Why so even-handed?

Yay fairness!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Is imperialism always a bad thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Keep flying, son. And watch that potty mouth!