Blindspot 2019: The Battle of Algiers

Revolutions are rarely bloodless, in fact when they are it’s a notable occasion (think the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and German Revolution of 1989) but throughout history from the American Revolution to The Arab Spring violence has always been a major part of a civilian uprising. The reason for this is that violence is sometimes, seemingly, the only way to get governments to listen and even if there are instances where blood was not shed, these are special cases.

It’s a deplorable fact of life that political revolutions are bloody and the Algeria fight for independence was a particularly bloody one with almost 300,000 casualties. Gillo Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers makes the Algerian war for independence its centrepiece in this powerful story told in docu-drama style. 

Shot in black and white, and in documentary style, The Battle of Algiers is a raw and very real look at the brutal fighting that plagued the Algerian capital for seven years. Detailing the rebels' guerrilla warfare tactics in extensive detail The Battle Algiers works as a historical artifact as well as a gripping, brutal and violent film about the appalling violence during the fight for freedom and self-government of the Algerian people.

The Battle of Algiers isn’t a film that slams the rebels (or terrorists) or exclusively takes swipes at the French use of torture when extracting information about the members of NLA (the French don’t get out of this lightly). Whilst the actions of the NLA aren’t brushed over yet, it’s clear that the film is more sympathetic towards the rebels and this is made clear in the way the film lingers over the deaths of an Algerian family who were victims of a French bomb.

The film does undoubtedly sympathise with the rebels but it doesn’t hide from some of their more unforgivable crimes. A scene where a bomb is planted in a busy cafe highlights the young and innocent civilians that would fall victim to the war (the film doesn’t shy away from the brutal, systematic killings of French policeman either). Yet this doesn't feel like film that's made with the intention to be vilify the NLA's brutal tactics because of the casiting of Saadi Yacef which would make the film being anti NLA very unlikely.

What sits rather uncomfortably with the casting of Saadi Yacef is that feels the film it is providing too much of a service to the NLF (an organisation that is complicit in the killing of children). There’s a line, that when crossed, sympathising with the aims of a group that caused terror and committed murder for political goals is problematic and the casting of NLA leader is a step over that line. I mean, how different would it be for a film made about the IRA to cast an IRA leader in a major role?

The film’s politics is intellectually stimulating and in terms of filmmaking it is considered Gillo Pontecorvo’s finest achievement. Winner of the main prize the Venice film festival in 1966, the documentary style adds a level of unrivalled realism to proceedings (so much so that the American government watched it, in preparation for the invasion of Iraq, to avoid making the same mistakes as the French). The use of the hand-held camera during the riot sequences (something that must have inspired Paul Grenngrass) is intense and gets you right in the heart of the action. Ennio Morricone's marching beat soundtrack gets one pumped, but tense, for the the battles ahead.

.

The film recognises the use or even the necessity of political violence to achieve ones aims, but it also makes note that this is merely a dramatic way to get discussions started on the matter at hand. Eventually, the civilian population would need to rise up and play their role in the revolution by simple civil disobedience. The Battle of Algiers is a film that retains its powerful and shocking nature. Controversial on its release it still has the strength to generate discussion about the ethics of warfare fifty years later without feeling dated.