The Battle of Algiers (1966)

Directed by: Gillo Pontecorvo
Starring: Brahim Hadjadj

Its hard to have a true appreciation for a movie like The Battle of Algiers. Its a period piece about a conflict I know nothing about so right from the get go, I need to spend most of my time learning what exactly is going on. What made me enjoy this movie so much is that this was easy to do.

I recently saw a highly acclaimed film called Army of Shadows which was about exactly what the title suggests but it too me nearly two thirds of the movie to figure that out. In the Battle of Algiers, there are not very many subtleties. It worries less about being perfectly specific and accurate (accurate... for all I know it could be spot on, but either way, its not important) than it does about creating the conflict and bring the audience into it.

France's hold over Europe and surrounding regions during the mid 20th century isn't something I'm very familiar with but it is something well documented in films. What these films so often do is portray France as not necessarily the enemy, but as the instigator. No one ever seems to have a choice but to fight back, thus regardless of how little we know, we're given our clear cut protagonist. The Battle of Algiers begins this way, but as the films progresses, it toys with our emotions and our loyalties.

Failing to choose a side is a dangerous move for a film to make, especially a narrative. While its important to give an audience its due credit, and audience goes to be entertained, not necessarily torn apart. The Battle of Algiers does this well because of who the aggressors and the victims are. Innocent people are harmed but for the sake of a just cause. The Algerian people seem to have a rightful cause for their aggression, but all the French are doing is fighting back in order to prevent further deaths of innocent people. How does one choose a side in that argument? The film makes this work because of the way it shows the emotions of all the characters. No one is one dimensional thus everyone has a purpose that can be understood if not condoned.

Something I found particularly fascinating about the film, something I've never really experienced before was the action of this film engaging me to the point where I often ignored the subtitles. It wasn't that the action was "action packed"... I mean the action in the truest sense of film language. Everything that appeared on screen told the story. It was a fine example of showing us the story instead of telling it to us. Its exciting having that in a movie since foreign films often work in the opposite way... that is one needs to pay such close attention to the subtitles that they miss action.

I think The Battle of Algiers is a great example of how a complex story can be told very simply. I didn't have to spend a lot of time learning the complexities. I could spend time learning the characters and their motives and I believe its important to have deep complex characters as opposed to a deep, complex story... at least in the case of this film.

****