In Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers, the film displays
the different sides of the war between the Algerians and the French.
Particularly, the participants of this war represent different groups of people
on both sides. The French rely upon their military and government to take
action and retaliate against the revolting Algerians. However, the Algerians do
not have the same advance military support, but rely upon the community, which first
begins with the FLN’s acts of violence, to an overall collective community that
fought for their nation. The FLN depended upon the willingness of unlikely
supporters such as the women and children to participate in the successful,
violence acts implemented against French. This became the starting point to
gain the entire community of Algerians to fight for their independence. Yet,
the French do not involve the entire community of their people to implement
their violent acts for their cause. The violence acted on both sides interestingly established unity for the Algerians and division for the French.
The narrator at the beginning of
the film states, “Algerians, it is your duty to save your country and restore
its liberty.” During that scene, the camera focuses on several different kinds
of Algerian people such as: children, women, and men. The nation rests the
responsibility in its people to take back their nation from the French. If the
Algerians want their freedom from the French, they must do it in unity and at
all costs. With this mindset in the Algerian people, they use every possible
source in order to rebel against the French colonialism. The bombing of the Casbah
initiates the violent bombing attacks of the French public places because the
participants in the retaliation display the same kind of people, which the
bombing of the Casbah affected. The revolution directly links with the
communities of Algeria; the French colonialism does not rely upon the community
of the French. During the bombing of the bar, the French dance place over heard
it and did not even consider it as an attack. Their community does not focus upon
the war going on, but they become caught up in it. At the same time, the war
directly and always involves Algerian community. Their unity within these
violent acts allows for the growth of their unity to fight for their
independence. In discussion with Ali la Pointe, Ben M’hidi states, “Acts of
violence don’t win wars. Neither wars nor revolutions. Terrorism is useful as a
start. But then, the people themselves must act.” In other words, the FLN
initiated the revolution with their violent acts, but in order, it to succeed
it needs the entirety of the nation. In order to spark unity within the
Algerian people, the little boy, an unlikely leader, over the speaker declares,
“Algerians! Brothers! Take heart! The FLN tells you not to be afraid. Don’t
worry, we’re winning. The FLN is on your side,” which caused the reaction from
the entire community proclaiming, “Long live Algeria.”
Violence became the initiator, the
spark, to obtain the unity of the nation, even though it seems it would cause
greater separation among the community. The direct involvement of the community
of Algerians became the greatest source of their success. They understood the
consequences that came with participating in the war. Colonel Mathieu describes
this relation for the French and states, “Should France stay in Algeria? If
your answer is still yes, then you must accept the consequences.” He completely
understood that in order to win there would be many innocent people lost. He
asks the press and thus the French people whether they were willing to deal with
the consequences of this war, just as the Algerians were. The Algerian’s
diligence in the horrific and violent acts allowed for their unity to fight the
French colonialism. Since the regular French people did not have same participation
in the war, the consequences became unworthy and irrelevant, which lead to the
final success of the Algerian nation.
Discussion Questions: Violence
becomes the starting point for the unity of the people to defend their nation
and strive for independence. What do you think Gandhi would say about FLN’s
ideas?
What filmic aspects did you find to
especially portray the direct relationship of the Algerians to the war and less
of the French people with the war? Or rather what scene do you think portrays
this differentiation best?
Liezel, you bring up an interesting contrast between the involvement of the French and Algerian communities as a whole. I think the difference stems from the different way each group is affected by the conflict. For the Algerians, this war injects itself into every aspect of their lives. This is illustrated through the closing of the Casbah from the rest of the city, but for the vast majority of the French citizens, this war does not impact their lives a great deal. As a result, the French community doesn't have to be as invested as the Algerians. To briefly address your question, I think the bombing scenes best address this contrast. The French don't think that the noise is a bombing because these sort of attacks are not an expected part of their daily lives.
ReplyDeleteLiezel, I think the idea of the difference between French and Algerian communities relation to the uprising is fascinating. In regards to your question, I believe Gandhi would have approved of the Algerians' goals, but not their methods. Gandhi values non-violence because he does not believe violence is an effective measure. He urges patience and the use of non-violent methods to completely drive out the imperial culture. I think he would be concerned the culture of violence, of valuing freedom over human life that the FLN advocates will last beyond French rule, leading to unnecessary bloodshed.
ReplyDeleteLiezel, you bring up Colonel Mathieu and how "He asks the press and thus the French people whether they were willing to deal with the consequences of this war, just as the Algerians were." Going off of this I think it is interesting how much of a disconnect this shows between the French people and the war going on between the French military and the people in the Casbah. Liezel talks about how the fight for the Algerians was all encompassing. I think that the talk by Colonel Mathieu sort of points out how the French people are disconnected from the actual fight and are really only upset because of the violence. On the other hand, the many more Algerians are invested in the fight because they have culture, self rule, rights and more that all depend on the outcome. Colonel Mathieu is aware of the fact the the Algerians are in the fight as a nation of peoples whereas he must entreat his own people, the French, to ask for their absolute support.
ReplyDeleteThough I completely agree with you, Josh, that Gandhi would urge them not to use violence, I would mention, in the FLN's defense, that they were using terrorism and violence as a starting point, and moved comparatively quickly to peaceful striking. While the more hotheaded members of the revolution (such as Ali) are willing to entertain violence as the means of achieving freedom, the brains and the bulk of the authority of the revolt clearly lie with Jaffar and Ben M'Hidi, both of whom endorse the peaceful striking. As such, there is hope for the FLN once they manage to move past their initial violence.
ReplyDelete