And The Loser Is... #15- How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas

In ATLI... #14, I talked about Costa-Gavras' excellent 1969 political thriller, Z. This time out, I want to talk about another politically charged European film from the 60s, The Battle of Algiers (Dir: Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966). While it is easy to look at Z and The Battle of Algiers as companion pieces, and certainly both are made from the same left-wing political standpoint, there is a key difference. The former film is, in essence, a genre film; a taut political thriller, which, in many respects, one could see being made in America, certainly during the 1970s (think All The President's Men). Indeed, Z is a film that should be easily accessible to all audiences, as it really doesn't feature many of the traits people associate with foreign language cinema.

TBOA takes further the documentary style of Z, favouring an approach which puts more emphasis on realism, a simple presentation of events, which allows the spectator to digest the facts on their own terms. To simplify, you could say that Z uses rhetoric, presenting things in a way intended to incite a certain response (and does so successfully, I might add), whereas TBOA is simply a recreation of events, which invites one to draw their own conclusions.

The film is a documentation of Algeria's fight for independence from France, focusing largely on Ali La Pointe, a member of the Algerian resistance who rises through the ranks, and is committed to his cause, no matter the cost in human life. Pitted against him is the French officer, Colonel Mathieu, a man who uses the fact that he, and others like him, were once part of a resistance themselves (the French Resistance during World War 2), to justify the torturing of prisoners, and the bombing of innocent civilians.

Despite the even-handedness with which the film presents its story (it never shies away from showing the acts of low-level terrorism perpetrated by the Algerian resistance, including using bombs that they know will kill fellow Algerians), there is no question that this is a film sympathetic to the Algerian cause (it was, afterall, commissioned by the Algerian government, and an Algerian/Italian co-production). La Pointe is an extremist, a man who believes that independence can only be taken by violence, but the Algerians are a people with their backs against the wall, at the mercy of the French army's superior means and technology. La Pointe's is a just cause, and even then his methods are contrasted with those of the more experienced Ben M'Hidi, who tells La Pointe "Acts of violence don't win wars. Neither wars nor revolutions. Terrorism is useful as a start. But then, the people themselves must act."

There are some interesting stories surrounding this film, but first I want to briefly touch on the history of world cinema and the Oscars. Going into this project, I assumed that instances of foreign language cinema being nominated in the main Osar categories were few and far between. What was interesting to find out while going through the past ceremonies, was that at one point (starting in the 1960s, coinciding with a greater critical appreciation for world cinema) the Academy seemed to have something of a love affair with the more established directors of world cinema. Whether that was the a case of the Academy paying lip service to some of the perceived greats, specifically through nomination in the best director category, is impossible to tell, but there is a tradition there of the Academy reaching out to filmmakers from across the globe.

Pontecorvo directs Brahim Haggiag (La Pointe)

This film appears as part of this project, thanks to Pontecorvo's nomination for best director in 1969. Federico Fellini was actually nominated for best director 4 times, Hiroshi Teshigahara was nominated for Woman In The Dunes (1964), which strikes me as a sublime case of the Academy rewarding the deserving, and, later, the likes of Ingmar Bergman and Akira Kurosawa picked up nominations. It seemed that if a foreign language film was going to get recognised in any category (barring, y'know, best foreign language film), then best director would be the one. Even more recently we've seen the likes of Fernando Meirelles get recognised, although it would be great to see someone like Wong Kar-Wai or Michael Haneke get some recognition, to name just two of the more widely-known and appreciated directors fo world cinema.

Anyway, bringing this back to The Battle of Algiers, and this is actually a film which has made a bit of history. It is the only film in Oscar history to have nominations at two non-consecutive ceremonies (it had previously been nominated for best foreign language film in '66, before Pontecorvo's nomination in '69). Another point of interest surrounding this film, is that apparently the Pentagon screened this film for officers and civilian experts, as a way to encourage discourse about the challenges faced by the US army in Iraq. The title of this blog entry is taken from the flier which invited guests to the screening.

I'm not sure what was learned from such a screening, but I do know that this is a powerful piece of filmmaking, one of those rare films that manages to touch you in the heart, in the head, and in the gut. It stirred up a lot of emotions in me, as a film which says a lot about the right to freedom, and the sacrifices some people will take to achieve that freedom. It's hard to watch a film like this and not draw comparisons to the situation in the Palestine, but not only that, it's hard not to watch this film and not reflect on one's own life, the freedoms we take for granted, the general complacency of Western civilisation, and how different things could be. This may not be as attractive a proposition as something like Z, but it is a film of equal importance, which I would urge anybody to watch. It's a masterpiece, probably one of the handful of best films ever nominated for an Oscar, and a 5 star film.

I should have a new review for next time, but, until then, here's looking at you!