|
In 1966, the film, "The Battle of Algiers", had become one of the
most important movies of the 20th century, though no one really knew
it then. In the simplest terms, it is a drama portraying the Arabic
uprising in the late 1950s against the French who occupied and colonized
Algeria. But, more importantly, the techniques used by the terrorists
would later turn out to be the blue-print for all Arab uprisings to come,
including those in use today. In fact, it has been considered required
viewing for anyone on both sides of the terrorist struggle, from the
CIA down to the suicide bombers. Making a film with such balance is
interesting to be sure, but that it maps so well to today's environment
is eerie indeed. Lastly, the filmmaking itself uses techniques that
would not be seen again for years to come. For all these aspects, the
movie has become a cornerstone for vastly different reasons and contexts.
The plot essentially chronicles the uprising, suppression, and
re-emergence of the Arabic battle for independence in Algeria. A small
group of four men virtually single-handedly initiated, escalated and
almost beat back the entire French infrastructure in the city of Algiers
during the mid-1950s. The main characters of the film were ironically the
very individuals who were involved in the real-life events, making the
drama almost more documentary-like than what may have been intended. In
today's terms, it would be as though Yassir Arafat and Ariel Sharon had
made a peace deal, and joined together a decade later to make a film
about what they were doing behind the scenes.
Because the film was shot in the 1960s, its black and white grainy look
and at-times simplistic and almost robotic acting (by today's standards)
tend to lessen the overall dramatic effect for anyone desensitized
to such visuals by movies and television today. Yet, the technique of
filming drama in a documentary style was almost unheard of in its day,
and is still profoundly effective in this context. What's more, the use
of counterpoint by juxtaposing violence and classical music wouldn't
have been seen again till "The Godfather" almost eight years later. The
impact remains strong, nonetheless, because of the gripping context in
which these events take place.
Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the movie is the amazingly
strong parallels between the events of the day and those of today's
conflicts. One can not only draw the parallels in their actions, but there
seems to be an odd appreciation for the duality of causes. Terrorism,
for whatever you might think of it, is the most effective way for a small
group of people to effect change upon broader society. But, even as the
terrorists in the movie point out: it's only objective is to get to the
negotiating table. Taken further, it loses its purpose. This is not yet a
lesson learned by terrorists of today, who don't even want to negotiate;
their acts seem to be the end in itself. Another profound difference
between the terrorists of Algeria and those of the modern world: The
French were outsiders who colonized a foreign country, so the terrorists
had a simply-stated objective: go home. Today's terrorists have far
more complex - not to mention long - lists of demands that often meander
and contradict themselves.
The Battle of Algiers is playing only for a week at the Castro Theater,
starting February 13, and I highly recommend it for anyone with a modicum
of interest in placing today's terrorist agendas into proper historical
context. The movie is also a must-see for anyone with an interest in
film history or filmmaking itself.
You can find this movie on the internet database here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/
You can listen to my audio review by clicking on the sound icon:
|
|
