Introduction
In the middle of the twentieth century, Algiers became a battleground between French authorities and Algerian insurrectionists. The National Liberation Front (FLN) quickly turned into a severe problem for the occupying nation, as their resistance led to numerous bloodsheds, as shown in the movie The Battle of Algiers (Pontecorvo). This essay will discuss how the film depicted the atrocities during the 1950s in Algeria when it fought for independence.
Illegal Behavior
Many counts of illegal warfare tactics are shown in this film, whose portrayal is critical for the impact intended by the author. First, Pontecorvo did not prioritize either side in his movie but portrayed how their actions were destructive to both the French and Algerians. The FLN conducted many acts of terror in this movie, while the French tried to silence the opposition through all means possible. For example, Colonel Mathieu, the leader of French paratroopers in Algiers, had to ensure that paras must “always get an answer” from interrogations (Pontecorvo 00:59:37-00:59:44). This quote highlights the true intentions of soldiers, who had no plans on preserving the integrity of the population. Their altercations are shown to be excessively violent and damaging to both property and people.
Pontecorvo’s work acknowledges the dire role of these activities in the modern world. Insurrectionists realized that it was impossible to achieve their country’s independence without shedding blood (Pontecorvo). However, their actions were bound to force the opposite side to retaliate. Torture was used in the movie as a way through which French soldiers tried to resolve the situation, although it was not the last resort strategy. It served as a significant fuel source for hostilities, which were shown to be only escalating after paratroopers’ war crimes became apparent (Pontecorvo). The author made it clear that these acts cut all possibilities for dialogue as a way of resolving problems.
Insurrectionists broke numerous rules of armed conflict and worsened the situation further. Faking a surrender attempt is a crime depicted in the movie (Pontecorvo). The director did not glorify it but used this scene to reveal each side’s profound hatred toward the other. Furthermore, the FLN involved children directly in their business, turning them into combatants (Pontecorvo). At this point, all laws were ignored, and cruelty prevailed over political measures. It is also critical to realize that the fights have been taken into the streets and civilians’ homes (Pontecorvo). In the end, open aggression from both sides continued to escalate even after the FLN leaders were eliminated, making it challenging to call the revolution a victory.
Terrorism
Those who sparked the conflict did not consist of law-abiding citizens who sought to free themselves from oppressive French rule. The author accurately points out that random attacks were committed by people who organized themselves through relationships they acquired in prisons (Pontecorvo). They might have perceived their cause as just, yet their approach was despicable. Numerous public assassination attempts have been made by Algerian insurgents on various targets, starting with random police officers (Pontecorvo). Provocation of the public was the goal of such acts, as the members of FLN tried to garner sympathy from the native part of the population. However, the author’s intention was not the glorification of such behavior but an attempt to reveal the formation of revolutionary movements.
In my assessment, the FLN’s actions were excessively cruel and unreasonable, as their targets had nothing to do with the people who might have harmed the local population. I disagree with the film’s viewpoint that this conflict was necessary. Instead of exhausting all the legal means, these criminals quickly turned to guns and explosives. After the counter-terrorism actions of the French police became more violent, one of the FLN leaders won the hearts of the public by claiming that “[policemen] will kill us all. Leave it to the FLN” (Pontecorvo 00:41:10-00:41:18). This quote is essential for the film, as Pontecorvo showed the ‘benefits’ these acts brought to insurrectionists. I believe that the only civilized attempt to diffuse the situation was insufficient. Amidst the confrontation, the FLN tried to seek a way past the armed combat through a strike that must have represented the power of the organization to the United Nations (Pontecorvo). Continuous waves of violence, including mass shootings of random people, put all involved sides on edge.
France’s Counter-terrorism Actions
The French tried their best to avoid using the same strategy as their opponents, yet failed. The very beginning of the movie shows how the French tortured a man for his secrets in their pursuit of stopping the conflict (Pontecorvo). This scene is the author’s statement regarding condemning the French way of waging this war. However, the movie also reveals that authorities did not immediately resort to such barbaric methods. The police did try to avoid the conflict without further bloodshed, although it failed and turned to dirtier tactics. The murders across the city have continued to amass, and the retaliation against terrorists was similarly violent, yet the French remained focused on resolution through lawful means and keeping the peace through paratroopers and curfews (Pontecorvo). These trained professionals had to take on the challenging task of determining the FLN members. In their pursuit of finishing the FLN, paratroopers became careless with the public opinion on their behavior, openly acting in the light of day and harming the Arabians in Algiers (Pontecorvo). The author did not favor any brutality and showed both the physical and mental suffering that the locals went through.
I think that the initial passive attitude toward the first attacks was detrimental to France. The actions of the police were insufficient to prevent any escalation and have caused further deterioration of relationships with locals. However, the paratroopers’ behavior was especially unacceptable, as their tactics gave non-combatants a reason to fight for the cause. I agree with the author regarding the futility of retribution as the primary driver in political matters. This notion became clear after Colonel Mathieu concluded that “now the worm is headless,” yet it is shown that he was wrong in his judgment, and the protests continued (Pontecorvo 1:53:04-1:53:15). While soldiers did try to appease the nation, they did it with poor understanding of the factors behind this animosity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, The Battle of Algiers portrays the French Army’s and Algerian insurgents’ actions as cruel and unjustified toward each other. The conflict was filled with countless war crimes and acts of terrorism and lacked proper communication between sides. While the film did not capture the full extent of the loss of human lives throughout the revolution, its director revealed how the personal stories of those participating were filled with turmoil. Bombings, mass shootings, torture, and civilian involvement in armed confrontations are not a path toward resolving any political issue in the modern world.
Work Cited
The Battle of Algiers. Directed by Gillo Pontecorvo, Rizzoli, 1966.