The Battle of Algiers
The first thing I noticed while watching The Battle of Algiers is the style, the formal language it was given. It was realistic, almost like a documentary. Almost as a historical analyse for that was meant to be the lesson of the day. Only it was filmed just ten years later, so it was still fresh in everyone's mind. In the end, the film was also dramatised by certain music and shots. But still, the question is which lesson did the director wanted to spread?
You would think he wanted to present one side as the harmful enemy. But actually, this film truly shows the violence on both fronts. So good that in the end, the questions that were raised were more about the ethics of these attacks than which side was right. The likeness of the assaults was contradicted by the difference in the structure of both forces. You have this military strength of Europe or France against the collective power of the resisting colonised. Both effective in their ways, but eventually it is the desire of the people that will conquer.
The last remark on the film is this notion of segregation. The two groups, Europeans and Algerians, are always oppositions. There is literally a European quarter and 'the Casbah' or Algerian side of town. Every individual is destined to be a member that represents a collective, pars pro toto. You cannot escape it. This becomes problematic when the attacks start. For example, the FLN just bombed the race and Europeans get angry at an Algerian child because they see him as part of the resistance. It was almost lynching.
Reacties
Een reactie posten