Customer Reviews

The Battle of Algiers (The Criterion Collection)

5 star:		(100)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This film was released in the late sixties at the same time the U.S. was getting involved with Vietnam and the similarities are obvious. This is an emotional film which should be seen by all people(except young children). It's use of black and white film, documentary style look, non-professional actors, music, and realism make this a legendary film experience. It starts off with Ali "La Pointe" joining the freedom fighters against French colonial rule. Both sides start bombing each other and then France sends in its army to squash the rebellion. The films violence is harsh but necessary. The torture scenes were removed from some european prints but is intact in this video. This is the type of film that should be shown in highschool and college classes, it is a part of history. The things that will linger with you after watching this excellent film is what the Algerians went through to get their independence, too many innocent people died in this struggle and the viewer can't but help feeling the tragedy of this type of struggle, the final thirty minutes of this film is heartrending. Watch it!

Battle of Algiers displays the occupied Algeria attempt to fight for freedom as they have been under French rule since the 1830's. A little background history would enlighten the audience as the invasion of North Africa, Land of the Berbers, by the French in the 1830's was instigated by 300 years of "pirating" ships in the Mediterranean and raids of southern Europe, which enslaved many Europeans that were brought to Africa. However, the French occupation brought great injustices to the Algerian people as they are treated as second class citizens. In addition, the French controlled the markets, resources, and jobs, which only further the lives of the French citizens.

The injustices forced upon the Algerians to live in poverty, unemployment, societal harassment, and unequal rights. Consequently, the Algerians begin to rise against the injustice, but the unequal military force drives the Algerian freedom fighters to exercise terrorism and other hideous acts of violence. This violence is fed by further aggression from the French police as it escalates the violence from both sides.

The story begins with a man being humanely treated after a rough bout of torture as persecuting soldiers blame the man for the excessive torture, as all he had to do was to tell them what they wanted to know. The tortured man has just revealed the whereabouts of a known terrorist and he is in emotional agony as he is aware of what he has just done. They dress the agonized man in a French camouflage uniform, and depart to capture the freedom fighter.

The freedom fighter, Ali La Pointe (Brahim Haggiag), hides in a secret room behind a wall with three others. When the French soldiers arrive they immediately seek the hidden room and they threaten to detonate a bomb that will destroy the building with them inside unless surrender. In this moment Ali flashbacks to how he ended up in this situation, which also conveys the importance of this moment in Algerian history.

Gillo Pontecorvo and Franco Solinas wrote a politically loaded story about the Algerian liberation in the 1960s that depicted the French resistance to let go of their colony in northern Africa. The film was released in a time when the world was divided in east, Warsaw Pact, and west, North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Communism was the foundation of the east while the west was built around capitalism. These two economical ideologies were in fact in constant confrontation in the Third World as the Western World resisted to let go of their colonies. The civil outcry for freedom in Algeria spread a wildfire of freedom seeking people throughout the Third World.

Pontecorvo and Solinas, which laid out the framework for the film, base the story on long and hard research in Algeria. The film is told with a strong democratic view, which is reinforced through Pontecorvo's direction, which used an Italian neorealistic approach. The cinematic experience that is brought to the audience is powerful, as it will shake the ground upon which the audience is resting their feet. Battle of Algiers also teaches the audience to appreciate freedom fighters such as the patient Gandhi with his nonviolent approach to reach freedom.

CRITERION - Once again the unique art house company releases a DVD worthy their meticulous attention as they provide a film with outstanding information in regards to the film with several discs and booklet. This is definitely worth a purchase for any film enthusiast that wants to learn a little bit besides enjoying the cinematic journey.

Almost every war movie stacks the deck. Enemy soldiers wear heavy boots, are unshaven, speak in accents and die in large numbers at the end. Heroes are played by actors who get $10 to $20 million a film; of course they get to go home and pick up their lives where they left off. Moral complexity? Not that you can notice --- war movies are like Westerns, just with better weapons.

Political movies are no better. The filmmaker --- if not the studio --- is on one "side" or other. The movie is a function of its point-of-view.

What if there were a political film without a hero? A war movie that doesn't take sides? Would that be a snooze?

"Battle of Algiers" is that film. It is not only one of the greatest movies about conflict, it is one of the best movies about political conflict. In fact, it is one of the greatest films ever made --- so great that no one has been able to steal from it.

"Battle of Algiers" is rooted in fact. It covers the period from 1954 to 1957, when Algeria was a colony of France and Algeria's National Liberation Front led uprisings in Algiers. French troops were sent in. The revolt was crushed.

But the movie is not the record of a victory or a defeat. It's about what makes people cry "Enough" and do something about it. It's about the cost of conflict and the loss of innocent life. And, in the end, it's about the tide of history --- in this case, about what may be the inevitable result of colonial occupation.

The movie looks like a documentary, shot in black-and-white by a cameraman who flinches when bombs go off.

In fact, there is not one frame of historical footage in the film.

As for actors, there are 150 amateurs in the film. The only professional is the French Colonel. The Algerian boy who plays Ali La Pointe was an illiterate street kid with no acting experience. Journalists and French soldiers were played by tourists.

As for taking sides, Pontecorvo doesn't. He doesn't even have a designated hero. He's following a "collective protagonist" on the Algerian side and the power of France --- personified by Colonel Mathieu, who was a Resistance fighter during World War II --- on the other.

For all that, "Battle of Algiers" is a hugely controversial film. When it was released in 1967, it was widely honored --- it won the Grand Prize at the Venice Film Festival and was nominated for three Academy Awards, including Best Screenplay (Gillo Pontecorvo and Franco Solinas), Best Director and Best Foreign Language Film. It was also banned for years in France after some theaters showing it were bombed. For a decade or so, it was shown --- with noisy projectors and sheets for screens --- in the Middle East as a training film for insurgents. And in 2003, the Directorate for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict at the Pentagon screened the film as a possible scenario of what American troops might face in Iraq.

The plot: Ali La Pointe is a petty criminal in jail for a minor offense. There he sees an execution of a fellow Algerian whose last words are "Allah is great! Long live Algeria!" When he's released, Ali is recruited by the National Liberation Front, which has developed an effective new tactic --- making war on French civilians.

This splits the viewer down the middle. It's very hard to cheer the French, but what can you say about people who put bombs in coffee shops and blow up high school kids? Does the end justify the means? If not, how do you effectively break the yoke of colonial oppression?

For all the action scenes --- and "Battle of Algiers" has some of the most astonishing street fights and scenes of "terrorism" ever filmed --- it's the conflict of ideas that's most stinging. Here's a news conference with a captured freedom fighter:

Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

Most of all, there is a compelling argument about the wisdom anbd effectiveness of torture. Here's the leader of the French Army in Algiers:

Col. Mathieu: The word "torture" doesn't appear in our orders. We've always spoken of interrogation as the only valid method in a police operation directed against unknown enemies. As for the NLF, they request that their members, in the event of capture, should maintain silence for twenty-four hours, and then they may talk. So, the organization has already had the time it needs to render any information useless. What type of interrogation should we choose, the one the courts use for a murder case, that drags on for months?... Should we remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all the necessary consequences.

The music is by Ennio Morricone, who scored Sergio Leone's "spaghetti westerns" --- better believe it will haunt and agitate you. And when you see what happens at the end of the film, you'll know why I tell you that your heart level will definitely elevate.

The film is in French. The subtitles are large and clear. But you don't need to hear the sound to understand the plot. Understanding the message is much more difficult. Indeed, forty years after "Battle of Algiers" was released, its issues are the biggest international challenge we face.

If you love movies, this is necessary viewing.

"The Battle of Algiers" is a film with an agenda. Italian director Gillo Pontecorvo plainly displays his Marxist, anti-colonial sympathies in this landmark of political cinema about the pivotal years in Algeria's struggle for independence from France. Style and suspense don't suffer for the politics, though. "The Battle of Algiers" was shot in beautiful neo-realist black-and-white, on location in Algiers' casbah. The film builds real suspense every time we wait for a bomb to explode, and we watch the fight for the loyalties of Algiers' Arab population with apprehension. The story is based on the memoirs of Saadi Yacef, a commander in Algeria's nationalist National Liberation Front's (FLN) guerilla forces in the 1950s, written while he was in prison in France. Yacef plays El-Hadi Jaffar in the film, who is essentially himself. Some details and persons have been changed, but "The Battle of Algiers" is basically true. To clarify, Algeria was not a French colony, protectorate, or mandate. It was legally part of France, which made it difficult for France to extricate itself. The film is in Arabic and French with optional English subtitles.

Ali La Pointe (Brahim Haggiag) is an illiterate petty criminal who takes up the FLN's cause in 1954 while serving time in prison with political prisoners. The FLN's goal is self-determination for Algerians, economic opportunity for all, and to be an arbiter of culture on the side. When La Pointe gets out of prison, he begins work for El-Hadi Jaffar (Saadi Yacef), an FLN chief in Algiers, who organizes a series of attacks on French police officers. The French react by sealing off the Arab districts and requiring residents to go through check points. But the FLN's attacks only escalate. In 1957, the French military arrives in force. Lieutenant Colonel Mathieu (Jean Martin) is given the responsibility of destroying the FLN's insurgency in Algiers. Recognizing the futility of the French effort up to that point, he determines that the only way to end the terrorist attacks is to eliminate the FLN chiefs. Mathieu unleashes Operation Champagne on the Casbah, arresting anyone suspected of FLN affiliation and torturing him until he reveals the names of others...until he has every name.

For political propaganda , "The Battle of Algiers" is surprisingly even-handed. Because the filmmakers were, themselves, advocates of political violence, "The Battle of Algiers" doesn't condemn violence. It condemns colonialism. As Saadi Yacef said in a recent interview, "There was violence on both sides. Torture on one side, and bombs on the other. In fact, it was a stalemate. History really won the war, in deciding for our independence." The film's bias is in what it left out. Director Gillo Pontecorvo ignores the plight and very existence of Algeria's "pieds-noirs" population, as the European "colonists" were called. The film would have us believe that the FLN had universal support among Algerians and that the Europeans were all decadent, racist oppressors. In fact, most of the pieds-noirs were poor or lower middle class and had been in Algeria for generations. Many lived among the Algerian Arabs. Only about 5% of the pieds-noirs were affluent. 90,000 Algerians served in the French army. When Algeria finally won its independence in 1962, over a million pieds-noirs and pro-French Algerians (10% of the nation's population) were forced to flee to France with only what they could carry, creating the largest refugee population in Europe since World War II. I mention this simply to point out that, whatever one thinks of the FLN's cause, their ideals were somewhat elastic. Saadi Yacef is now a Senator in Algeria, where, in the 1990s, the FLN suppressed the growing power of the majority fundamentalist Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in a bloody civil war. The fight for Algeria has always been about power, not populism.

The Pentagon famously screened "The Battle of Algiers" for some of its staff in 2003 at the suggestion of the Directorate for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. Invitations to the screening proclaimed "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas." The folks at the Pentagon were apparently trying to apply the lessons of French Algeria to the United States' involvement in Iraq. Hmm. The French-Algerian War does indeed remind me of the Iraqi invasion, but not the years depicted in this film. It reminds me of the first decade or so of the conflict, when the French wouldn't admit they were at war, much less that they had already lost the war. In retrospect, people may wonder if the Pentagon's discussion of "The Battle of Algiers" focused on the insurgents or on Colonel Mathieu's methods. Mathieu, who is a composite of several French officers, most notably Colonels Bigeard, Godard, and Trinquier, was expected to put down an uprising and then criticized for using torture to do it. He states flatly, "Should France stay in Algeria? If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequences." The trouble is that Mathieu's point was moot by that time. His methods allowed France to win a battle in a war it had already lost.

The DVD (Criterion Collection 2004 3-disc set): Disc 1 contains the film and a "Production Gallery", which is a slide show of on-set photos and movie posters with intertitles instead of captions, as well as 2 Theatrical Trailers: the original 1966 trailer (4 minutes) and a new trailer for the American re-release (2 minutes). Disc 2, entitled "Pontecorvo and the Film", includes 3 features: "Gillo Pontecarvo: The Dictatorship of Truth" (37 minutes) is a 1992 documentary narrated by critic Edward Said about Pontecorvo's films, career, and how his life informed his films. There are interviews with Pontecorvo and collaborators, and much time is spent analyzing why the director doesn't make movies anymore. "Marxist Poetry: The Making of The Battle of Algiers" (50 minutes) was produced in 2004 for inclusion on this DVD. It discusses making the film, from writing, through production, post-production and the film's reception, with interviews of Pontecorvo, his biographer Irene Bignardi, critics, and collaborators. In "Five Directors" (16 minutes), Julian Schnabel, Mira Nair, Spike Lee, Oliver Stone, and Stephen Soderbergh, in separate interviews, talk about the power of the film's style and themes. The documentaries are in Italian, French, and English with English subtitles.

Disc 3, "The Film and History", includes 4 features: "Remembering History" (1 hour, 8 min.) is a new documentary about the French-Algerian war, focusing on the battle of Algiers. It includes interviews with Saadi Yacef, Zohra Drif-Bitat, who was an FLN bomber, historians Dr. Hugh Roberts, Sir Alistaire Horne and Benjamin Stora, among others. Highly recommended to anyone seeking some background in the French-Algerian conflict. (English and French with English subtitles) "Etats-d'Armes" (29 min.) is part of a 2002 French documentary that includes interviews with several French military officers who carried out the controversial policies in Algeria, as well as those who opposed it. They frankly discuss the use of torture and their views of the FLN. Highly recommended. (French with English subtitles) In "A Case Study" (24 min.), Christopher Isham of ABC News leads a discussion with former National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism Richard Clarke and former State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Michael Sheelan in which they talk about terrorism and torture in the film and today. Interesting insight into the mindset of current American policies toward terrorism. "Return to Algiers" (1 hour) is a 1992 Italian television program in which director Gillo Pontecarvo returned to Algeria in an attempt to understand the social and political climate there following the FIS' success in elections. Includes an interview with President Mohamed Boudiaf, who was assassinated shortly thereafter. (Italian and Arabic with English Subtitles)

One of the reviews here (titled 'Black and White and Red All Over') says the movie is "unflattering in the extreme to the occupying French forces, depicting their brutality and determination without sentimentality". This is not true at all. The Colonel, Matthieu, who masterminds the paratroop operation, is always treated with respect by the scriptwriter and the leaders of the resistance whom he captures. Matthieu is ruthless but his reasoning is sound. He exposes the hypocrisy of French public opinion that wanted Algeria to stay French but had qualms about the methods needed to achieve this. He also points out that many of his paratroopers were anti-Nazi heroes of the resistance. If Pontecorvo had wanted to make Marxist propaganda, the Colonel would've been a cynical brute with Nazi sympathies. Instead Pontecorvo has made an extremely even-handed film. This is its great strength, and the reason why it still rings true 35 years later. One or two reviewers here have said it's the best political film ever made. I'm sure it is. The direction is breathtaking. The performances, mostly from non-actors, are always totally believable. And Pontecorvo shows a mastery of suspense that Hitchcock would surely have envied. I think it's better than this though. I believe it's a strong candidate for best film ever.

I'll review the actual film instead of rambling on about the politics. The Battle of Algiers is a ground-breaking, must-see film. If you have seen recent films like "Traffic" and "City of God (Cidade de Deus)", then you must see this film, for it pioneered the documentary-style utilized by those other films that puts the grit and gravel under your feet while you watch it. The film does not purport to be a documentary, but rather than the clean, sweeping, over-directed camera shots you may be used to, the camera is usually on the ground, following the characters from their point of view. The action is brutally realistic (for its time). And the film-maker is certainly sympathetic with the plight of the Algerians in their struggle against the French; you will be too, if you do not share the naive view that colonialism is somehow there to "protect" the colonized population. Nevertheless, the filmmaker shows some of the atrocities committed in the name of Algerian independence, such as cafe bombings that killed dozens of innocent people. He doesn't sugarcoat these scenes, and he leaves it up to the audience to decide whether this kind of action can ever be justified (I certainly don't think so).

This film is even more relevent today, as another Arab nation undergoes colonization once again by the West. Watch this film, and you will understand a lot more about the contemporary situation in the Middle East.

This is a moving and legendary film that all people should see. It first came out in the mid-sixties when the U.S. was getting involved with Vietnam and the similarities are obvious. The Algerians want independence and the French government tries to suppress them. This film is very straightforward and realistic. It makes it plainly obvious that "no newsreel footage was used" which adds to the authenticity and power of the film. This is the type of film that should be seen in upper level high shool and college courses also because it ranks up there with films like schindler's list and is a piece of history. The film is very powerful and draws you into its drama like few films do-there is no happy ending even though the Algerians finally got their independence-too many people died and suffered and this film shows it very straightforwardly. The torture scene was taken out in a lot of theatrical prints but is intact in this video. Also, amazing performances, especially Ali la pointe, many of these actors were actually involved in the fight for independence and are non-professional actors yet they come across amazingly on the screen. Buy it, rent it, whatever, but you owe it yourself to see this extraordinary film!

I'm a good friend of Haskell Wexler, and edited his film, "Medium Cool," in 1968. This film came out the year before and was required viewing for all of us -- especially because of the way it made a scripted story look like a documentary. I loved the film back then but hadn't seen it again until last week. I admit I was a bit worried that it would appear dated and irrelevant.

Quite the contrary!

Given events on and since 9/11, Iraq, Madrid, London, Lebanon -- the West's global struggle against Islam -- this film is more important and relevant today than ever.

There is one sequence in particular in which three Arab women disguise themselves as Europeans in order to slip bombs past the French colonial checkpoints and plant them in locations where they will kill the maximum number of Europeans. I won't spoil the extraordinary suspense of this sequence by telling you whether or not they succeed. They are not suicide bombers, but as they place their deadly packages they look around at the people they are about to kill. It is simply one of the best pieces of pure cinema ever.

This film is a must see, not only as brilliant filmmaking with a riveting story, but also as a very clever, and obviously successful, piece of revisionist propaganda. Current events have made its message deeply ironic.

France seized Algiers from the Ottoman Empire in 1830, gradually expanding its presence in NW Africa. By 1954 more than 1 in 10 Algerians were of European descent (pieds-noirs), with 1/3 living in Algiers. Although France had granted full citizenship to Algerian Jews in 1870, few Moslems had it in 1954. An Algerian nativist organization, the MTLD, formed during WWII . An MTLD-led uprising in 1945 was brutally crushed by armed pieds-noirs, and a decade later a more violent nationalist organization, the FLN, splintered from the MTLD to pursue independance. In 1954, internal fighting between the MTLD and FLN resulted in assassinations of MTLD members in the 'native' section of Algiers, the Casbah, by FLN activists, two of whom were arrested by French authorities.

After being guillotined these men became martyrs for the FLN, which then stepped up its campaign of terrorism, both against its domestic political rivals and the French. This culminated in the abortive Philippeville uprising in October 1955 when appalling atrocities were committed against Euro-Algerian women and children. In August of the following year a titanic explosion occurred in a Casbah building reputed to contain an FLN bomb-making workshop. 80 Algerians living in the area were killed, and the FLN blamed the French. In January 1957 the FLN declared a ceasefire and general strike to demonstrate its political strength. This proved to be a disastrous tactical error when French paratroops under the command of General Jacques Massu isolated the Casbah and brutally rooted out the FLN network in Algiers.

Except for Philippeville, the events of the 2nd paragraph are covered by the film, which was made under the auspices of the post-colonial (FLN) Algerian government. Not surprisingly the movie is heavily slanted to the FLN's view of history, but the characters on both sides are interesting and sympathetically portrayed. This includes the main character, Ali La Pointe, who in real life was a former pimp and sadistic executioner for the Algiers FLN. The film presents an interesting consideration of counter-terror operations, including a sarcastic take on racial profiling!

It must be added that with the former FLN currently prosecuting a brutal counter-insurgency against election-winning Algerian Fundamentalists, an ironic light is cast on the film's message of respect by the counter-insurgency forces for the heroic insurgents!

Just for the record, the synopsis is incorrect in one area. There is no, repeat, NO, "real life" footage in the film. The fact that so many believe that actual documentary film was used in the film is a testament to its realism and power.