La Battaglia di Algeri (The Battle of Algiers)

Italy, 1966
Director: Gillo Pontecorvo
Writers: Pontecorvo and Franco Solinas

The Battle of Algiers portrays urban guerrilla warfare so effectively it was screened at the Pentagon in 2003, just months after First Moron President Bush declared the Iraq War to be over. It turned out to be a prescient screening, though sadly not prescient enough to prevent the war from taking place. You can keep hoping history won’t repeat itself, but 9 times out of 10 you’re going to be crushed by the weight of a thousand yesterdays.

Algiers featured fantastic production for its time, shooting everything on location and with local actors. Sometimes you need to strain to see that sort of praise while watching an older film, viewing it through the lens of the present day. Not so with Algiers; the back-and-forth chases in the narrow streets of the city, the visual contrasts between the rebels and paratroopers, the desperate closeups and sweeping city shots all add up to a convincing visual experience, even today.  This is a movie that looks and feels just right.

The film is, notationally at least, about guerrilla fighter Ali La Pointe, who has perhaps the perfect guerrilla fighter name. In practice the film meanders quite a bit, going extended sequences without any La Pointe screen time. This is a curious decision, especially in light of several opening scenes that set up his character. The second half sees La Pointe largely supplanted in focus by Colonel Mathieu, played by the only trained actor in the film (Jean Martin).  Mathieu is the best-developed character in the film…he’s quotable and likable and is the only one to impose logical reasoning on the unfolding events.

The common thread between the two adversaries, and the real meat of the film, is a non-stop kaleidoscope of violence.   Pontecorvo portrays it with an even keel; with the exception of a couple harrowing mob beatings, there is a methodical quality to each killing.  I thought the characters, and consequently motivations, got a little too buried by the events.  This makes it harder to give the story high marks, but for a documenting, actually-there sort of feel, Algiers strikes gold.

Style: 9
To give Algiers anything lower would be doing a disservice to its place in history. Very authentic from start to finish, making for an engaging and believable viewing experience.

Substance: 6
There is something to be said for being objective, but Algiers is sometimes a little too objective. In journalism you are taught that the most important question is not “who” or “when” but “why,” and that’s the question Algiers takes great pains to ignore. Moreover, the lack of a real story structure is highlighted by a somewhat lame postscript, into which much of the “moral” is crammed. On the plus side, Colonel Mathieu stands out as a developed and interesting character.

Overall: 8
I could go with either a 7 or 8 here, depending on how much I downplay the lack of a real narrative. Ultimately I think Algiers does an exceptional job of bringing the viewer into a time and place, and the narrative is almost secondary to the experience. It is very much left to the viewer to draw any conclusions from the relentless violence, but in this day and age, doesn’t it sort of speak for itself?