The Most Significant Message of The Battle of Algiers - Essay Example

Introduction Even though it is more than four decades ago, The Battle of Algiers by Gillo Pontecorvo is still one of the most modern and important movies ever to explore the nature and outcome of terrorism. Yet the significance of the The Battle of Algiers does not rest in its value as a manual for terrorists but in its portrayal of the European and American interactions with the Arab world since the 1940s. This cinematic masterpiece is inspired by the actual episodes that happened during the Algerian fight for independence from 1954 to 1962 (Hughes 2006). The film tells the story of a small unit of dissenters within the National Liberation Front (FLN) and Ali La Pointe, their persuasive ruler who exercise all available tactics to force the French out of the country. The film begins in 1957 with a troubled and messed up rebel yielding to the French guards’ harassment and revealing the location of La Pointe. The film afterward goes back to 1954, depicting the growing conflict between the French and Arabs within Algiers. The rebels perform a chain of attacks on guards, leading to an onslaught on the Arab district in Algiers, the Casbah (Hughes 2006). Control mechanisms were initiated. But the violence persists. One rebel tells La Pointe, “Terrorism is useful as a start. But then the people must act” (Haspel 2006, 33). The rebels bid a general protest to organize Algerians and pressure the international regime during a UN deliberation on the state of affairs in Algeria (Clark 1959). The movie ends quite abruptly. Scenes of protests are complemented by a short narration: “Two more years of fighting, and of mourning. July 2, 1962. Independence. The Algerian Nation is born” (Haspel 2006, 33). Viewers expect more, more scenes of liberated and triumphant Algerians, or for a commentary about how remarkable the accomplishment of Algerian liberation was, for the Algerians are released from colonial bondage; yet the movie suddenly ends, its final scene a woman protester carrying an Algerian flag. Lindsey Moore explains several dilemmas and intricacies of the Algerian Revolution that remained unresolved in the movie (McLaughlin 2010, 121): [T]he violent rise to dominance of the FLN; the triangular conflict between pieds noirs, Algerian nationalists and metropolitan France; evidence of sympathetic French collaboration with the Algerian cause; and class-related factors of the struggle, including the uprising of the rural population and the role of the poor whites and the small Europeanized Algerian bourgeoisie. Every argument is reasonable, but it also seems impossible to compress into a short film all of the intricacies of an 8-year revolution. Thus even critics who have claimed that the movie is erroneous in a number of historical points have had to understand that it exceptionally depicts the feeling and mood of the moment. According to Smith (2008), efforts to launch the movie in France, after an embargo, were interrupted when the Secret Army Organization (OAS), a radical faction formed by assertive French colonial colonists and French Army officials contested any submission of French power over Algeria, released violent warnings against any French movie house where Pontecorvo’s film could be shown. Algeria once again hits the international spotlight in 1992. The Algerian government was trying to conduct the first multiparty, democratic election to the nation’s legislature; however the Algerian military reaction to what appeared a definite preliminary triumph for an ultraconservative, Islamist party—the FIS, or the Islamic Salvation Front-- by calling off the elections, as a public representative declares, “until necessary conditions are achieved for the normal functioning of institutions” (Haspel 2006, 34). To the statement of the government that it was “temporarily taking over all matters that could threaten public order and state security” (34) the Islamist party mockingly criticized what they referred to as a “scandalous scenario that drowns the people’s choice” (34). The film director himself, feeling unfortunate about existing in a period when ‘certainties have failed,’ appeared indecisive in his response to the decisions of the Algerian government. Pontecorvo’s stated that the Algerian officials (Haspel 2006, 34):“stole their victory. But I hesitate to say whether that’s a good or bad thing. It’s a choice between plague and cholera. If the FIS came to power, that would be very serious. It’s cholera. So, it’s a sad situation.” In the meantime, the Pentagon recently showed Pontecorvo’s film to an assembly of civilian professionals and officials, on the assumption that the widely applauded realistic style of the movie would improve their understanding of guerilla combat in Iraq. However a more appropriate comparison to the state of affairs in contemporary Iraq is the 1982 dilemma of Israel in southern Lebanon (Powell 2004). After gaining the appreciation of the Shiite populace for eradicating the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Israel made a decision to instigate ‘regime change’ (Smith 2008, 110). The outcome was the formation of Hezbollah, a guerilla group that performed a regimented and quite successful opposition against the Israeli invasion, finally compelling Israel to pull out (Hughes 2006). Yet although The Battle of Algiers comparison is flawed, it still merits consideration. The French official who commands the battle in the movie is Colonel Mathieu, a refined, compelling Resistance expert, freely patterned to Jacques Massu, the French leader in Algiers. In his attempts to vanquish the rebellion, Mathieu launches a military rule, disgracing, assaulting and murdering Algerians (Hughes 2006). Members of the press express their resentments at press meetings, but Mathieu overwhelms them. Mathieu ‘triumphs’, yet, as Pontecorvo tells his audiences, five years after Algeria gains autonomy, due to the determination of Algerians but to General Charles de Gaulle as well, who, after pledging not to leave Algeria, at last realized that France had far more damages to sustain by remaining than by leaving (McLaughlin 2010). Gen. de Gaulle had to muster tremendous guts to do so, rising above the oppositions of an enraged colonist demonstration and the threats of fearful associates who advised him to stay. According to Powell (2004), instead of examining the strategies of Mathieu, whose remorseful actual form, Massu, disclaimed persecution prior to his demise, America would be in a more advantageous position under de Gaulle’s model. The Battle of Algiers, for American audiences nowadays, has certain value. The movie’s depictions of terrorism that bring about fear, pain, misery, and death among civilians or innocent people remind one of the 9/11 attack. As one witnesses French guards persecuting FLN members, the disgraceful images of US combatants mistreating Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail flood back twice as intensely and powerfully to one’s mind (Smith 2008). Movie critics or film scholars are not the only people who discern similarities between the movie and the contemporary period. A correspondent for the Nation reveals the true purpose of the Pentagon officials for showing the film to military and civilian officers: that is to gain more knowledge of guerilla warfare in the Arab world (Powell 2004). But people who witness the film only for its strategic ideas possibly overlook its thematic perspectives. Pontecorvo has reminded the world that colonial exploitation and repression encourages terrorist measures, and that terrorism has a tendency to cultivate terrorism, paving the way to a world where faith is defeated and opponents start to look like each other. It is still unclear whether people will pay heed to that warning. Conclusions Possibly the most significant message of The Battle of Algiers, and the conflict between Algeria and France, is that effective military strategies do not result in enduring peace except if escorted with an effective political tactic. The exercise of torture or persecution certainly rebounded on France, weakening public approval of colonization. Even though the rebels were defeated, the ending of the film depicts Algerians persistently fighting for their rights and independence. Works Cited Clark, Michael. Algeria in Turmoil: A History of the Rebellion. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1959. Haspel, Paul. “Algeria Revisited: Opposing Commanders as Warring Doubles in the Battle of Algiers” Journal of Film and Video 58.3 (2006): 33+ Hughes, Christopher. The Battle of Algiers: Torture and Terrorism in the City. New York: Harvard University, 2006. McLaughlin, Noah. French War Films and National Identity. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2010. Powell, Sara. “The ‘battle of Algiers’ Revisited” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 23.2 (2004): 72. Smith, Wendy. “From Oppressed to Oppressors: The Battle of Algiers Took a Pitiless Look at the War for Algerian Independence, but the Filmmakers Could Not Foresee the Failures that Would Result” American Scholar 77.4 (2008): 109+ Read More