Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers was shot in 1965, released in '66 and released in the United States in '67. The film is considered one of the finest post colonialist films ever made and arguably as great for its unflinching realism. In fact, it was used by different groups, such as the Black Panthers, as a manual for guerrilla warfare. Of course, it was also studied at the Pentagon. Just to be sure.
The film offers convincing insight into how the majority of wars have been fought since World War II. There is an attack from the underprivileged side who then retreat and hide among the rest of the population afterwards. Portraying hit and run is not new to movies, though, and it certainly does not set The Battle of Algiers in a class any different than even Disney's Johnny Tremain. What does set this film apart is, again, its realism, and its almost DIY underpinnings.
The film begins with a note to the viewer that it is not a documentary. Still, there are moments one could easily forget that it is not a documentary. The press interview with Col. Matheiu, for example, seems real not only because of the documentary filming style, but the historically situated references. After a recent article is mentioned (an article written by Jean-Paul Sartre condemning the French occupation of Algeria) a journalist asks Matheiu, "You like Sartre." Matheiu responds, "No, but I like him even less as an enemy."
If there is a moment where the film goes beyond realism into ideology, it comes after the head figures of the Algerian resistance, the FLN, have been killed. According to Matheiu's analogy to a tapeworm, it is only when the head is destroyed that the tapeworm cannot proliferate. And yet, a few years after the heads of the FLN were killed, we see people who remember what the struggle is about. They fight and win despite the absence of a defined leader. It reminds us of Lenin's comment to Trotsky just before the Russian Revolution: "What if we lose?" to which Trotsky replied, "And what if we win?"
IMDb rates this film 8.2 stars out of 10
Film 101 rates this film 5 stars out of 5 (not red stars)
Roger Ebert includes this film in his list of Great Movies
