Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

Seeing Battle of Algiers now for the fifth or sixth time, the power of the film,

its conception, and the logic and clarity and the passion of it, stand out so
powerfully The film reveals that at some point, its no longer possible to
simply endure colonialism quietly. [Once] the colonial process has reached an
intolerable level and the people are transformed the film shows how
everything becomes part of the political process.
Edward Said, The Dictatorship of Truth, 2000

Is Battle of Algiers just as relevant today as it was when it was made in 1966?

In this essay, the relevance of The Battle of Algiers today is discussed. The
historical background to the events portrayed in the film, the background and
political intentions of the filmmakers and the story of how the film came to be
made are laid out. There is a discussion of anti-colonialist theory and how the
film relates to and contributes to this, particularly vis-a-vis the works of Frantz
Fanon. The success of the film in portraying its message over the years is
examined, both from a political and aesthetic viewpoint. The veracity of the film
and discrepancies between its account and historical accounts is analysed. Finally
there is a discussion of the films relevance to the current debate on the War on
terror.

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

The Battle of Algiers is a feature film directed in 1965/66 by Gillo Pontecorvo,


who also co-wrote the story with Franco Solinas. Its subject matter is the battle of
an Algerian guerrilla group (ALN/FLN) against French occupation of Algeria. It
particularly focuses on events in Algiers in 1956/57 as the French military
destroyed the FLN organisation in the Kasbah. The film won the Golden Lion
award for Best Film at the Venice Film Festival of 1966 and rapidly became an
icon to anti-colonialists and left wing movements, including the Black Panthers.
From 2000 it underwent a revival, with a new print and new DVD, as the debate
on torture and brutality of the French Forces in Algeria convulsed France and as
terrorism by Islamic extremists more and more became the focus of American
foreign policy.

Many of the people involved in the film and in the war that it portrayed
were involved in anti-fascism during World War II. Some of the Algerian
leadership fought the Axis forces as part of the French Army, along with 250,000
of their fellow Algerians, as well as many Senegalese, Malians, Vietnamese,
Malagasies and Chadians. The French army in Algeria was led by former
resistance fighters and soldiers who had fought the Germans from 1940. Frantz
Fanon, the black Martinique intellectual (and FLN member) whose writings can
2

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

be said to have formed a theoretical basis for Pontecorvo and Solinas, was himself
a front-line soldier in the French Army. Pontecorvo, a Jew, and Solinas were
former members of the Italian resistance. Along with other icons of the Italian
film industry Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone, their wartime experiences
hugely influenced their later works. Pontecorvo even inserted events from his
own experiences into the Algerian film, for example the episode where the boy
makes pro-FLN broadcasts over the loudspeakers closely resembles a similar
coup pulled by Pontecorvo on the fascists in Italy.1 This resistance experience of
the filmmaker and writer ensured that they were influenced by Marxism
(Pontecorvo left the party after the Soviet attack on Hungary in 1956) and that
they had a strong belief of the importance of collective action by the people.
They were naturally sympathetic to the Algerian FLN in their struggle with
France, one of the most brutal of the anti-colonial struggles. They wanted to
make a film that paid homage to all struggles for liberation 2 So successful were
they, that the film has become inextricably bound together with the historical
narrative, to the extent that history books use stills from the film to illustrate
events and many people believe the film to be a true account of events rather
than a feature film based on events. Because of this, any discussion on the film
must discuss also the historical background.
1
2

Pontecorvo, Dictatorship of Truth, C4 documentary


Pontecorvo, Dictatorship of Truth, C4 documentary

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

The end of WWII had seen the European powers determined to reoccupy
the empires they had lost and to turn the clock back on the anti-colonial tide. The
British quit some colonies and protectorates such as India and Palestine, but
grimly held on in to their African possessions. The Dutch and Belgians did not let
their years under the Nazis deter them from holding onto their colonies. But the
French de-colonisation process was the most traumatic for all concerned. They
brutally suppressed a rebellion in Madagascar in 1946 but were crushingly
defeated in Vietnam in 1954. The French army burned with humiliation and
determined that there would be no more retreats.

Algeria had been invaded by France in 1830 to take attention away from
internal problems. Removing the area from the Ottoman Empire was not
difficult, but Algerian resistance was fierce, and was not broken until 1871. From
the beginning, the French looted the country, took the land from its owners and
granted farms to colonists, who came from Spain, Italy, Malta and France. By the
end, the colonists numbered almost one million, but the Arab and Berber
population had increased from four million on French arrival to eleven million.
The settlers were outnumbered nine to one but native Algerians had few rights
and low living standards and were subject to discrimination and racism. Most of
4

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

the settlers by now were working class and lived in the towns. In a further
peculiarity, Algeria was a department of France, not a colony, although Arabs and
Berbers could not vote.

Many Algerians had fought for the French in WWII and expected
something in return on coming home but the French government failed to deliver
anything meaningful. Protests led to police attacks, which in turn led to a
massacre of 100 colonists at Setif in May 1945, triggering a brutal French reaction
that possibly killed thousands. 3 This clearly demonstrated the true nature of
French rule. But at the same time an unstoppable wave of decolonisation was
sweeping the world. The French defeat in Indo-china encouraged the Algerian
nationalists who realised that France could be defeated, if not on the battlefield,
possibly at the United Nations, now filled with non-aligned anti-colonialist
countries. In October 1954 the FLN was formed and by November they
commenced their rebellion. Now we are in territory of Pontecorvos film, which
covers these events, up to the end of the actual historical Battle of Algiers and
the death of Ali la Pointe in October 1957.

Evans & Phillips, Algeria, p51

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

The film came about as the result of a long process, beginning with Para,
a project to cover the Algerian war with Paul Newman in the lead role. The war
was still ongoing at the time, and no producer would touch it. After the war,
members of the FLN came to Italy looking for a director to make a propaganda
movie about the Battle of Algiers. Pontecorvo and Corvino met Yacef Saadi,
former FLN chief in Algiers, as they wanted to make a film on colonialism. Each
hated the others ideas, but eventually came to an agreement, and the subsequent
film was based loosely on Saadis own experiences. He in fact ended up playing
the character Jaffar, based on himself, as well as co producing the film. But
although half the funding came from Algeria, the Italians did not make a piece of
propaganda. For their research, the writers talked to people from all sides of the
conflict. There was nothing they didnt know about when they came to write the
script. They knew about terrorist operations, counter insurgency, torture
techniques, propaganda, police tactics and guerrilla strategy. In short, the script
synthesised an immense amount of knowledge on how revolution operates.
Pontecorvo made two key creative decisions. The film would (a) present both
sides reasonably truthfully and (b) the film would be shot as in documentary
style, staying close to his neo-realist roots. These can be summed up in his
statement that he wanted to impose a dictatorship of the truth, to give the

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

impression that its a documentary, even though it is fiction.4 These two features
of the film account for its success at the time and for why it is still eminently
watchable today.

The intention of the writers was to make an anti-colonial film. In order to


achieve this goal, propaganda would be self defeating, the film should tell a story
as close to the truth as possible. Pontecorvo says To do this, you dont blame the
paratroopers, the blame is on the intransigence of colonialism 5. Solinas says
when asked if he had a didactic intention: Yes. I was intrigued by the
mechanism of the struggle against colonialism and, in particular, by its
manifestation in Algeria through tactics of urban guerrilla warfare. I meant to
explain these tactics, the details of their function, by taking them apart from
within to show how the mechanisms work. You could say that our goal was not
guerrilla for the sake of spectacle, but the use of spectacle to teach the guerrilla. 6
While the film is certainly sympathetic to Algerian, he is at pains to present a
balanced viewpoint, to the extent that the French Colonel Mathieu is presented
almost as a hero. The use of Marxist dialectic by Solinas in his writing helped this
process: The Battle of Algiers is the result of these procedures: an analysis of two

Pontecorvo, Dictatorship of Truth, C4 documentary


Pontecorvo, Dictatorship of Truth, C4 documentary
6
Franco Solinas, Gillo Pontecorvos Battle of Algiers, 1973
5

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

conflicting forces motivated by contingent rather than idealistic terms. ..the story
had to be told from a rational point of view based on the logic of events rather
than on their appearance.7

The decision to make a film in documentary style was also influenced by


Marxist thought. The neo-realist technique of using non-actors was seen to be
inclusive. The use of crowd scenes reflects Pontecorvos view that the masses are
the true hero of a revolution. He has his character Larbi Ben MHidi say that
armed rebellion is well and good to get things going, but in the long term, it is
the crystallisation of the people into collective action that makes revolutions
succeed. This is a core belief of Pontecorvos and is the key message he wants to
deliver with the film. Although the film is made in documentary style, it was not
made like a documentary. There is much artifice and manipulation: this is after
all a feature film, a work of fiction, a work of propaganda which uses the
techniques of truth/verisimilitude and documentary style to get the filmmakers
message across.
In assessing the relevance of the film today, it is important to look at the
message of the film. It has been shown that the filmmakers wished to show the
peoples involved in the anti-colonial struggle how to do it, and to celebrate their
7

Franco Solinas, Gillo Pontecorvos Battle of Algiers, 1973

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

struggle and ennoble it. They wanted the film to be used as a how-to text for
planning and implementing revolutions (and conversely, to show colonial powers
why they are wasting their time trying to prevent this). What specifically they are
analysing is armed revolt, terrorism, violence, intimidation and the
countermeasures: assassination, torture, oppression of the population through
military force.

Pontecorvo and Solinas were heavily influenced by the writings of Frantz


Fanon, himself a key member of the FLN, although born in Martinique. Fanon
was a hugely influential writer who spoke for those oppressed by racism and
colonialism. His belief, coming from his experiences as a psychiatrist in Algeria,
was that colonialism had a drastic effect on the psychological well-being of the
colonised. His observations caused him to deduce that the only way to recover
was through violence directed at the coloniser. Colonialism . . . is violence in its
natural state, and it will only yield when confronted with greater violence... For
the native, life can only spring up again out of the rotting corpse of the settler 8
Even if the coloniser were to hand over power without violence, the colonised
needs violence to cleanse him from the shame. Violence is man recreating
himself: the native cures himself through force of arms. Pontecorvo is careful to
8

Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth, 1963

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

show in his film that the violence of the FLN is a reaction to the colonist violence
and that without the mobilisation of the masses it cannot succeed, but he leaves
the viewer in no doubt of the necessity for violence. The film likewise shows the
effectiveness of torture and other counter-insurgency measures in combating
terrorism, but again shows their ultimate failure when faced with mobilisation of
the people. As a film that celebrates the fight against colonial oppression, it has
been and will continue to give succour to those involved in the struggle. As a
large part of the world now sees the Western world, and particularly the USA, as
a nouveaux colonial power (Bush aides talk of their empire), many find a direct
correlation between events in the film and events in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An important question following from this, is: how accurate is the film
The Battle of Algiers and how does it relate to the events it purportedly
portrays? The question is relevant because many see it as being a factual record of
events. It has imposed itself on the historical narrative because its strong feeling
of verisimilitude is so visceral that it is irresistible to the mind of the viewer. But
it is a feature film, a work of fiction. Characters are invented, historical events are
twisted or left out to suit the story and increase tension. The filmmakers were
themselves open about this. For example, Solinas talks about his creation Colonel
Mathieu: Mathieu is not a realistic character in the traditional sense but rather
10

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

embodies a realistic idea: the rationality that supports a certain kind of society
and should not be ignored.9 In the final scene, where a female protester
repeatedly hurls herself at the police and is pushed back, Pontecorvo states:
Inspired by the face of this woman, I decided to end the film with a ballet to pay
homage to all struggles for liberation...I think its clear to everyone that an ending
where the police push the crowd back, but these women keep coming back, is not
necessarily realistic or the truth...What is important is that when the audience
sees this, it doesnt feel that there is an interruption in the stylistic continuity of
the film.

More serious is the accusation that the film is an excuse for terrorism and
whitewashes the actual behaviours of the FLN. As the filmmakers were aware,
the FLN was a small minority of idealists who murdered and intimidated their
way to a dominant role in Algerian society. Their first victims were Algerian
collaborators and people outside society, and their tortures were if anything
more grisly than those of the French. They were continually battling for power
among themselves, even at the height of the Battle of Algiers. But on the other
hand, the film also stays silent on the worst of the French atrocities. The French
Army may have killed up to one million Algerians, mostly non combatant
9

Franco Solinas, Gillo Pontecorvos Battle of Algiers, 1973

11

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

peasants. So the filmmakers could answer that by focusing on certain actions and
reactions on a limited scale, in a limited area, they told the essence of the story.
Their prime objective was to show that the Algerian people achieved their
independence through armed struggle and they wanted to encourage other
oppressed peoples to do the same. Historical veracity is not to be confused with
verisimilitude, although it is fair to say that the filmmakers believed their account
to be basically true and as much as they could fit into one film. From a historians
point of view, the film is that most dangerous thing: an emotional rollercoaster
that crashes through the historical complexities in its desire for a simple answer.
It is a complete distortion of the complexities of the situation in Algeria.

Since the rise of militant Islam (or the perception of such a rise), the film
has found itself once more in the spotlight. Counter-insurgency advocates did not
need the film to demonstrate the effectiveness of torture, but they will
acknowledge that the film presents a very good case for it, through the words of
le Colonel Mathieu. On the other hand, Pentagon officials have apparently been
shown the film accompanied by the following flyer: how to win a battle against
terrorism and lose the war of ideas...the French have a plan. It succeeds tactically,
but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.
Because of the fame of the film, and for no other reason, there is an ongoing
12

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

debate on whether the US actions in the Middle East mirror the French Algerian
war.

In summary, it can be said that the relevance today of the film lies in the
writing and filmmaking craft of Pontecorvo and Solinas. They researched their
subject so well, leaving no stone unturned. They created a poetic hymn to the
struggle of a people for freedom through an innovative script. Director
Pontecorvo used the techniques of cinema and cinema verit to create a visually
and aurally stunning masterpiece that cannot be watched without emotional
catharsis. It is a very successful film in aesthetic terms dealing with a big topic.
Freedom. And it has one hero: ordinary people. It is gripping and moving to
watch. So long as a film is watched, it is relevant.

13

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

References
Bignardi, Irene, The Making of The Battle of Algiers (Criterion Collection, 2004)
Brett, Michael. "Anglo-Saxon attitudes: the Algerian war of independence in
retrospect. " The Journal of African History. 35.n2 (May 1994)
Crowdus, Gary, Terrorism & Torture in Battle of Algiers in Cineaste, Vol 29, # 3
Crozier, Brian, The Morning After a study of independence (London: Methuen, 1962)
Evans, Martin & Phillips, John, Algeria, Anger of the Dispossessed (London, YUP, 2008)
Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press, 1963)
____ Black Skin/White Mask (New York: Grove Press, 1952)
Harries, Patrick, The Battle of Algiers: between fiction, memory and history in
Hoberman, J., Revolution Now (and Then)! in Currents
Vivian Bickford-Smith and Richard Mendelsohn eds., Black & White in Colour: African
History on Screen (Doublestory, Cape Town; James Currey, Oxford, 2006)
Matthews, Robert, Misguided wars: comparing the lost French cause in Algeria with the US
debacle in Iraq, in FRIDE Comment, September 2007
McConnell, Scott, Algeria, the Model in The American Conservative, April 23, 2007
OSullivan, Thaddeus, Images of Liberation, in Sight and Sound Vol 3 1999
Said, Edward, Culture & Imperialism (London: Chatto & Windus, 1993)
Said, Edward, The Dictatorship of Truth in Cineaste, Vol 25, # 2, 2000.Solinas, Pier Nico, ed.
Gillo Pontecorvo's "The Battle of Algiers." New York: Scribner, 1973
Stam, Robert & Spence, Louise, Colonialism, Racism and Representation

14

Battle of Algiers

Irina Maldea

Representation' in: Bill Nichols (Ed) Movies and Methods, Vol. 2. (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1985)
Sulzberger, C.L., The Test de Gaulle and Algeria (London: Rupert Hart Davies, 1962)

Filmography
Pepe le Moko (Julien Duvivier, France, 1937)
Black Orpheus (Marcel Camus, France, 1959)
Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, UK, 1966)
Zulu (Cy Endfield, UK, 1964)
Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, Italy/Algeria, 1966)
Aguirre, The Wrath of God (Werner Herzog, Germany, 1972)
The Man Who Would Be King (John Huston, US, 1975)
The Year of Living Dangerously (Peter Weir, US, 1982)
Gandhi (Richard Attenborough, US/UK, 1982)
Missing (Costa-Gavras, US, 1982)
Under Fire (Roger Spottiswoode, US, 1983)
The Killing Fields (Roland Joffe, UK/US, 1984)
Salvador (Oliver Stone, US, 1985)
The Mission (Roland Joffe, UK/US, 1986)
Cry Freedom (Richard Attenborough, UK/US, 1987)
Indochine (Regis Wargnier, France, 1991)
Carlas Song (Ken Loach, UK, 1996)
Three Kings (David O Russell, US, 1999)
Black Hawk Down (Ridley Scott, US, 2001)
*City of God (Fernando Meirelles, Brazil, 2002)
The Interpreter (Sydney Pollock, US, 2005)
Syriana (Stephen Gaghan, US, 2005)
Lord of War (Andrew Niccol, US, 2005)
The Constant Gardener (Fernando Meirelles, US, 2005)
Babel (Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, US/Mexico, 2006)
The Last King of Scotland (Kevin Macdonald, US/UK, 2006)
Blood Diamond (Edward Zwick, US, 2007)

15

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen