A Historical Masterpiece of Documentary-style Realism ...

Rating: 10/10 (14 February 2011)

Some movies affect your heart in their depiction of the darkest sides of human nature. Some others challenge your perception of what is right or wrong. And some movies penetrate your senses, elevating the cinematic enjoyment to an extraordinary level. "The Battle of Algiers", Gillo Pontecorvo's masterpiece of documentary-style realism, combines these three elements, turning a war movie with unknown actors and minimal dialogs into a unique cinematic experience.
"The Battle of Algiers" is a fictional documentary about one of the most controversial periods of French history, during the decolonization era, when Algeria was a 130-year-old department of the French territory. But, as powerfully illustrated in the first frames, there was the city and there was the casbah. The film opens with a powerful symbol, the dorsal spine of its narrative, the cultural gap: a key element in our understanding of the roots of terrorism in one side and torture in another one, our hearts freed from any bias.
Pontecorvo conveys his message by injecting an implacable logic in the script. When the 'hero' Ali La Pointe, a brave hot-headed fighter, joins the NLF, his first mission is to shoot a French policeman with an empty gun. Later, Jafar, his mentor explains that it was the only way to prove he wasn't a spy; French could have sacrificed an Algerian to infiltrate a spy but not one of them. The same faultless logic is illustrated by the other main character, Colonel Mathieu, whose impeccable speech delivery and sunglasses are one of the most iconic elements of the film. Mathieu teaches us (through his soldiers) how the guerrilla's triangular structure means that each member knows only three persons, his leader and his two subordinates. "To know them means to eliminate them", which implies the tactical use of police methods even if it flirts sometimes with illegality. But since the prisoners must maintain silence for one day to let time to the organization "to render any information useless", we understand that one can't make omelet without breaking a few eggs.
The same logic applies to terrorism: in the movie's most chilling part, we realize the efficiency of the NLF methods in a masterstroke of editing. We follow three women not visibly accustomed to wear occidental clothes or to cut their long hair, a precious symbol of beauty for Arabic women. They dutifully make themselves look pretty and occidental enough to fool the French guards who don't even search them. Each one leaves a bomb hidden in her basket in a public place. Besides the editing which creates one of the greatest cinematic montages, the directing prevents the film from any desensitizing effect of violence. Pontecorvo shows us the faces of the soon-to-be victims, laughing, chatting, a kid licking an ice-cream and young people dancing, fresh and smiling faces making ours particularly uneasy. Even the woman who planted the bomb avoids looking straight before leaving not to let an ounce of guilt weighing her heart down. But I was devoured by the guilt of being "part of" the operation, when the first explosion occurred in a devastating realism and the boys and girls went out of the dance-club, I just wanted to shout them not to go back inside  The bombing sequence is the part of the film that definitely contradicts any accusation of bias. But to keep the vital dosage of impartiality, the interview of the NLF member Ben H'midi indirectly explained (not justified) the use of terrorism with an ironic "Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets"
"The Battle of Algiers" shows the origins of acts we label as cruel with never putting them into perspective. When the only rule is to win, the ends justify the means: "Should we remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all the necessary consequences." says Mathieu. Even the civilians are killed by the NLF, through terrorism or heartless drive-by shootings. But the film doesn't exalt these acts nor does it dehumanize the authors: Mathieu respects Ben H'midi's patriotism and even Jafar admits it'll take more than terrorism to mobilize the population. Still, it's no surprise the film has been screened in the Pentagon during the Iraq War or Israel during the Intifada. This highlights the power of movies, to understand urban guerrilla is almost impossible without watching "The Battle of Algiers". But as documentary as it is, it's still a film, in the good sense of the word.
I don't think the movie is as dispassionate as it's often described, the last discussion with Mathieu reminds the old adage, winning the battle, but not necessarily the war. It was a tactical not strategic victory. And yes, for some reason, the war started again, concluding the film with one of its most spectacular scenes, featuring so realistic riots, I still wonder how Pontecorvo recreated this. The climactic conclusion will haunt me forever through this scene where the policeman asks the population "What do you want?" and then, behind the mist, you hear people's shouts punctuated with Algerian women's strident yodels  they shout and dance, waving the new Algerian banner in one my most thrilling cinematic moments, even more relevant when you think of the current events in Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab countries, the shouts of despair and chants of hopes, from overly passionate populations who know the value of freedom enough to fight for it.
This in an exhilarating movie which, more personally, made me shudder so many times I thought I left my window open. But then I realized this sensation in my shoulders was the weight of affiliation, to a culture that seems to get things the hard way, a hot blooded culture that inhabits the eyes of my Algerian grand-mother who lived that time ... a sensibility that I inherited, making me react to the beautiful closing theme with deep emotions and hopes for a better future