Violence in The Battle
of Algiers
The film The Battle of Algiers depicts a gruesome
struggle of the Algerian people against French colonialism. Lead by the
National Liberation Front, the Algerians resisted French rule, which was then met
by harsh French authority. This cyclical
pattern of violence perpetuated throughout the entirety of the Algerian
revolution because of the way in which the Algerians were acclimatized to
violence and the nature of violence itself. The Algerian’s response to French
rule directly refutes Gandhi’s proposition of passive resistance, giving
evidence to his warnings about what comes out of violence.
This film
conveys Algerian’s openness and acceptance to violence as an answer to their
problems. Members of the NLF especially abuse violence in their fight against
the French. The assassination of countless French policemen communicates the
NLF’s strategy as one of violence and murder. One NLF member even cries,
“murder all the bastards, then well have some peace!” These actions directly
reveals their belief that violence is the answer. Conversely, the French also
implement violence to deter the revolution. Once the NLF began their unarmed
strike, the French government began the process of inhumane interrogation of
all passive members. The French responded with violence in the search of a
solution. In this way, the French exacerbated the problem of violence in the
revolution and perpetuated the cycle. This never ending cycle encourages
violence as an answer.
In fact,
the Algerian people have become so used to violence as a solution that this
action no longer appears same negative effect on them. The film depicts
children harassing an old man as if it were play. The Algerian people have thus
acclimatized to the act of violence. This proves the social implications behind
a violent revolution. The violence used in politics manifests itself as a
social custom, making violence appropriate for any civilian. In return, this
creates an even more hostile environment for a community battling colonialism.
Violence
lies at the heart of the failure of the Algerian revolution and the French
resistance- both groups fail because they use violence in the search of peace,
a conflict that Gandhi heeds much warning of in the Hind Swaraj. Gandhi argues that by seeking peace through violence,
“your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a
noxious weed,” (Gandhi 79). The NLF therefore plants a noxious weed in their
attempt to find peace through violence. The French are also guilty of the same
charge, as they attempt to suppress the unrest through more terror. Gandhi criticizes
the tactics used by the NLF and the French government because they impose means
that do not match their ends. This is why the Algerian revolution was
unsuccessful and why the French were not able to maintain their hold on
Algeria- both groups used violence in the search of peace.
The film
closes with the Algerian civilians crying for their “freedom, pride, and
independence.” According to Gandhi’s logic, conflict arises because in their
pursuit of these freedoms, they are suppressing those of the French through
violence and terror. How can the Algerians properly mediate this conflict in
order for both groups to get what they want? Does the film make any suggestions
about an alternative tactic than the one of violence implemented by the
Algerians?
Eleanor, I'm afraid I disagree with your entire interpretation of this film. The Battle of Algiers does not condemn violence as a means of social change. It does not shy away from showing how violent both sides of the conflict were, but it does not condemn these actions in their entirety. While certain events, such as the bombing of civilian targets, the beating to death of the drunkard, and the torture of the FLN members are portrayed as negative through the use of the music and repeated clips of victims, other occasions such as the assassination of police officers are shown as neutral. It is important not to misunderstand the existence of violence to violence being negative. Ali le Point and the other leaders of the FLN use violence to successfully combat the French army and eventually inspire a mass insurrection, even after their deaths, while the French army successfully uses violence to discover and kill the FLN's executive council. In this way, both groups which use violence succeed. Even General Mathieu, who is arguably the villain of the film, is portrayed as using the means necessary to achieve his ends. When he pauses in the end before walking out of the building which is about the be blown up with the rebels inside, he pauses, exposing his humanity. However, he still carries out what needs to be done, as violence is what is necessary to achieve his ends. This is neither good nor bad, but simply the way things are.
ReplyDeleteps. Although I'm sure everyone already knows this, the Battle of Algiers is a movie based on the events of part of the Algerian revolution, not a complete history. Therefore any conclusions we draw here are only in regards to what the movie is portraying, not to the actual events of the revolution, which were obviously much more drawn out and complicated (for example, a coup overthrew the French government during the time-frame the movie takes place, but we never hear anything about it in the film).
I agree with Lachlan. Ellie, I agree that the film does not support the use of violence as a method for change, but instead shows that such methods were necessary. As Professor Morefield pointed out in her plenary, the tactics to maintain imperial control over India was different than those used in Algeria. Because British occupation in India was indirect, nonviolent methods were effective. However, as the film showed, the French were directly involved with the Algerian government, making nonviolent tactics ineffective. This was shown in the scenes of the strike. Although the Algerians stopped leaving the Casbah and working in an attempt at nonviolence, the French quickly arrested several of the strikers for involvment with the FLN.
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation of the film was that it didn't necessarily show an overall truth as to whether violence was a necessary means. I agree with everyone so far that the film shows that some of the violence, for example the bombing of the cafe, and the drive by shootings, and the French Army torturing of suspected rebels is all shown to be excessive and bad. I think that the documentary element of the film makes a lot of the violence seem neutral, as Lachlan said. However, I don't think that the movie shows that violence is necessary to achieve ends. Ellie makes great points about how destructive violence doesn't amount to desired ends. My interpretation of the film is that it shows that both sides thought that violence was necessary, but that there is no overall consensus of whether it is good or bad.
ReplyDelete