EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

There does seem to be a difference in opinion in regards to what is actually going on in Casbah. The way that i saw it was that the French (along with the european quarter) saw the conflict in Casbah as a set of terroriosts attacks against the "motherland." The arabs, however, saw it as a fight for independence. The differences seem to stem from the belief that France felt they were doing good in Algiers, the arabs felt there occupation was no longer neccesary, and wanted them out. It seems that this large peceptual rift comes from ideas of western vs. eastern. The french saw the arabs in Africa as, like in other areas of Africa, a people who could not govern themselves (hence they needed the French to do it) and a people who were there to be conquered and exploited. On the other hand, the arabs saw the french as unneccesary.

The large cultural blindspot I saw in the movie was that the French don't realize that these people will keep fighting for independence of there country until every last one of them is dead. The french don't see that the Arabs arw a strong people who have orginazational abilities (like the ability to start a revolution).

Throughout Battle of Algiers I found myself sympathizing with both the French and the Algerians. The end of the movie does seem to take the side of the Algerian people, but there are instances where I was wondering why I was all of a sudden on the French side. Initially, I thought I would be on the Algerian side, but something happened. I think the way the director filmed certain scenes made me feel this way. For example, when the three women take their basket bombs to the bar, milk shop, and airport, the camera zooms in on the people inside. I started to hope that the women weren’t going to leave their baskets because they were looking at all these innocent people. I felt like the viewer was supposed to connect with the people being zoomed in on (maybe I felt this way because I could connect to the people they were portraying-maybe it was because they were white-I’m not really sure). None the less, something happened when I viewed the close-ups of the French or other people in the bar, milk shop, and airport. My sympathy, however, was never with the French army, only the seemingly innocent civilians.

When there were not close-ups of the French civilians, I was siding with the Algerians. There were also many close-ups of tears, dead children, and demolished homes. The close-ups really seem to be the film strategy that hooked me in. I felt like I got to know the Algerian characters on a more personal level. I find myself cheering for the Algerians because the film shows the community, families, and connection that the Algerians had with one another. There is a strong unifying force that just wants independence, freedom, and pride, and I want them to have it.

I was also wondering if I interpreted what happened to Ben M’Hidi correctly. He was caught and states at a news conference like hearing that the FLN has more of a chance than France at changing anything. He has his one last powerful message insult the French and then it is explained that he died. How convenient for the French and fishy. Did the French claim that he used his shirt to hang himself? I thought that someone said his hands and feet were tied. I think that we are supposed to realize that he was killed and then his murder was set up to look like a suicide, but I am not sure. If anyone can clarify this for me that would be super.

Allison,
In the movie the character Ben M’Hidi was based off the real Ben M’Hidi who was in the war of independence. He was captured and killed. His death was announced as a suicide (as in the movie). In 2000, Paul Aussaresses, an Army general in the war, confessed that the French had truly killed Ben M’Hidi. Hope this helps. =)

They chose Mathieu to play the role of Massu, because it takes a strong character to play someone as manipulative and pensive as general massu was. By having all "normal" people playing the other roles, it makes the actor stand out because they know how to portray themself on camera. When Mathieu was questioned by the reporter he found a way around the question, by putting the question back on the reporter. He asked should the french stay in algeria. They have to abide by all the consequences then. This turned any focus off him, pretty slick of him eh? Pulled off the best by a true actor.

I have a had time believing that the only actor was Mathieu's charactor. I recognized La Pointe from somewhere, I swear...
...anyways I thought that mathieu's character was perfect, he fit th e[art perfectly, the way he wore those shades around.

I was very intrigued by the conferance he has with the reporters. When they confrnt him abput torture etc. he brings up an intereesting and relevant point about how at the bottom of the whole conflict/battle id teh French "want to stay" (or keep Algiers) and that everyone is in agreement on that.
I think this has relevance to Iraq today, the torturing and rounding up of citizens en masse was condemed in media and even by some senators but people don't question our being there or the credulity of our overall "mission" whatever the hell that is. I have never heard or overheard anyone say that removing Saddam was not a good Idea, this seems to have become the accepted reason for the war (at least when I hear it discussed on the street) since it has been "exposed" (as if it wasn't an obvious farse then) that there never was connections to so-called "al qaida" or WMD's

The movie is amazing in its relevance, what a good film for its time, its still good. I don't know if anyone has watched "Meet the Press" lately but some of the debates over this new "surge of troops" policy has the resonance of some of the issues in this film (and the "Orientalism" reading).

In the article on the film, it sad that the real General mathieu eventually admitted that it wasn't necessary to use torture, I thought that this was extremely interesting. why did he change his stance? was he an old man then? I think it is very true that we in the present can learn lessons from history, but a the same time I believe that there is never a concrete reason tht things need to follow th esmae paths or that things ever become concretely "emminant", maybe thats how the general felt.

sorry about the spelling errors, (should have gone back an dpruf red) :D

I really liked the way this movie was filmed. There were a lot of close up and camera angles that added to the story. The different camera angles I think really helped to convey emotion, because we have to read the dialogue I think the visuals become more important. Also the music put a lot of emotion into the film. I feel like the nonverbals of this movie were really strong and added a lot to the over all quality of the film. I focused a lot on the visual aspects along with the music, probably because the dialogue was in another language.

Karl: Perhaps only the real Matthieu (Massu) knows why he changed his stance on torture. But yes, it was at the end of his life.

I just read Dena's comment and I think it makes perfect sense. I thought that that might have been what happened, but I wasn't sure.. thanks for clearing that up Dena! Anyways, I do think that the French circled around questions/ reports with the media. I think the whole Ben M' Hidi's comments were very much restricted. I thought it was interesting how he asked the French officials if he was through with his comments instead of stating "that's all" by himself.

Also, I think that I mainly sympathized with the Algerians... though when they bombed the civilians at cafes & such, I sympathized with the French as well. I think the movie did a good job with creating sympathy for the Algerians. I thought the scene where the Muslim women changed themselves to look like the French. When they followed them around, it really brought the points across. At the end of the movie, when one of those women died in the wall hiding, it really struck me.

Intense movie!

I feel the film was very affective and was well produced considering the time period and how much technology has progressed since. I definitely sided with the Algerians. I felt the movie portrayed the emotions that the Algerians were feeling during this battle were very real. Although I felt bad for both sides, because for both there were many casualties such as little children and women.

I find it very unfair, and the saddest part is that this is reality for so many people today all over the world. I felt that the Arabs could justify what they did because it was their home that was taken from them. They were there first and just wanted to be able to live in freedom in their own country.

General Mathieu was a liar and said they didn’t torture but interrogate instead. Interrogating the Algerians became torture. I felt the film depicted the French as dominant and heartless. I’m not really sure whose side they meant to portray but I felt very sympathetic towards the Algerians.

I think this movie was relatively unbiased. I have a feeling that the movie was not made to say one side is better than the other. I think it came across as more of a documentary. Based on the things I have read the movie is said to be very true to life and accurate. As Karl said, this movie does have a lot of relevance in today’s world especially with the war in Iraq. The movie has a very sincere reflection on violence.

Thanks for the info Dena.

This film was an interesting look into the war of Algiers. Having not had hardly any prior knowledge on this war, I was wondering if it was a good historical account of the war? It seemed to be pretty unbiased; I felt sympathetic to both sides throughout the film. There were some things that really stood out to me as I was watching. 1. The French had the resources...this was shown when they would meet in offices (or buildings..) and draw and white boards, they had guns, camo outfits. But the end showed the spirit of the Algerians and how resources weren't going to "win the war". The Algerians were waving flags, and those "flags" were described as rags, old tattered t-shirts, and that sort. 2. The French had an army of men, the Algerians had an army of men, women and children. Was it very common for the children to be shooting the French prefet? I just thought that it seemed a little unreal when that boy had hidden a gun in a garbage can (just hoping that a French soldier would walk by?). Does anyone know how common it was for the children to actually be involved in the shooting of the French soldiers?

i think the film was fair to both sides. it portrays the freedom struggle of Algeria while at the same time being fair to the french too. while watching a war movie, people normally tend to get swayed to either one side's point of view or the other but this movie was made in such a way that the audience were not emotionally manipulated to choose sides. its understandable that majority of the people will feel sympathy towards the arabs as its their homeland which is getting devastated. the ats of bombings which seem so terrible is something prety understandable too. freedom is something they are willing to die for and to kill for. what i found significant was when the women were getting ready to go and bomb the airport and milk bar, they were willing to risk everything for it. they were not forced to join the struggle for independence but were willing participants in the plans. the closeups of the innocent people in the places of bombings was a nice touch to infuse a feeling of sympathy for the invaders but then it somehow got cancelled out for me when i saw the dead bodies of the algerians who were shot down like dogs in their own streets. so it was a pretty neutral feeling. the taking up of arms by women and children shows the extent of resentment among the algerians who were made to fight an enemy who was far superior in millitary strength than they themselves. the comparision of basket bombs and planes was a very significant one and points out to the audience the scale that the locals had to climb to match up with the french army. on top of that, the army resorted to torturing the captured prisoners and passing off some of their brutal killings as suicide. its hard to feel sympathy towards the French then. the blowing up of the las remaining resistance of FLN in the end of the movie however left a bitter taste in the mouth. after going through so much, it just seems unfair that they had to die in such a way, couped in a dark hole and blown to pieces. that was one scene which i believe tilts the sympathy factor al the way towards the Algerians.

I think that the question of whether the movie gave equal consideration to both sides is not what needs to be answered. I don't think there is a way for equal consideration to be given when there is an unequal amount of suffering by one side. The Algerian war of independence was morally more favorable for the Algerians. It was the French who physically, financially, and morally installed themselves into Algeria without regard to the feelings of the Algerians. The decision to fight against freedom agitators was solely to retain the domination they had on land that wasn't theirs to begin with. The movie shows how French and Algerian people were affected during the independence movement, but the fact that the audience favors the Algerians in the end is not due to the bias of the film director. I think that even when both sides were subjected to violence, it was the Algerians who were dealt a heavier blow. It is not the fault of the moviemaker that during the road to independence, Algerians were the ones who suffered the most casualties. I don't think that there is a way for the Battle of Algiers to dole out equal amounts of sympathy for both sides because there simply wasn't an equal amount of suffering. In the end, Algerians were quantitatively terrorized more, so we sympathize with them.

Wow, there are a lot of good comments on this tonight.

first, I think that Jen brought some good film techniques to light, the French did have all the technology and resources at thier advantage, yet they had to sacrifice thier "ideals" and resort to torture to "win". Especially ironic because the French are supposed to have had the most revolutionary independance ideals historically.

Also, I think that what Shiyao said was very true. I got into a debate and near argument with my dad tonight about this thing and how it relates (or doesn't) to Iraq and the world today. Needless to say, my dad and I did not agree.
Particularly interesting was what Shiyao said about the unequal suffering. Earlier I was thinking about our in-class discussion of the milk bar bombing and I began to think that this whole milk thing is symbolic. The French had the absolute luxery of this "milk bar" I began to think that it was significant that it was chosen as a target for bombing.

I don't think the directing of the movie matters as much as understanding what is going on and why the war occured between them. Both sides planned rebel activities and killed innocent ones. I can not really say that I symthasize with one or the other. They were attacking each other as terrorists.

However, the film created more sympathy for the Algerians becuase of close up of the Algerian womens' faces crying and looking terrified. The unsteady view of an old Algerian man running because the French was pointing fingers at him, accusing him, and yelling at him. The faces of all the Algerians looked really confused, scared, angry, and serious while the French looked really happy and joyful becides the army.

I think the movie tried to portray each side as "equal" in their fighting or terrorizing. By filming close ups on the faces of the innocent of both sides was the directors goal at trying to get those who watch to be unbiased. I think that there was slightly more sympathy placed on the Algerian side, which I felt more sympathy for. The torture and suffering they endured seemed to be on a different degree than the French's suffering, which consisted only of a few bombings, which were still significant but not as long term as the sufferings of the Algerians, who were under the oppression of the French government.

Though the movie can be seen as showing sympathy for both sides of the conflict, I see the sympathy heavily tilted to the Algerians. Throughout the movie you see them oppressed, being controlled by the French. By shooting the soldiers in the street, that is their way of making it known that the French are not welcome in Algeria. This is the only way they can make it known. The French in the movie then responded by bombing a building in an Algerian neighborhood, killing civilians. The terrorism against civilians was started by the French, and the Algerians responded with the same actions. The torture of the Algerians at the end and the riot at the end of the movie show the great sympathy towards the Algerians. There were many powerful parts in the movie to show this sympathy. At the beginning there is the close of the old man with the tear running down his eye. He has been tortured and is now ratting out his own people. When you see his face at the end of the movie he looks like a broken man. Also the seen at the very end with all the Algerians yelling over the entire city shows that the Algerian cause was not broken when the FLN fell.

I think there is a significant amount of bias towards the Arabs in this film, but that it is definitely appropriate considering the circumstances under which it was made. If this movie was made for French audiences in the 1960's, then they probably already had a certain bias imposed by the government in order to insure and protect the national support needed to be successful in a war. They probably hadn't seen much in the way of sympathy towards the people of Algeria, and so a sort of double-dose of this most likely was needed in order to create a balance of empathy and understanding in this particular case.

Right now, I think this purpose is somewhat irrelevant and can much more easily be taken out of context now that its intended audience has dispersed and the historical issues it confronts directly aren't seen as subjectively as they once were. However, I don't think this film glorifies terrorism out of its own context, and the other issues it confronts make it worthwhile to be shown, not as an understanding of terrorism, but as an understanding of conflict and its complexities.

I think that the film creates a sympathetic feelings in the viewers for both the French and the Algerians. The most powerful way that i noticed this was done was by using close ups. Throughout the film there were multiple close up shots of faces. Primarily Algerian faces, the shots create a feeling of desperation. Every time a shot like that would appear, either on a child or an adult, occasionally with tears running down the cheeks, i felt like i wanted to do something to help them. I wanted to reach out to them and help them stand up for their cause. I also, however, felt sypmathetic towards Mathieu at times. Although he was attempting to destroy what the Algerians were fighting to maintain, he seemed to be distraught at the thought of having to kill the Algerians. He offered the last few members of the resistance movement their lives multiple times, until he simply had no other choice but to kill them.

I don't think the word "bias" really works under the scope of cinema. Movies don't need to be balanced, instead they are a method of showing personal opinion and perspective. Battle of Algiers, which actually is one of the most two sided war movies I've ever seen, is not the news. It doesn't have any responsibility to equalize both sides. I do think that more sympathy is given to the Algerians for the very reasons Shiyao stated and that there are obviously close ties to the films writers and creators. I don't think there is anything wrong with leaning to one side's cause. Where the film does gain its strength though is that it refuses to sugarcoat one side and completely villianize another. Battle of Algiers shows that behind each and every weapon, lay people. This is a movie about the human condition of war...not so much the war itself.

Did anyone else read that the Pentagon watched this movie right before the invasion of Iraq? If this is true, they obviously didn't learn a thing. I'm sure Rumsfeld fancied himself as the intelligent military strong man that Mathieu was. I'm shocked that they would actually follow this movie as a pattern on how to invade a Muslim nation. But in hindsight, its really making a lot of sense

There definately is a difference in opinion over the type of conflict happening in the Casbah. The FNL see the war as a justified one. The Algerian's are fighting to take their country back from the French, making it a war betweent two countries. The French feel they have a right to be in Algeria. They keep control with the traditional use of police and their uniform wearing military. The Algerians are fighting in a non traditional manner, almost "hit and run" tactics. French officials are struck at with acts of violence and the instigators disappear back into the city. The French see these as terrorist attacks. Attacks put on by specific individuals, not all the Algerians in the Casbah. To them, the main time frame showed in the movie is not considered a battle between two countries.

When watching the film, it was easy for me to distinguish the attacks as part of a war versus terrorist attacks. I was very sympathetic towards both sides during these attacks, but more towards the Algerians.

One point of view with the Algerians was when the Arab women dressed up and cut and dyed their hair to look like French women. It was interesting to see how easily they passed through the check points that the French held. The women had fear and terror in the eyes as they moved through those check points. There was another point of view shown with this scene of the French people. Before the bombs went off, different shots were taken of French families, a baby, couples, and it was hard to not feel sympathy for them, because I knew what was coming.

I felt more sympathy though towards the Arab people, because they were all treated as bad, although only a few create the terror to the French. It was hard watching the tortures, especially after Mathieu told reporters from all different regions that they were not using torture as a technique. Matthieu seemed to persuade the reporters to believe anything he said. The Arab people were fighting so hard for their freedom, and to not be controlled by the French, that I think the French were reluctant to notice this, maybe a cultural blindspot. I believe that a cultural blindspot for the Arabs is that they don't realize that the French have a much stronger army and much larger group that they can take over easily. Innocent men are being tortured because of a certain few.

I like this movie and I did not feel manipulated at all. I felt like it was unpredictable, and it gave different views to war that I have never thought of or seen.

As mention in class, the sympathy throughout the movie was pointed towards the Algerians. When the torture scenes were played, the French military were always wearing their sunglasses or having a smurk on their faces! The women are usually the one who portrayed the sympathetic sides. I don't recall a scene when the French cried. It's also obvious in the communication between the French and the Algerians. The French speaks to them in demands, while the Algerians are either pleading for their lives or trying to negioate a deal with the military. In the example when one of the man and his female helper were stuck inside the room and they refused to surrender themselves. Commander Mathieu spoke to his wife as if she was an animal and demanded something from her that she couldn't control.. I think that's really sad.

Either way, there was no "good" or "bad" guys. It depends on how you look at it. I think that both sides had faults, but their had their own agendas and couldn't meet in the middle. I think that the Algerians were right in their compassion to save their independence, but their approach was careless. For the French, I think it was wrong of them to colonialized a country that was already stabilized, but their innocent citizens shouldn't be jeopardized either. So yes, either way, they are both "good" and "bad" guys.

There are definite blind spots on both sides of this conflict. The French are too ignorant to believe or think that the Algerian women are/would be involved in the “terrorist attacks” (placing of bombs, hiding weapons, etc). Also, they don’t seem to understand that the Arabs won’t give up their fight for freedom; they definitely underestimate the Algerians. The Algerians were blind to the lack of involvement by the French civilians it seems. I took the French civilians’ role as a way to show that many innocent French died alongside the Algerians.

The music selections provided sympathies towards the Algerians—whenever they were about to “successfully” achieve something drums would play an anticipating beat, and whenever an Algerian was tortured, hurt, or killed, somber, slow music would play. And…when the French invaded the Algerian quarters during the strike the music was chaotic and unpleasant. Close up shots of Algerian children (dead, motherless, naked, etc.) always were sympathetic as well. There were some shots of French women and children in distress too, but they just weren’t as gruesome and prevalent as those of the Algerians.

I thought that there are many close-ups of the Algerians being tearful and sad or determined. This effect really gave sympathy to the Algerians. I do not recall many (if any) emotional close-ups of the French militia. The camera also capture more on troublesome moments of the Algerians during times of terrorism, torture, and capture. Yes, we do see a view of how the terrorist attacks effect the French civilians in injury and death, but this is made ok by more close-ups of Algerians be attacked and singled out. The film creates a one-step forward; two steps back effect that really allows viewers to sympathize with one side more than the other.

The movie used the works of close-ups and other film shots to successfully lure the viewer to sympathaize with a certain character or culture. When watching this movie, I noticed the director wanted the viewer to feel "sad" for the Algierians, and make the army seem as the bad guy. Im not necessarily sure if the army was the bad guy in this situation, but it seems as though the director was attempting to convey it that way. There was good and bad to each side. The army's bad side was(and i'm talking about this without knowing the actual reason for the war, I'm just basing it off of what I saw in the movie)the way they treated the Algierans, and how they disrepected the woman, for example when they patted them down when passing through checkpoints. Although, the bad side to the Algierans was that they retaliated and bombed/killed innocent french tourists/locals. These people had nothing to do with the war and yet were victim to the anger of the Algierans.

The film is extremely relevant to today as many wars that are ongoing are off this instance. The war in Iraq may seem very much like the war in Algiers because of the underground resistance, the unwanted troops, and the sneak attacks.

Sympathy is easily create in this movie and it is rediculously easy to feel bad for both sides. We see that the innocent French are being killed by sneak bombs. We view the faces of young people at these locations, babies, and people dancing, living their lives. We also see the oppression faced to the Arab people. The checkpoints, the harrasment, and the will they have to become independent of the French Rule. It was tough to see Ali La Pointe be blown up but it was also tough to see Air France or the racetrack taken care of as well.

The film is extremely relevant to today as many wars that are ongoing are off this instance. The war in Iraq may seem very much like the war in Algiers because of the underground resistance, the unwanted troops, and the sneak attacks.

Sympathy is easily create in this movie and it is rediculously easy to feel bad for both sides. We see that the innocent French are being killed by sneak bombs. We view the faces of young people at these locations, babies, and people dancing, living their lives. We also see the oppression faced to the Arab people. The checkpoints, the harrasment, and the will they have to become independent of the French Rule. It was tough to see Ali La Pointe be blown up but it was also tough to see Air France or the racetrack taken care of as well.