as fitting a tip-of-the-hat to Rossellini's post-WW2 work made in the 60's, and them some

Rating: 10/10 (3 June 2006)

A couple of times here and there watching Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers, winner of the 1966 Golden Lion at Venice, I thought off-handedly (maybe with a smidgen of sarcasm), 'this is probably one of the top 5 favorite films of like Rage Against the Machine or something'. It's not without saying though that once the film was over, and watching a bit more on the extra features on the DVD (with other directors shining light on their opinions on the film), that most of what I saw sunk in a little deeper. This is one of the best kinds of documentary-style dramas made in its time and place in the world, and goes a bit further in the right direction from Roberto Rossellini's post-war trilogy. While it's not unlikely to see Pontecorvo's own influence from the neorealist maverick, it's also likely to see how Pontecorvo takes this very emotionally charged, as-factual-as-possible story of Algiers versus France in the mid 1950s with an assured balance of pathos and style. It also works tremendously as a kind of 'statement' movie, without at all pushing it down the viewer's throats. It does have a viewpoint, as do most films, and here and there it definitely does drive home the point of the Algiers' need for freedom from the militant oppression of France.
But what struck me most about how Pontecorvo and his collaborators (both screenwriter and producer as the latter of which had complete first hand contact with the events and plays an acting part), is how he approached violence and its effect on an urban climate. Through Pontecorvo's camera, we see the ugly side to both sides, even the one that we should be rooting for. France is the (supposedly unintentional) oppressor here, and in this time frame had made them a colonial power for decades, and in order to sustain order and track down their 'targets' in 1957 they go from complete militarization (shown quite starkly and simply, and like a good would-be neorealist 'as it is if we are right there') to torture tactics. Their acts of violence and brutality are however given the other side of the coin in the scenes where the lieutenant Colonel of the French troops Matthieu (played by the great Jean Martin) talks to the press or lays out his point of view in scenes. Then the other side of the Algiers, those who are fighting back early on in the film with guerrilla-like terrorist tactics go to lengths to make their messages clear through seemingly random but daunting acts of violence. Pontecorvo's point in showing both sides is almost complex while seeming simple- neither side is right when it comes to committing violence against one another in this situation. It's a very powerful statement made that doesn't cut corners, of the truth that still permeates of a first-world power, already very adept in their military powers from past (proud) military conflicts who can't seem to let up from giving the people they say they want to help and provide some leeway in establishing their own government and freedom despite the fervent opposition. Sound familiar?
At any rate, the real success behind this message- which could've been done on the flip-side with a lot of pumped melodrama- is by making it a kind of hybrid of doc and fiction. Unlike Memories of Underdevelopment, which would come out 2 years after this in Cuba, it's never exactly certain when the footage is even dramatized or not. And there are two aspects to what Pontecorvo covers in his purely cinematic style that totally serves his content. One is how he deals with crowds, with the dirty city life of the Arab section of Algiers where all the madness, chaos, and just frustration takes place, in range from the scenes of people walking by in burkas to reveal themselves as the "enemy" with guns, to those startling sequences of the revolutions and multi-militant post. The other one is how Pontecorvo deals with his 'subjects', as one might call them, as they are all save for one non-actors. Like directors before him (mentioned above) and after (like Fernando Meirelles) the filmmaker here is after the right look on people, and in going almost as a bystander at times getting these people. The guy playing La Pointe- the center of the film (an illiterate petty criminal turned major terrorist)- isn't particularly 'good', but he doesn't need to be. His face tells all. In maybe my favorite scene in the film, when a female from the Algiers section sneaks into a quasi-dance hall in the European section, we get various shots of the faces of the patrons as well as her own. None are professional, which obviously adds to the complexities of this scene. Who's innocent and who's guilty in this world?
Sometimes there are some very brutal moments in the film, and then there are others that sometimes even work just as a usual, well, thriller. Here and there I almost felt like I was watching a more recent film without taking into account how it might have influenced a few directors over time. With one of his best early scores via Ennio Morricone, and some uncompromising details with the multiple deaths in the film, The Battle of Algiers does come quite close to being one of those 'essential' films of the 1960's, where a political attitude or need to put onto film a time and place in the world was captured. And if it has at least a little relevance for some military-style situations of the now (and I am not at all anti-US, but the comparisons could be made with bits in the film) its a credit to the filmmakers that its basically the film they wanted to make, with a freedom relatable to the doomed characters on the side of Algiers.