While the film Battle
of Algiers is a recreation of the Algerian fight for independence from the
French imperial power, several elements of the film suggest that it is a documentary
filmed at the time of the conflict. The seemingly omniscient narrator and the changing
perspective of the filming make the film an experience similar to watching a documentary.
This post will argue that the influence
of Prontecorvo’s stylistic choices validate the film’s perspective that the use
of violence by either side is regrettable because of the physical and emotional
damage it causes.
In several instances, the film jumps from one point in
time to another. When this occurs, the date is made visible on the screen, and
a narrator provides context for the scene that is about to occur by explaining
what happened during the time that was skipped over. By choosing to have a narrator explain what
has happened instead of the characters, the footage seems more realistic. Since
it is unlikely that revolutionaries in the midst of a conflict would take the
time to summarize their past actions, the influence of the narrator renders us
at the time of the conflict, making it seem as though the footage shown is
directly from the conflict and has only been shortened but not altered. The
narrator also introduces major characters upon their first appearance. For
example, when Colonel Mathieu first appears the narrator provides biographical
information that explains his characterization. Similar to the narration,
inserting the biographical information in this way creates the impression that
this information cannot be gained in another way because of rapidly escalating
conflict. In addition, the inclusion of this information causes the assumption
that the surrounding events are also factual.
Changing filming perspectives also amplify the effect of
the narrators influence. Although there are some major characters that the film
focuses on, such as Jafar, Ali, and Mathieu, the perspectives of several
others are also emphasized. A striking example of this occurs prior to the
bombings carried out by the three women. The film switches between the three
perspectives of the women who are depositing the bombs and the activities of
the people who are about to fall victim to the bombings. The aftermath of the
bombing of the European quarter is similar to what is shown after the bombing
of the Arab quarter, causing the film to appear sympathetic to civilians on
both sides who have been caught up in the battle. Even Mathieu, who is arguably
the villain in this story, is characterized as a soldier who is simply carrying
out his orders. Though his methods are extremely violent, he makes an effort to
spare the lives of some women and children.
Stylistic choices, such as those demonstrated above, are
attempts to make the film seem less dramatized and as a result, make the film
more believable. These techniques validate the film’s perspective by making it appear
to be fact. This causes the film’s claim about the violent tactics used during
the war to seem credible.
Discussion Questions:
Despite the techniques
used above, the Algerian revolutionaries remain the heroes of this retelling.
What subtleties contribute to this understanding? How do they extend our
understanding of the thematic content of the film?
Kyra's discussion questions hit on the very interesting debate of why the viewer sympathizes with the Algerian revolutionaries due to cinematic choices. Although this is a very difficult question, I would argue that the film places more emphasis on the emotions of the Algerians rather than that of the French, which establishes the viewer's sympathy. The film does this through many closeups of Algerian's faces, depicting their raw and vulnerable emotions. The French are always shown from farther away, giving these characters a detached and harsh feel. Since the viewer is exposed to the vulnerability of the Algerians, they subconsciously sympathize with this group instead of the French.
ReplyDeleteGoing off what Ellie said, another possible reason the viewer sympathizes with the Algerians lies in the fact that the French attacks seem much more personal than the Algerians'. For example, there is the part when the French soldier violates the religion and the dignity of a Muslim woman by trying to lift her hijab. Moreover, the viewer feels a very specific sense of sorrow for the elderly Algerian man with the sandwich who gets heckled by French people from their windows. This stands in contrast to the attacks that the Algerians execute, such as the cafe bombing, where we see little more than dust and some unidentified bodies.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason that might lead to sympathizing with the Algerians as resisting the French can be found in the music. Whenever the French soldiers appear, the music instantly becomes military and edgy, giving the impression of an urge to cause harm to the Algerians in the film, an impression which is almost always shortly confirmed. The French soldiers, further, are depicted only (as Ellie points out) at a distance and in matching uniforms -- the only person from their side which we get to meet is Colonel Matthieu, who quickly shows himself to match his ruthless appearance. Although he demonstrates a growing appearance of humanity as the film progresses, his habit of wearing sunglasses that cover his eyes and his acceptance of violence tarnish his image in the eyes of the viewer. The Algerian revolutionaries are shown instead with their families and with all the interactions that they carry out on a daily basis, and we are introduced to their emotions, thoughts, and experiences, giving them a more humane appearance in our minds.
ReplyDeleteKyra's underlining reasoning for the documentary style is really good! The different perspectives provide a great narrative of the opposing sides, even though the favored ends up to be the Algerian revolutionaries. During many of the scenes of public conflict between the two sides, the camera focuses on the whole of the area-even when only individuals were affected such as the several policeman killed. I found that camera aspect of the film played some role in portraying the documentary style. For the discussion questions, to play off the excellent points made by Ellie and Emily, I do agree that the film seems to portray more of the emotional and human sides of the Algerian revolutionaries. Especially the first bombing, the film hits a very low and poignant moment, where several Algerian children were killed in the bombing. Most of these children looked poor, while the bombing of the cafes, the men and women were happy and enjoying a good time. The film plays off these aspects to favor the Algerians, even though the documentary style gives it both perspectives. I did notice when Mathieu was interviewed he stated, "We are soldiers. Our duty is to win." Though the French were not favored, I think the film allowed for another side that could be recognized as good for the French. This side would be of duty and honor to their country because France's people wanted to be in Algeria. The soldiers merely follow this and set their goal to win even through all the consequences.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Liezel. The film made a point of showing the humanity and inhumanity on both sides. It showed the killing of innocent Algerians by the French and vice versa. It also showed people attempting to help others. The French and Algerians both immediately rush into the bombed buildings and attempt to find survivors. The film is more powerful because it shows both sides in sympathetic and negative light. It does not take a one sided view of the Algerians even if in the end the film finds their cause more sympathetic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Josh and Liezel have said about the sympathies shown on both sides of the conflict. At the very beginning of the movie, I found myself sympathizing with the Algerian rebels. Near the beginning, the movie seemed more personal and more like a typical action movie. At some point, the movie seemed to change into more of a documentary style, and at that point, I found it hard to sympathize with the rebels. While this movie definitely portrays the French Army as bad, I think over all it shows the violence of the entire scenario. In the scene where the women leaves her purse in the cafe, before the bomb detonates, the camera shows a clip of every French Civilian's face. I think this scene is there to show that what the Algerian rebels are doing is not by any means without controversy.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that at the beginning you definitely are drawn to notice as a viewer what effect certain instances have on the Algerians. For instance during the execution the shot we get is that of Ali's eyes, and as he is running away from his table a bit later a French boy trips him for no apparent reason. However, near the end it is evident that some emotional pull comes from the French people as well. I think Anker brought up a good point with the women depositing the bombs. Even though, some of it is portrayed as Kyra says further away, even the rubble of the teen dancehall can cause a feeling of sympathy for the teenagers or the baby in the cafe. I think Pontecorvo was remarking on how periods of revolution can be hard for everyone.
ReplyDelete