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.