"That Was Then, This is Now: The Battle of Algiers and After" - David Prochaska

Prochaska describes how the Algerian War's sorrows are the effect of the "Vichy Syndrome". Both were significant conflicts within the 20th century in France. There was on both of them a collective denial, even if they played an important historical role. Only the violence of the war could never be forgotten. It is this violence, the damage, that director Pontecorvo reveals from both perspectives. He simplifies Fanon's all-or-nothing view of colonial violence by showing Ali's evolution from street fights to his revolutionary spirit.

The Battle of Algiers is also crucial at the time for starting the torture controversy. As with the Vichy scandal, this incident was covered up. Eventually, there was a trial, but even in contemporary France they historicize the film, place it in a different period far from their reality. 

An interesting notion by Prochaska is Fanon's idea of 'the potential dangers of the nationalist bourgeoisie' within the FLN. The elite choose the solution for the whole Algerian population and imposed their strategy on them. It is kind of a dictatorship. 

In his text, Prochaska counterposed The Battle of Algiers with Merzak Allouache's Bab el-Oued City. This film focusses more on the working class in the Algerian city than on politics. The characters are complex and every detail is connected. It is set in the postcolonial reality after the October 1988 riots. Instead of the violence of France, there is now a big polarization between secularists and militant Islamists. The film deals with the questions during the aftermath when Algeria must find its own identity within their new independence. They also needed new political and economical solutions. In 1988 the struggles for the rich strategy conflicted in the second Algerian war. The Islamist party took advantage of this chaos to establish their power and the notion of torture and violence reappeared. This explains the silence of the Algerian government regarding the torture of France. But sadly enough, when The French government could move forward and learn from the past, in Algeria the past was an open wound. 

It really made me think about how the European countries and the colonised countries dealt with the aftermath of colonialism. Should there have been assistance from Europe in the transition phase? But wouldn't that be another form of colonialism? Are all the conflicts nowadays in the formerly colonised countries directly results from the postcolonial chaos?