Gillo Pontecorvo, shows the beginning of the struggle for independence in the city of Algiers. The film introduces the viewer to the French colonialism impact on society and ethnic identity; which ultimately led to the rise of the National Liberation Front lea by the Algerians. The NLF in the beginning had much negotiated with the French, but after failure to reach an agreement, the Algerians began attacks of terror. The Islamic people lived in the Casbah, a place that was segregated from the rest Algiers. The Casbah is relatively poor and is not appealing compared to the French quarters in Algiers. The police officers in the streets and governmental officials are all French man, the Algerians have very little rights running the country. The police officers at the check points, who are French, are kind to their own people, every French men or women are greeted, while every Algerian is pushed around. The French contain the Islamic nation in the Casbah, they portray every Arabic as a threat to the French, the people of the Casbahs are not treated as citizens of Algeria, the French see them as subjects.
Colonization has a negative impact on society and ethnic identity. Colonial empires come to a new land, establishing the governmental system, and imposing their culture. They expect the inhabitants of that land to follow every law handed down without representation; culture and religion are forced upon the people. The film depicts this negative impact on society and ethnic identity, the French have complete power over the Algerians and impose their views on this new country. The actions taken by the French are not justified and the Islamic nation has no rights under law, they are tortured, search without reason, and arrested without warrant. The FLN asks the Islamic nation to take a stand and go on a weeklong strike in order to make a statement to the French. However, the strike is interrupted when the French army goes into the Casbah forcing the people to open up their stores and go to work. They also arrested every Islamic man for interrogation and torture, in order to uncover the members of the FLN,
The film, The Battle of Algiers, was able to characterize colonialism and it’s impact on society and ethnic identity very well. The same way the French imposed their governmental body, culture and authority is the same way that many other colonial empires have done in the past. The same negative impact that the French had on the Algerian nation, the British had on the thirteen colonies in America. The British treated the colonist very differently than their own. The colonists were taxed without representation as well as exploited. Within every case in history, colonial empires have come to establish their rein and expand their empire with disregard to the inhabitants of that land. In almost every case, that empire has also been driven out due to that mentality of taking complete control over a land that does not belong to that empire. Although, colonial empires such as the French, have contributed to colonies during the colonial period; the establishment of a well-organized governmental system and organized society are some examples. These empires over stayed their welcome, they took something away that is held dearly by every man and woman and is an aspect of an individual’s life-freedom.
6 comments:
The Battle of Algiers, a film to revolutionize the effects of filmmaking over the effect a subject can have on an audience. This film resembles the powers and the will to fight back and the colonial power that can occupy a culture. I agree with what you have to say about the film being able to characterize colonialism and how the film describes this definition through the use of the language of cinema. But I think to expand the thought of what this film is actually saying about colonialism is the very interesting topic. Who is the protagonist in the film? Who is the antagonist in this film? To look at both sides of the story what is the Battle of Algiers actually saying about colonialism is it necessarily bad? Or is it just that people themselves do agree with being governed by a country that is not there own. Overall this film can put you for the horrors of way and feeling sympathy for the people taken as victims, or for the revolution and for freedom. The choice is yours
The fact that the director of The Battle of Algiers allowed the audience to choose what side to take, the French vs the Algerians is a very cool idea. As a person who has seen a lot of revolutionary third world cinema, this film is completely different. It it showing history as it was and how it actually happened, not just depicting the point of view of one side of the fight. It's not preachy or pretentious, it's simply a film about a period in history that the director thought people should know more about.
One part of the film that really struck me was the torture scene in the very beginning. Just thinking about what the decision that poor man had to make about being burned terribly or telling on people in his organization would be absolutely awful. The film is an awesome representation of a period in history when things needed to change, and the fact that the revolution finally happened in the end is a very good thing.
I completely agree with Gary's question on the protagonist. The Battle of Algiers displayed no solid character to focus on. This movie did make me feel like I was the one that had to choose who to focus on and what to conclude from all the struggling. I found this movie to be very interesting, considering it wasn't like any other movie we, as americans today are used to watching. It was not only made for the audience to sit back and take it in but also for us to make decisions. This movie did not come off as a documentary, nor did it come off arrogant. For that, I enjoyed it.
The battle of Algiers puts the notion of colonization in a very real context. We sit back and view the realities of colonization, the breaking down of basic human rights and unethical torture as a form to get out information. This film is a great example of any type of encrouching colonization placed on any group of people in another country. It's almost heartbreaking to see people of their own country pushed into certain areas to make room for the mother country. This film also makes you think about the reasoning behind certain acts of terrorism, there are so many events and actions that are celebrated that could fit in the group of what could be called terrorism, even in our country's history. The Battle of Algiers can really blur the black and white, good vs. bad lines of terrorism, revolution and freedom to more areas of grey. You can have sympathy for the Algierians and completely changed your perception of what is acceptable in the name of freedom. This film was mind-blowing.
This film sheds new perspective on the concept of colonialism. I thought it was extremely effective that the director did not create a bias towards one country. It forces the viewer to think and become more engaged with the film. It is interesting to think that although the film is not a documentary, it can almost be viewed as such. This shows the talent of the film maker and his ability to maintain a level of realism and truth without over manipulating characters, scenes and events.
I feel like the film was biased towards the FLN. The main characters were Arab Algerians and FLN members and they were shown more sympathetically on screen. I'm not saying that this is wrong - hypothetically I myself have sided with the Algerians. It's seems to me though that the salient issue in light of Franz Fanon's writing is whether the full extent of FLN violence was merited, a sticky question that quickly leaves the events themselves and swerves out into the domain of philosophy. I can't wrap my head around it, how brutal it must have been to prompt that sort of violence. I would have liked for the film to show more of the nature of French oppression before the FLN (Sétif massacre, Muslim segregation, etc.) Another thing thats not shown is the torture that was being carried out by the FLN on soldiers and civilians. There's something in that ultimate act that Fanon might have espoused - but it strikes me as revenge and I would like to question both it's usefulness to the Algerian cause and its acceptability as a tactic EVER.
My thoughts go back and forth on this stuff so I'll leave the rest for class. Good movie though.
Post a Comment