for their own children. Even in the final moments of the film, Ali protectively holds the head of the child Omar as they wait for the French military to detonate the explosives planted on their hideout. They knew they were moments away from death and were powerless to stop it, but they still tried to comfort each other to the very end. It showcases the unfortunate desensitization of otherwise decent people who love those of their ingroup, and interact with them as we would with those whom we love. They dehumanize those of the outgroup, which is necessitated by being engaged in a violent struggle which they feel is just.

 Ponticorvo's depiction of the conflict between the FLN and French military poses a moral dilemma. The attack on the Casbah shows the consequences of militia activity, since guerrillas do not have their own separate bases. They cannot establish a series of bases due to various kinds of weaknesses - technological, personnel, both of which can be tied to finances. However, the guerrillas have a just cause – the self-determination of a colonized and exploited people. This is a principle which was likewise held by France. Should they lose the moral justification to engage in a just war because of their weak status? The guerrillas' revenge attacks on the bars and airline office shows the consequences of killing civilians in order to kill guerrillas. However, it is not feasible to battle guerrillas without killing civilians too. Should a stronger power submit to the demands of the weaker power, when they think that their presence is not nefarious, exclusionary, or unjust, because the power difference ensures it is virtually impossible for a proportionate response?

Neither side of the conflict were shown to be virtuous or righteous actors, but circumstances were largely responsible for the vices among both parties.

Ponticorvo has also been accused of bias because the film does not even allude to the scope of the brutality which the harkis (indigenous Algerians who fought for the French), suspected harki, and innocent Algerian bystanders, suffered at the hands of the FLN. Hundreds of thousands of Algerians died during the French-Algerian war, and many of them were actually killed by the FLN. Algerians were largely shown to be victimized by the French, even though those aligned with the FLN were brutal to the people of their own nation as well.

However, Ponticorvo also did not mention France's treatment and neglect of the harki. Despite promises otherwise, France abandoned and disarmed the harki after they left France. Since the harki were deemed traitors by nationalists, tens of thousands of them - which totaled nearly 150,000 people when their family members are included - were slaughtered after 1962. When a harki spokesman pleaded for their admission into France due to the impending persecution and massacre, De Gaulle allegedly responded "well then! You'll suffer." The Algerian nationalists pulled the trigger, but France's actions make them culpable.

Ponticorvo also did not cover pro-French, anti-Algerian-nationalist violence from groups like the Organisation armee secrete, who attempted to assassinate high profile figures; including philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre - who was against France's colonialism in Algeria - and De Gaul. 

 

Ponticorvo was focusing on one aspect of a complex struggle, within one location, which was an inherently limited confine for a narrative. The merits or biases of his treatment should be judged within that context. Tackling other issues of the French-Algerian War would have been far outside of the scope of any film.

If there is a real bias in the film, it is against Western imperialism and colonialism in general; something Italy (Ponticorvo's home country) was also guilty of in the Maghreb (Libya). Ponticorvo did not demonize France alone, but rather a common system among Western powers, and their social impacts on the indigenous populations. Law is not enforced equally; natives experienced social disparity and oppression; and the culture of Enlightenment - the culture I love and feel privileged to live in - does not actually get adequately ingrained into these new regions. Ponticorvo believed that countries and their peoples deserve to be free from foreign imperialism and rule, with self-determination as an intrinsic right for all.

Ponticorvo's narrative does not ask the viewer to pick a side. That would veer on propaganda. Rather, he aims to provoke you to ask yourself a few questions. At what point does one violate reasonable ethical standards in one's quest for self-determination when met with superior resistance? To protect morally just values, is one bound to be submissive, or can one take more drastic and violent means of resistance? In particular, when, in practice, colonialism goes against the philosophical norms of the colonizers, since the values of the Enlightenment were supposed to lead to universal freedom - the very purpose of liberalism - can one go as far as saying that the actions of the FLN were vindicated by France's own values? Or did the FLN not follow a responsibility to reasonably exhaust diplomatic measures prior to violence? Is violence morally evil, albeit in varying degrees, which makes both sides morally unjust; albeit one being more unjust than the other? Or is violence neutral, and its moral evaluation as good or bad dependent on the circumstances? Are moral analyses of conflicts meaningless and banal outside of actions which have inexcusably extreme and proximate consequences, like when we dropped nukes on Japan?

The Battle of Algiers is a magnificent, marvelous, painstakingly detailed, and insightful war film which must be seen by any fan of the genre. However, its significance extends far beyond that. It is a unique insight to the moderate-secular-Muslim culture of the Maghrebi Arabs of that generation (for example, the lack of extreme modesty among the religious members of the FLN), and the discrimination an indigenous population can face under imperialism and colonialism. It was also a distinctly modern revolt in that religious language wasn't used, and even the clothing of the militants were Western (although, as the late and great Edward Said had noted in the 90's, the struggle for modernity in the Arab world was, and still is, an ongoing process). This movie provides a deeply layered and illuminating viewing experience unmatched by any other war film which I have seen, and is a wonderful accompaniment to theories in the social sciences and humanities on the logic behind violent and nonviolent political struggle. If you will only watch one war film in your life, make sure it this one.

McCormick Tribune Building

I was recently feeling in a bit of a slump during the day and wanted to just go out and do something. I wasn't feeling particularly sociable, so a bar wasn't really an option. I just wanted to explore, see something new and have a change of scenery. After all, that is one of the main advantages of living in an actual city. I made sure to do that in the first few months, maybe even year, that I was living here. Unfortunately, I wasn't as diligent about exploration lately... I guess laziness really is a seductive mistress. So off I went, feeling it was just the right time to get back to it, and I ended up heading down to the South Side... *gasp* ... and I didn't get shot at either! I guess Chicago isn't really so bad, huh?

Chicago is one of the most important, if not the most important, city in the US for architecture. Yes, I am actually placing Chicago ahead of New York City as far as American architecture is concerned. Chicago was home to Burnham, Sullivan, Wright, and van der Rohe; the most iconic and influential architects in America. They brought their vision and artistic touches to a world which was going through a radical shift in technology. American architecture in the past 150 years arguably wouldn't be what it is if not for them, as they created differing dogma on how new materials are to be used, and how multi-story buildings should be erected. Remember, the use of steel, metal cables, elevators, and the understanding of wind currents' effects on buildings are essentially responsible for economically viable and architecturally stable tall buildings, high rises, and skyscrapers.

Most of the iconic buildings I see in Chicago are typically in the Downtown neighborhoods, like Merchandise Mart, Hancock Center, the Carbide and Carbon (or Hard Rock Hotel) etc. I figure I should make an effort to explore other neighborhoods, and where better than going to the IIT area?

Other South Side neighborhoods feature a lot of beautiful buildings as well, though they're more typical of the Beaux-Arts movement. I love that style, don't get me wrong, but I see Classical influences everywhere. For instance, look at Congress Theater, a building I see nearly every day, and tell me it doesn't resemble the Pantheon? So, instead, I wanted to see something more modern. IIT was the center of Modernism and International Style in the US, thanks to Mies van der Rohe. However, it also features some newer developments which bring it to the 21st Century. The one which interests me the most is the McCormick Tribune Center, which is a fairly recent project from Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas. It adheres to many elements of Modernism while also taking a lot of Post-Modern and avant-garde liberties. It is International Style adapted to the 21st Century, which is quite refreshing when you frequently see the dark steel and glass rectangles.

Other new International Style buildings in Chicago only differ slightly from its original ideals. Take, for instance, Aqua Tower. It's a really gorgeous building with a unique look. However, at the heart of it, you'll find a glass and steel rectangle just like any other International Style high rise or skyscraper. Aqua differs from International Style in its use of concrete balconies of varying shapes and widths. The balconies give it some theatricality and a wavy appearance. Functionally, it helps soften the impact of strong winds due to its height and proximity to the lake. However, that's really its only major deviation from Modernism. Ideologically, it actually coincides with Modernism, since its form indeed follows function. Obviously I'm not disparaging it, or other buildings in the same mold, but something more deviant would have been cooler to see.

I was recently reading an article about McCormick and thought it looked kind of interesting, strange, and perhaps even ugly, from photographs. However, I also figured that maybe it would look nicer in person than it does in photos. It was also unique enough from other buildings I would typically see to warrant a little sojourn to a land far away. Plus, I don't know what I think of Koolhaas' other designs. He has an affinity for the bizarre, like Seattle Central Library, which is not really my forte for architecture. But it's always fascinating to look at his work, and he isn't nearly as out there as some Postmodern architects. McCormick Tribune Center also looked more restrained than other things he has done.

You can see the influences of Mies van der Rohe in Koolhaas' design. It is a metal and glass building shaped by straight lines, after all. Koolhaas differed in many ways, however. His use of of color is one of the most obvious betrayals of Mies' International Style, which was colorless by design. Without even entering the building, the orange and yellow colored glass stand out along State St. They resemble the color schemes of the De Stijl movement (well, only primary colors ideally, though van Doesburg did use orange), but nothing like what would be reflected from the surrounding environment or in nature. Koolhaas also made use of various angles. This give the building itself a bit of theatricality which wasn't typical of Miesian architecture, since International Style was strictly square or rectangular in shape. It's a different take on using straight lines, without abandoning the Bauhaus aesthetic by adding in curvature.

One of the more unique elements of the building are the glass portraits. These are both the antithesis and the greatest tribute to International Style. Koolhaas clearly wanted to do something different with the campus. Glass portraits are obviously ornamental and decorative without offering any kind of practical function. That's a big no-no in the dogmatic ethos of Modernism. However, those glass portraits of Mies served as Koolhaas' way of paying tribute, yet bringing his values to the 21st century. It takes a lot of balls to deviate from the Modernist religiosity in the very epicenter of International Style, all the while maintaining adherence to it. This paradox adds more charm to the building.

The design element which I admittedly loathed in the photographs was that tube around the Green Line tracks. It's big, it's clunky, it's shiny, it's round, and it just doesn't go with the whole aesthetic and philosophy of the campus. It looks like something which belongs at a 70's disco, and looked as bad as disco music sounds. It wasn't even necessary, as engineers have said that there were other ways of reducing the noise from incoming trains, such as adding rubber to the tracks or wheels. Did I also mention it's shiny? Fucking shiny?! For cheap jewelry, or a cheap hooker in a seedy part of town, sure, who cares about shiny? But for anything else? No. Just no. For fuck sake, no.

In person, however, it actually didn't look all that bad. In fact, I actually kind of liked it. It adds a new dynamic to an area which is basically a bunch of glass and steel boxes (and abandoned lots; and abandoned buildings; and train tracks). I don't know why, but it somehow manages to fit in. Even on a more abstract level, its addition adds audible silence, while the McCormick building adds visual loudness; so there is this cool contrast... Ok, that's just stupid equivocation.

It was a short visit in the early evening, and it was kind of cold, so I didn't really explore the area much. I mean, I basically got off the train, walked around for like 10 or 15 minutes, said "what the fuck am I doing? Why am I outdoors? It's fucking freezing. I need a cold beer in a warm bar" and then jumped back on the subway (well, elevated train). However, I still enjoyed my little trip nonetheless, and I probably would have stuck around longer had the weather been warmer. It was a pleasant sight, a nice break in the day, reminded me of why I love Chicago, and reminded me of why I belong in a city. What I loved even more was that this is not in the Downtown area. This isn't even in the best neighborhood for that matter, if my classist barbs haven't been obvious enough. Yet there is still this brilliantly cheeky work of art publicly available for all to see.

If you live in a city, don't stay in a bubble. That's not what urban areas are for. A picture is worth a thousand words, but actually seeing something for yourself is worth a thousand pictures (did I just coin that?). I could write a book detailing a building... well, maybe not. I'd start having a really hard time finding what else to write after the tenth page, since I'm not an architect. I could include some pictures... ok, I can't, because I didn't take any pictures... I never take pictures in general since I'm not a tourist from Beijing and I'm arrogant as hell about my memory. But just seeing it for yourself is a whole different experience. So if you have a chance, take some time for yourself. Go out and see something. Go to an otherwise shitty neighborhood and find yourself a nice little dive or hole in the wall (whatever you like... food, booze, or, literally, glory holes in a wall, if that's your thing). Go into some of the cool stores and support local businesses. Most of all, just enjoy the city you live in, because there are so many gems to be found if you traverse off the beaten path.

The 400 Blows (Les quatre cents coups) Review

François Truffaut's 1959 movie The 400 Blows is arguably the birth of the seminal La Nouvelle Vague movement. It was not merely his storytelling which captivated his audience. It was also Traffaut's photographic approach to filming, and his crafting of relatable characters and settings. His stripped down cinematography and screenwriting has been cited as major impacts on directors before and after him. I would even go as far as assuming he was a major influence on Seinfeld's earlier seasons, since “a show about nothing” is a clear legacy of the French new wave.

The 400 Blows tells the story of ne'er-do-well adolescent Antoine Doinel and the trouble in which he often finds himself. The plot itself is fairly uneventful. Some mischief and its consequences, a foreseeable chain of cause and effect and effect and effect. It is not a deeply complicated plot in which multiple sequences of events take place from the start of the movie to the end. With that said, that was clearly never Truffaut's objective for The 400 Blows, and this is a characteristic which made much of La Nouvelle Vague so groundbreaking and alluring.

The strength of The 400 Blows lies in Truffaut's masterful crafting of realistic characters within the post-war Parisian backdrop. A largely impoverished metropolitan area which was still on the road to economic recovery. Unlike the typical portrayals of Parisian settings, which focus on beautiful architecture, romance, passion, culture, food, and ostentatious wealth, this was not the norm of the city and its inhabitants. Portrayals as such in general are fantastical and whimsical as a fairy tale, albeit in an urban backdrop; yet even more so in France within 15 years after the end of World War II. Truffaut shows what the late 50's was like for those who were not part of the higher social echelon adorned in Chanel and Dior. Their homes were small, rooms needed to be multi-functional, food was bland and quantitatively modest, and the typical conditions of Parisian public schools would get its American counterparts shut down. Such impoverished, uncouth, and abusive conditions are the perfect catalyst for the events which follow.

Even more resonating than the environment was Truffaut's portrayal of Antoine, the movie's protagonist. Like many subsequent new wave films, The 400 Blows was a character study of its main protagonists. There were very few actors who played any sort of prominence throughout the film; which mainly consisted of Antoine. To a lesser degree, his best friend, mother, step-father, and teacher are featured, but they were instrumental roles helping explain Antoine's personality and predicaments. Other extras, such as fellow school children, merely served to help create and accentuate a setting with no more significance than other pieces of the backdrop.

Of course, these factors were largely utilitarian due to budget constraints. Regardless, these characteristics are what made the earlier era of La Nouvelle Vague the beloved and groundbreaking movement it was. These filmmakers had to make use of creative and experimental ideas to compensate for other inequities. Exploring psychological themes, writing stories which resonate on a deeply personal level, and creating a photographic aesthetic, all compensate for a lack of budget while still stimulating and entertaining the audience. Creativity can be inexpensive. Traveling to multiple sets, or hiring a large production team with loads of extras, would need a heft budget.

Antoine is the archetypal everyman. He is somewhat mischievous, but no more so than typical children his age. He skips class, shares pinups, and draws on the wall. Most of us have done the same things, including myself. He was not alone in his misdeeds, just as most of us had our peers. He just had the misfortune of being the one who always gets caught. He was either following the crowd, following the ill given advice of his best friend, or trying to assert his adolescent sense of independence and self-identity without the experience or prudence to do so wisely... like most teenagers. There are times when he got in trouble for being misbehaved. Then there were times when he got in trouble for not doing anything wrong, aside from being foolish. Then there were times when he was actually behaved and still got in trouble anyway. In fact, the latter of which characterizes the times which led to the direst consequences.

We are also given insights into his closest relationships. He did not care much for his teacher, but the guy wasn't exactly likable (not that he could be blamed, those students were little shits; you, dear reader, would have beaten the crap out of them too, and you're lying if you say otherwise). He wasn't fond of his mother, but she was openly resentful that she ever bore him. He had an interesting rapport with his step-father, but even that was shallow and reduced to sharing a few humorous comments with one another. There was no love between them, considering how easy it was for him to fully wash his hands of Antoine. None of these authoritative and older characters think much of him, and they make their sentiments abundantly clear to Antoine. The most loving and loyal relationship he had was with his best friend. Unfortunately, this friend was an idiot and a terrible influence on him, thus being a main cause of his misdeeds.

Antoine, while not necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed, longs to prove his self worth to his detractors. He wants to demonstrate his resourcefulness and assert his independence to those who are his most outspoken critics, and openly regard him as cretin inevitably destined for failure. At the same time, he also clearly doesn't have much hope for a better tomorrow, so direr consequences mean less and less to him as he has less to lose. The only time he shows a noticeable degree of sadness for his life circumstances is upon his arrest. You can see him shedding a few tears while he stands in the back of a police wagon staring at the free world he will no longer experience - the last asset he had to hold onto. That is until he quickly adapts and accepts his placement alongside thieves, junkies, prostitutes, and possibly murderers, in incarceration.

As the movie progresses, the amalgamation of these factors both move along the plot, and explain the evolution of Antoine from a mischievous kid drawing mustaches on pinups to being placed in an observation center for juvenile delinquents. During questioning with the counselor, which serves as a bit of a soliloquy, he elaborates on some other shady things he has done. However, he never indicated doing such things on his own accord. He was not the worst of his peers, but he faced the worst of the consequences, which is understandably disheartening.

Antoine's story is told in a way which not only makes him an underdog, but a deeply human character. Although the circumstances and relationships during my childhood were very different than his, I cannot help but feel sympathy for him as I watch his life unfold. At times, I even feel a connection to him. I may be presumptuous in saying this, but I would surmise that nearly all of us has truthfully said "I didn't do it," or "everyone else was doing it" (which, in effect, makes it an acceptable social norm) at some point during our childhoods, adolescence, or even adulthood. Imagine if that kind of injustice was more common than not? Wouldn't that have made us disenchanted with the wisdom of our elders and elicit our rebellion? The people who are supposed to socialize and educate him openly express their disdain and lack of faith that he will ever amount to anything. That's not exactly a reassuring image to build the self-esteem of an adolescent. How else could he have been expected to behave?

This was the power of Truffaut's vision and why this movie was such a resounding success. He was able to create a dynamic character through balancing a minimalist plot with complex relationship dynamics and settings. I have seen this movie a number of times, and I don't see myself getting bored of it. If I could only give a 10/10 to a mere handful of movies, this would undoubtedly be one of them.

My Opinion on Chicago Architecture

People say that some things are inevitable. Death and taxes are the most common, but I'd argue there are a few more. Having to take a leak when you're nowhere near a bathroom, but every time you find a secluded alley to finally relieve yourself, you see a cop drive by and have to hold it in just a bit longer. Another inevitability is being duped by an cruel meteorologist who didn't say there was a chance of rain, but you come home soaking wet anyway because you were under the impression that you didn't need your umbrella. Something else which is bound to happen is being asked which city I prefer; New York - my native city - or Chicago - my surrogate city. After all, Chicago has a friendly rivalry with New York (it's different than the rivalry, or rather deeply ingrained hatred, we have with New Jersey......because fuck New Jersey). The thing is, I love both cities. I always just brush it off by saying both cities having their own unique flavors and cannot really be compared beyond some general similarities. Well, this post is intended to praise Chicago, by stating why I believe this city is absolutely not a second rate New York (and even if it was, that's a compliment that other major cities can only dream for). In particular, I am thinking of Chicago's architectural significance. I actually think that, architecturally speaking, Chicago is arguably the most significant city in this country. In terms of modern architecture and city planning, I don't think it's hyperbole to state that Chicago is perhaps one of the most important cities in the world.

Regarding different architectural movements in the late 19th – mid 20th centuries, Chicago was arguably the location which featured the most innovation architects. The ability to mass produce steel on such a large scale absolutely changed the language of architecture. Steel is lighter, yet stronger, than stone. It is cheaper to manufacture steel than quarrying stone. It can be produced as beams, nuts, bolts, and ropes. Buildings could be constructed higher without having to proportionally widen them. Taller buildings began to contain multi-functioning stories, rather than being giant, one story rooms like Gothic, Baroque, or Classical church naves (aside from mud buildings in Shibam, which, while marvels of antiquity, require far too much maintenance to be considered stable).

With such innovation changing the urban landscape, there needed to be a certain set of rules so buildings can look like a single, unified structure. This is where the Chicago architect Louis Sullivan defined the language of high rise and skyscraper construction. Sullivan set rules and guidelines for how tall buildings should be designed in both functionality and appearance. Although architects have been a bit less rigid than him, his ideas seem to have been pervasive throughout various movements across the globe. Sullivan, along with other architects and city planners who were known for their use of steel, became known as the Chicago School of Architecture.

Chicago was also home to other highly influential architects and movements. If one wants to talk about the Art Deco movement, look no further than guys like Burnham, Graham, or Holabird, who were responsible for buildings like the Carbon and Carbide Building, Palmolive Building, Chicago Board and Trade, and Merchandise Mart. The latter of which was even given its own zip code, and was the largest building in the world in terms of square footage.
If one wants to talk about Modernism or International Style, this is the city which was home to Mies van der Rohe after he left Germany and brought the Bauhaus movement to the US. Van der Rohe's designs were so iconic, glass and steel buildings built on straight lines are often called van der Rohe style buildings. The International Style movement has even been referred to as the Second Chicago School for being reaching its peak at Chicago's IIT.
Who can be credited as one of the primary influences on van der Rohe's style? Well, that's Chicago based architect Frank Lloyd Wright, whose philosophy was to minimize the separation between the exterior and interior of a building.

The modern urban skyline is largely due to designs by Chicago based architects and firms.

Chicago can also be considered the city which revolutionized urban planning in the modern era. The Columbian Exposition of 1893 may not have been architecturally innovative globally, since its buildings were part of the Beaux-Arts movement, which was common during the nineteenth century. However, its global impact was seen in its other innovative qualities: electricity; plumbing; waste removal.

Daniel Burnham, the planner for the Columbian Exposition, had to accommodate what equated to millions of visitors. So even though this was technically just an exposition, he needed to design buildings and plan for the infrastructure of what would function as a large, burgeoning city. This included tens of millions of pounds of daily waste removal, and tens of millions of gallons of water needed to be pumped daily. Such a scale was completely unprecedented at the time.

Since you are likely reading this on something powered by electricity, perhaps the Expo's influence on the use of electricity should be noted as well. Electricity was fairly new technology at the time, and used in very limited degrees. The Columbian Exposition, however, utilized electricity to a scale where it had to function as an electrically powered city, which served as a model for how this source of energy would impact the future.

There are some other qualities about Chicago which I can praise. This city was home to one of the most vibrant poetry scenes in the 20th Century, whose its legacy continues today. Chicago also has a very active urban and contemporary art scene throughout its neighborhoods.

However, expounding on other qualities will have to be saved for a different time. As it stands, the few aspects of Chicago which I did mention show that this is a city with a rich history, even if it doesn't date too far back. It is a city of innovation and modern advancement, and a city which set a standard for the urban metropolis, even one as large and seemingly untouchable as New York. For these reasons, Chicago is a city which deserves a great deal of respect and adoration, and a city which one should be proud to call home.

Ben and Jerry's That's My Jam Review

I mentioned in my review of Hazed and Confused that I will next do a review of That's My Jam. I also promise to not ask “what's the difference between jam and jelly?” at any point in the review because I want to keep things nice and classy as fuck. I, of course, hope that Mr. Ben, and/or Jerry, will read my review and ask me to taste test their ice creams, so lewd and crude jokes have no place here... eh, who am I kidding. I won't even get a comment on this post.

That's My Jam is appropriately titled, since this flavor is my jam. The name might make you think of some shitty improv indie band in Wicker Park (or, for you New Yorkers, Williamsburg), but thankfully, it has no relation to such things. Even if it did, it would be ok, since it is far more pleasant in scent, sound, and probably taste. I wouldn't know about the latter, but maybe one of you have some experience with that. I also realize this shows how self centered I am, since I am assuming you would know what Wicker Park and Williamsburg are like. Or perhaps it is unwitting self deprecation since I do not expect too many people to see this? Anyway, I digress.

This variety of Ben and Jerry's Core line consists of chocolate ice cream, raspberry ice cream, and a raspberry jam center.
The chocolate ice cream is... you know what, fuck it. It's chocolate ice cream and I'm not describing it again. It is the SAME exact chocolate ice cream found in the Hazed and Confused flavor, including the little chunks of chocolate. If you need a review for chocolate ice cream, you've probably been living on a deserted (definitely not desserted) island all your life. Or you could read the other review and add a couple of views to this damn blog... please *cries*.

The raspberry ice cream is fantastic. It actually tastes noticeably similar to real raspberries. It is not too strong, but not weak at all either. It has a slight tartness and it is not overly sweet. It is thick, creamy and rich (get your mind out of the gutter, you dirty person you). This one also features the little shards of chocolate chunks with some occasional berry seeds, though no berry chunks.

The raspberry jam was the highlight. It is VERY bold, tarty, full of seeds, and tastes like actual raspberry preserves. A flavor this dominant was certainly needed to offset the robustness of the chocolate ice cream. It was still somewhat soft, so I guess their jam doesn't crystallize quite like ice cream does (should I be worried about that?).

I was also able to finish the pint in one sitting without feeling that this was sickeningly sweet, artificial, or like it was sticking in my throat. I also did not feel disgusted or ashamed with myself because, well, I don't feel bad or guilty for eating pints of ice cream in single sittings. Although maybe having it for dinner isn't really good behavior though, but I am big enough a person to forgive myself. Plus, thanks to the jam, it's like having servings of fruit. How awesome is that? It's almost as awesome as tomato sauce, and thus pizza, being a vegetable. I'm still in the process of trying to figure out if chocolate or coffee can be considered fruit, but I'm fairly certain they are. I also think we can safely say that wine should be considered fruit juice, right? It's made out of grape juice, after all.

Anyway, of the two Core flavors I have tried, this one wins. My main complaint with That's My Jam, and one of the complaints for Hazed and Confused, is that Ben and Jerry's could have done something much more interesting had they replaced chocolate with something else. I mean, don't get me wrong, I LOVE chocolate. I'm sure someone reading this has probably seen me with my eyes closed and sniffing the air while the smell of chocolate envelopes West Loop (again, assuming you know what West Loop is like); or has heard me say how I'd lick their chocolate vats clean since my saliva is water soluble, and they won't have to burn off the chocolate to clean them out. Such waste is totally immoral, after all (are you reading this, Bromer Chocolate Factory People? My offer still stands. It's win win. Please respond to my emails and revoke the restraining order).

However, chocolate ice cream, especially good chocolate ice cream, is very strong in flavor. It's so strong, that all those “double” or “triple” chocolate flavors are superfluous because they're not any stronger than regular chocolate. So the inclusion of chocolate ice cream will ultimately mask any subtler flavors it is paired with. You want to complement flavors, not overpower them, after all.

I'm not offering suggestions for alternatives without being on B&J's payroll, but I definitely have some good combinations in mind, *hint hint*.

Anyway, this flavor gets a 9/10. The raspberry ice cream was well done, the jam was fantastic, especially when it could have easily been an artificial disaster, and it was strong enough to actually balance out the chocolate. Good job, Ben and Jerry.

Ben and Jerry's Hazed and Confused Review

It's been a little while since my last posting. I know I made a resolution to write more during 2014, but, like most of you, I'm doing a pretty shitty job at keeping my new year's resolutions. So I decided that I will stick to my resolve (yay), by writing a couple of reviews for junk food (boo)... which I have eaten in single sittings (double boo). My intentions are altruistic, however. I am doing it to show solidarity with all my brethren whose resolutions to eat healthier were resounding failures (though that wasn't actually one of my resolutions).

Anyhoo, I'll be reviewing two of the flavors from Ben and Jerry's Core line; Hazed and Confused and That's My Jam.

You may have seen the news (hey, ice cream is a big deal) that Ben and Jerry's was going to do the unthinkable; something of purely mad genius. They were going to mix two, yes, TWO, flavors of ice cream in a single pint. Fine, fine, that's been done with spumoni, neapolitan, and I'm sure a shitload of other flavors, so I guess the double flavors really is not that big a deal. What is a big deal, though, is that they are also including an additional core of yummy goodness which would typically be reduced to swirls or a topping. There's a hazelnut fudge (this review), a raspberry jam (next review), a peanut butter based one, and a salted caramel one. So that's the part that's pure madness.

I'll be reviewing Hazed and Confused for this post.

This name would have you believe that this flavor tastes like what a hangover would taste like, or after imbibing in some really bad "stuff" your “friend” “gave” to you in a little plastic baggy after you "gave" him some money behind Subterranean in Wicker Park. However, it's actually a chocolate and hazelnut flavor with Nutella-esque fudge core. So there are no mind-altering licit or illicit substances involved in the ice cream itself... that I know of? I can't speak of the conception or consumption of the ice cream, of course. Though I was sober as a judge when I ate this... I think? I can say for certain that I was sober as a judge when I wrote this... a judge who had a couple of drinks anyway (I've never seen a judge take a breathalyzer before sitting on the bench...).

The chocolate section of the ice cream is basically, well, chocolate ice cream. You pretty much know what you're getting with chocolate ice cream from your grocery stores' freezer aisle; whether it's a more creamy and rich Haagen Dazs (I don't know how to do umlauts on my computer) or Talenti; the lighter ones Edy's and Breyers; or the varying generic ones, which are sometimes really awesome. Some are certainly better than others, but the flavor differences aren't really that drastic.

With that said, this one is definitely rich and creamy. It's semi-sweet, so it's not overbearing. The “fudge” pieces are really just chocolate chunks... Uh, what else am I supposed to say? It's chocolate ice cream.

The hazelnut section was very underwhelming, unfortunately. Hazelnut flavoring is typically a really bold, delicious, and distinctive flavor. That's why Nutella is going to be added to a DSM manual in the coming decades. Raise the prices enough, and I'm sure you'll see a junkie with a sign saying that he'll s*** your d*** and bust your nut for Nutella (gotta keep this family friendly, hence the censorship). Ben and Jerry's rendition in ice cream form, however, was not quite like that. It was very light and mild with a slight, slight, slight hint of hazelnut on the finish. It's basically like white flavor ice cream (that's what I call vanilla that doesn't taste much like vanilla) with a tiny hint of hazelnut. If you mix it with the chocolate ice cream, you're not going to get any hazelnut flavor at all. That was quite a letdown, to be honest, since that's the main reason I picked this up.

The saving grace was the hazelnut fudge core. Before you Nutella addicts get your hopes up, this is NOT Nutella. This isn't even generic hazelnut flavored chocolate spread. But it still tastes damn good. There wasn't quite as much of it as the promotional pictures indicated, but it was still a nice amount. This fudge core was definitely what kept the hazelnut ice cream afloat. It wasn't hard in texture, but had a nice chewiness to it. This was definitely the highlight of the pint for me.

All in all, it's pretty damn good thanks. I mean, I wouldn't bother with it again if not for the core since chocolate ice cream is chocolate ice cream, and the hazelnut ice cream was bland. However, the hazelnut fudge core is what really kept the overall pint grounded. I'm sure I can probably try to turn this into some pseudo-philosophical motivational sophistry if I felt like it. I could say your best self is your core (though I guess the "Nutella" core isn't the form of Hazed and Confused as a substance?), the internal you, which should always triumph over any shallow mediocrity which you feel is your external self. However, it's late and I'm sleepy, so that will have to wait for another time. Plus, you know what? It's fucking ice cream. I'm not the type to extrapolate puddle deep lessons in any random shit. Here's a tip; if it's mass produced or grows on a tree, it's not going give you an existential lesson, no matter how hard you try to find one. If you're learning about yourself from an avocado...

Uh... anyway... I give this a 7.5/10. I'd have given it a higher score but the novelty of the fudge core kind of wore off on me. I mean, you could always just grab a scoop of Nutella and have it with chocolate ice cream... or just eat spoonfulls of Nutella.
If the core was the entire pint of ice cream, it'd get a solid 10/10 (if it was actual Nutella, it's get a 20/10 if room temperature, 100/10 if frozen). For that matter, just put a jar of Nutella in the freezer and eat that.
That's My Jam, the chocolate and raspberry one, will be the next review.
Enjoy.