As relevant today as when first created

Rating: 9/10 (6 June 2010)

The Battle of Algiers is a story of perspective, as relevant today as it was when first made, it tells the tale of the thin line between the definition of a terrorist and a martyr. There can in the end never be any sort of justification for the killing of an innocent person regardless of the cause this film however does not immediately write these actions off as malicious but rather asks the watcher to look further into the issue and examine why this event took place to begin with. Unlike just about every film made today there is no side the film makers choose; the events are simply portrayed with striking detail and we the audience must make our judgments of whom is right and who is wrong.
The reason why this film leaves such an impression at least to me is because we know event such as Colonel Mathieu "interrogations," in which the information is forcefully taken by whatever mean necessary have happened, still currently happen, and will continue to happen. Mathieu himself rationalizes this in his mission statement to his troops claiming the terrorists or freedom fighters are told to keep quiet for 24 hours while the National Liberation Front changes the information the cell captured knew. Everyday it seems I read in the newspaper of deaths happening in occupied places where superpowers intervene where they should not have, or forces back by superpowers kill humanitarians trying to bring aid to a systematically incapacitated nation slowly dying because "terrorist" are aided there. We don't have to look far to see how thoroughly the lessons of our past are ignored, and the role of film is to comment, a solution is not needed the comment is where the power of the art lies.
Perspective is a powerful idea because it is like a fingerprint unique for everyone, and this film explores how polarized perspective can become when a national and religious identity is at stake. The French as colonizers see themselves as creators of structure for this society to function more efficiently with lots of bureaucracy as well as European technologies, and French cooking presumably? On the other hand the French only ask for a small portion (50% or more?) of the natural resources and land. Well there was no real chance to the native Algerians to decide what happens as the French forcefully colonized the land, people moved there and a more European way of life was establish to the relief of all except the vast majority of those who wanted nothing to do with Europe in the first place. Muslim culture which had dominated the region for thousands of years was forced behind barbed wire fences where soldiers with weapons monitored its dealings. Enter discontent which became deeply rooted within the people who once owned all the land not just a portion, and like all revolutions it starts slowly maybe with non violent means but far to often something changes and violence makes its tragic debut perhaps with officers being shot as they patrol, it starts to build as the occupiers botch operation after operation more and more innocent people start to die eventually each side trying to send a louder message. The French look at the Muslim people as terrorists and vice versa, the film does not choose it merely tells the story and explores where all the anger comes from, it does not glorify the cause nor does it vilify. This film offers un-canny insight on ways to avoid the disaster of imperialism and occupation we continue to find ourselves in, maybe one day we will choose to listen.