A Realistic Insight into Terrorism: The Battle of Algiers

The Battle of Algiers is a matter-of-fact presentation of something which probably has as much relevance today than it did back in 1965 when it was made -- although perhaps for different reasons now. It’s true the event -- a war between Algerian natives and the French ruling power -- is buried far into history. And if it weren’t for September 11th, I’m sure a lot of people wouldn’t be thinking too much about the kinds of stuff which happens in this film. As with the terrorist attacks in the U.S, the situations here involve Muslims who resort to terrorism for what they see as wrongs against them, although on the surface, the Muslims in this film might have more of a reason to resort to violence.

Now, I know little about this particular situation, other than the fact Algeria, a country in Northern Africa, was once upon a time possessed by France. I took a scant look at some of the extras on the 3-DVD Criterion set, and from what I recall, the big problem was that, even though Algeria was technically a province, as opposed to a mere territory, of France, the laws of France did not seem to apply, as the white Europeans who lived in Algeria had all the rights of French citizens, while the Arabs were 2nd class citizens. No doubt decades of oppression compelled some folks to take some rash measures.

As the movie begins, the last high-ranking member of the liberation front, along with three of his supporters (which include a woman and child) are holed up behind a wall inside someone’s house as the French army tells them there’s no escape. Then we flash back a number of years into the past, and see how the liberation front came to be a powerful force which eventually made Algeria an independent country.

These guys didn’t become a powerful force by playing nice. See if any of these things sound familiar: in hopes of purifying the Arab people, the liberation front wants to ban all the vices brought on by the imperial West (such as drink, drugs, prostitution, etc.), -- those who don’t want to follow this new purification will simply pay the price (kids are seeing gleefully kicking the crap out of a wino, and one of the main characters guns down a pimp without a second thought). Three Arab women dress up in European clothes (so they can easily get through the French army checkpoints) so they can plant bombs in places frequented by the French residents of Algeria. People from the group kill so many police officers on the street that it almost became a running gag for me. All sorts of people from all walks of life and of all ages are involved in playing a role in this terrorism.

I’m sure all of these things and more have been replayed so many times in places all over the Middle East.

The film depicts the terrorist groups’ activities, and also the French army and police force’s response. The army has a tough job to do, because, in a scenario no doubt similar to Al Queda and other groups, the liberation front is designed in such a way where many of its own members don’t know each other -- a person introduced to the group only knows three people; the person who hired him, and the two people who he himself then hires. Basically, the group is comprised of little cells -- the colonel of the army compares this to a tapeworm, which can still survive if the parts are cut off, as long as the head survives. So the army has to get at the head, and that’s what they try to do for the rest of the film, although it’s not that easy, as attacks and other killings still occur.

Most viewers will also find the army’s tactics and statements familiar, especially the expressed belief that only a small minority of Arabs are terrorists, and that this is not an action against the entire race. But even with that statement, the army’s actions are such that every Arab is ultimately a potential suspect -- or at least a possible source for information.

The result is that nobody from either side will trust each other. There is not a single shred of potential for either side to actually come to terms with each other. These are two groups who are never destined to meet, at least according to this film.

My local newspaper, of all places, printed a review (from a Canadian Press source, I think) only a few weeks ago which came up with an intriguing analogy for those who want to understand the nature of this film. It said the best comparison would be if a film were made now about the war on terrorism, with Osama Bin Laden himself in the cast. This is because, apparently, one of the actual terrorists plays one of the high-ranking militants here! He even co-produced the damn film! What’s up with that?

To hire an actual terrorist to perform in your film -- and to produce it with you --does make your motives a little suspect, doesn’t it? It’s true the film depicts everything in a “matter-of-fact” way -- it’s compelling in exactly the same way a good docudrama would be. The footage is raw; the re-creations of all the activities are pretty strong stuff. But I somehow have the sneaking suspicion the filmmakers, if forced to choose sides, would go with the Islamic terrorists before they’d go with the oppressive French colonists. It’s not much of a choice, really -- the colonists aren’t exactly fine, upstanding democratic people. But considering how the tactics here are hauntingly similar to stuff you’ve heard about in Iraq, Israel and Palestine today, I wonder how many viewers would feel sympathetic towards the Algerians?

I know I’m not one of those sympathetic viewers.

It’s difficult to be sympathetic to people who blow up innocent people in cafes and airports. The most appalling sequence here is when the three women decide to set bombs -- we see that all these people are just ordinary people blissfully unaware that they are going to die horribly. Men, women, young adults, even a little child licking an ice-cream cone. It is admirable that the filmmakers, whatever side they’re on, don’t whitewash the violence the liberation front commit..... as much as they don’t whitewash the fact the French use torture and other tactics.

However, the French are merely supporting characters. I think we’re supposed to identify with the Algerians. Somehow, I doubt too many viewers post-September 11th would want to.

The funny thing is that the director is Italian, and was probably one of those “left-wing” (whatever that is) people who would , out of reflex, feel sympathy for the underdog and feel revulsion for the powers that be. He can say, oh, I feel so sorry for all the innocent people killed by the French (which he should) and I’m so happy now the Algerians finally got their independence (well, he probably should be happy for that as well) while not dwelling a whole lot into the lives of the innocent people, including little children eating their ice cream, who die simply because they are French. I think the only thing I got out of the French people in this film is the fact quite a few of them call the Algerians “dirty Arabs.”

He probably thought it was so cool to actually hire one of the terrorists as an actor, and to tell “his” story (this film was only made a few years after the real events happened).

How does the terrorist-turned-actor sleep at night knowing he was partially responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people? How does the director sleep at night knowing he hired these people so he could make a provocative film and win lots and lots of awards?

Man, forget that. How does Criterion sleep at night when they bring back people involved in the conflict, including a woman who was the inspiration for one of the three women who bombed the cafes in this movie, for a nice little retrospective on one of the DVD’s?

How will I sleep at night, having just parted money and possibly indirectly contributed to the notion there’s something worthwhile in terrorizing people to get your way, for good or for ill?

Naturally then, of course, this film is a classic.