03 ISSUE I
DECEMBER 2024
DECEMBER 2024
The idealism of Battle of Algiers
Nearly fifty years after its first showing, “The Battle of Algiers” retains its significance for anyone interested in the
intersection of decolonization, cinema and history.
intersection of decolonization, cinema and history.
By Mara Levi
The 1966 film “The Battle of Algiers” has been studied both for its insights by security analysts (including at the US Department of Defense) and as a source of inspiration for anticolonial revolutionaries in the Global South. However, its primary achievement remains its powerful portrayal of the Algerian independence movement, making it a significant work for anyone interested in the intersection of cinema and history.
On November 1, 1954, the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) declared: “Before all else, we consider that after decades of struggle, the National Movement has reached its final stage of realization.” It would take another eight hours before Algeria would achieve independence from France. One aspect of this struggle was urban guerrilla warfare. In “The Battle of Algiers,” Italian filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo focuses on a critical period of the Algerian War, zooming in on events between 1954 and 1957 in Algiers, the capital of French Algeria. The city had been the site of intense guerrilla warfare between the FLN and the French occupying forces. Most of the action occurs in the city’s Muslim quarter, the Casbah. The film primarily follows the struggle through two central perspectives: Ali LaPointe (Brahim Haggiag), a former criminal turned freedom fighter, and Colonel Philippe Mathieu (Jean Martin), the head of the French paratrooper unit. Both characters are composites of real people.
Undoubtedly, the film is a masterpiece in many ways. Bolstered by Ennio Morricone’s marvelous soundtrack, Pontecorvo guides the viewer through a skillfully paced, tightly woven narrative of struggle. The FLN’s demand for national sovereignty begins with targeted acts of terrorism against the French – first by shooting police officers, then by bombing police stations and public spaces, and eventually culminating in a general strike.
In response, French retaliation is brutally repressive: they seal off the Casbah with street checkpoints, impose curfews, bomb the homes of suspected FLN members, and employ torture – an act so graphic it led to the film being banned in France for five years following its release in 1966.
Pontecorvo meticulously traces the escalation of violence on both sides, neither glorifying nor condemning it. There is no question that he identifies with the Algerian struggle for freedom. He was a member of the Italian Communist Party, which openly identified with anticolonial movements. He frames the FLN’s use of civilian bombings as the desperate tactic of a people with few other options to resist French oppression.
There is also a certain authenticity to the visuals. Shot in black-and-white and interspersed with what appear to be historical excerpts from announcements and communiqués of the belligerents, “The Battle of Algiers” often feels like a documentary. Much of the film was shot in locations where the historical battle took place, and its characters are based on actual historical figures, some even portrayed by the individuals themselves. This authenticity is primarily thanks to Saadi Yacef, a former FLN fighter whose memoir inspired the screenplay and who was a producer. Yacef also stars in the film as one of the FLN fighters engaged in a violent standoff with French forces at the heart of the action. The only professional actor in the cast is Jean Martin. He was part of a group of leftist academics, activists, and artists who signed the “Manifesto of 121” in 1960. It called on the French government to recognize the Algerian War as a legitimate struggle for independence, condemned the use of torture by the French military, and advocated for the rights of French conscientious objectors.
While all this contributes to the film’s strong alignment with the Algerian cause, there is also a sense of “othering” of the Algerian Arabs that runs through the movie. Despite the filmmakers’ sympathy for their fight, the portrayal of the Algerian people sometimes feels distant or detached, as if they are viewed more as symbols of resistance than fully realized individuals. “The Battle of Algiers,” filmed in French and Arabic, uses subtitles rather than synchronization. However, these subtitles are notably absent during Arabic prayers. While the necessity of translating a prayer is debatable, Pontecorvo’s decision not to translate these moments subtly reinforces the “otherness” of Muslim Arabs, a trope deeply embedded in European and French orientalism and Islamophobia. For instance, a French news narrative in the film's final scenes describes the sound of Arabic ululation as “unintelligible and frightening rhythmic cries.”
Additionally, something is unsettling about the film’s soundtrack in scenes of violence and mourning. Both the bombing of an alleged FLN member’s house by the French and the three bombings carried out by the FLN are accompanied by the same music. However, it is only in the case of the French victims that their wailing and cries of pain are heard, making their suffering seem more human and relatable. In contrast, the anguish of the Algerian victims is less emotionally foregrounded. This contrast subtly shifts the viewer’s emotional engagement, privileging the suffering of the French over that of the Algerians.
Moreover, the bombings themselves highlight Pontecorvo’s simplified representation of gender.. One of the most iconic scenes in “The Battle of Algiers” shows three female FLN fighters disguising themselves in French attire to pass through French checkpoints undetected. While this is a striking visual, it glosses over the reality that many female FLN members wore European clothing in their everyday lives and often had higher levels of education than their male counterparts. Pontecorvo, however, leans into a generalized image of Algerian women wearing the haik or veil, which serves to “other” them and obscure the significant roles played by female combatants. By focusing on this stereotypical portrayal, the film misses an opportunity to fully explore the complexities and contributions of women in the pursuit of independence.
Given the strong involvement of Yacef and the political stance of Pontecorvo, it also comes as a surprise that the filmmakers decided to leave out so much about the background and breath of the FLN and Algerians’ broader struggle against French colonialism. To truly understand the FLN's uncompromising stance toward France, one would have to consider the brutal reality of French settler colonialism in Algeria, which resulted in the deaths of up to a third of the Algerian population during the first three decades of French rule. Or 30.000 killed in the much more recent Sétif massacre in 1945. Or the widespread repression of Arabic language, culture, and Muslim religion, alongside the poor standards of health and education under French colonialism. These were the underlying conditions of the FLN’s anticolonial struggle for national sovereignty – of which the violence depicted in “The Battle of Algiers” was but one front.
The FLN also tried to erect a shadow state to govern their population while Algeria was still under French control and had a robust diplomatic cadre, advocating for independence on the international front. For example, they had a permanent media office in New York and participated in the 1955 Bandung Conference, which marked the emergence of a Third World anti-imperialist project. Pontecorvo hints at this breadth of the FLN’s actions: he showcases a wedding performed by the FLN, and briefly addresses the discussion of the “Algerian question” at the United Nations in 1957 where all motions failed to gain a majority. However, rather than focusing on these complexities and elaborating on them, Pontecorvo spends a lot of time detailing the French “counterinsurgency” strategies, making the movie popular among security analysts, epitomized in its 2003 screening at the Pentagon.
Despite these criticisms, “The Battle of Algiers” remains an impressive portrayal of a politically charged period crucial to the anticolonial struggle worldwide. When the film was made, the future of that struggle was still uncertain. The film ends with Algeria’s formal independence in 1962, set against a backdrop of Third World idealism that the overthrow of Ben Bella in Algeria and other similar events elsewhere would soon undermine. These shifts highlighted the complexities and challenges of anticolonialism as both statecraft and worldmaking, underscoring the difficult realities ahead for newly independent nations.
Mara Levi is completing an MA in International Affairs at The New School.