Throughout
Battle of Algiers, images of crowds
dominate the screen. Whether in the form of troops of soldiers or street mobs, groups of people tend to define the layout of
the film. At first glance, this pattern suggests a collective atmosphere, one
that projects the masses as the quintessential unit of revolutionary existence.
However, as the film progresses, various elements of cinematography suggest an
alternate view. Namely, the manipulation of value and composition lends an air
of isolation to the sequence of events. This repetitious evocation of separation,
simmering beneath the obvious crowd imagery, creates tension between the two alternatives.
In the end, this opposition begs the question: in the face of a revolution,
which alternative should people define themselves by?
Because
this film narrates the progression of a revolution, it consists in part of an
external study of the movement of groups. Masses of civilians drift through the
streets, French tourists drift through bars, and myriad faces emerge from
doorways and windows. The superficial effect of this is a population-level
perspective of the events at hand. However, from the very first moments of the
film, isolation also comes into play, chiefly through the influence of value
and composition. In the center of the screen, surrounded by darkness, is a
civilian illuminated by light. Though a group of soldiers surrounds him, he appears
quite solitary due to the effects of light/dark and his alignment in relation
to others. In this way, Pontecorvo suggests his existence as an individual
while also asserting his position among other people.
Many
more instances of individualism amid collectivism appear in the myriad
staircase scenes that appear throughout the film. Every few moments, viewers
are presented with snapshots of soldiers, civilians, and sometimes both as they
run up and down stairs, either towards us or away from us. In many cases, one
or two people stand out from the crowd despite its speed and its size. For
instance, the women in their long white clothing frequently contrast against the
darkly dressed policemen, another instance of value’s role in distinguishing
individuals. In another scene, a mob of children attacks a Frenchman on the
stairs, and he is isolated in the center, surrounded yet individualized. In
both instances, the presence of a staircase forms a compositional frame for the
people within—a place of crowding in and of itself, but also a visually
constricting lens to magnify those within.
One
final example of the tension between the group and the individual appears in
the myriad moments when a single face stands out from the crowd. Often, the composition
of the screen is shifted so that their face fills up most of the space,
emerging from the dark blur of the surrounding throng of people. Once again,
the notion of the individual seems to be struggling against the group mindset
already in place.
This
opposition, growing in strength over time, forces viewers to examine the positions
that people must take within this revolution. By juxtaposing crowds with solitariness
and suggesting the struggle between them, Pontecorvo indicates that the task of
orienting oneself is not black-and-white. Rather, civilians must strike a
balance. Though crowds already exist as a social structure, the inevitable emergence
of singular faces conveys the impossibility of neglecting oneself on the
individual level. Only then can one’s role in a group be determined and
evaluated.
DISCUSSION QUESTION:
According to Pontecorvo, does a successful revolution stem from
recognition of the individual or adherence to the collective masses? Is it
possible to do both, or do the two alternatives clash with each other?
I think that Emily brings up a really interesting and relevant point. I think Pontecorvo also illustrates this point at the end of the film when Ali and a few members of his family are all alone in their hiding spot, separate from the crowd outside. Once again, Pontecorvo juxtaposes the individual from the crowd. I believe that Pontecorvo is asserting that a successful revolution stems from adherence to the collective masses. The revolution did not succeed when a few individuals were masterminding the operation, but rather several years later when the masses joined together, or so it is how Pontecorvo presents it.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not entirely agree with Pontecorvo's viewpoint, I agree that the film portrays the revolution as stemming from the masses. When attempting to gain recognition from the UN, the "terrorists" plan a massive strike, which would theoretically gain them recognition from the UN once the UN saw their support demonstrated. This raises an interesting way of looking at the actions of the FNL: If they were a small group of a few dozen people, then their acts are clearly terrorist -- they attempt to exact adherence to their demands by way of public displays of violence, a textbook definition. However, as their numbers grow, regardless of whether their actions are still the same, they become the more respectable "revolutionaries". It is interesting to note the dynamic between what constitutes a revolutionary against a terrorist, and just how much popular support is required to make one into the other. As such, I would argue that while Pontecorvo makes the point that it is difficult for a revolution to succeed without central planning and rabble-rousing, it is ultimately the will of the masses that dictates success.
ReplyDeleteI think that Pontecorvo shows through Battle of Algiers, that there is strength in numbers. In the last scene of the movie, riots take place... and the Algerians finally get their independence. While the killings by the FLN, it's hard to tell if the majority of the Algerians support it or not. I think that power, or particularly a revolution, stems from adherence to social pressures. For example, when the women in the cafe looks around at all the citizens she is about to murder, it looks like she is second guessing her decision. However, at the same time it may be possible to be both. Each individual Algerian feels equally oppressed by the French, and even if they act as a group, they may each have their own individual resentments.
ReplyDelete