World Literatures

When the FLN made their bomb attack it made me wonder. I mean out off the first three places they attack two of them were bars. And since drinking alcohol and dancing is prohibited in Muslim religion, were they trying to save their religion rather than their country?

I thought it was interesting when one of the french guards tried to hand pat one of the women and she began to scream. Then the other guard said "never touch their women" implying that the women are powerless and won't do any harm. But I think they had the most power in the film and did the most damage.

One interesting aspect that I found in the film was the means of communication used and how literacy played a part.

When Ali gets his first assignment, it is delivered in the form of a note. This struck me because of the high illiteracy rate among the Arabs (the Fanon excerpt says up to 98% (65)). It seems like this would be a highly ineffective means of communication for starting a rebellion. In fact, it is a problematic means of communication as Ali has to have the note read to him by a child. The only time that we see truly effective communication is when a child highjacks the speaker system and uses it to communicate FLN messages. That part reminded me of the message found within the “Things Fall Apart� essay where it encourages rebels to use the oppressors’ means of communication against themselves.

Did anyone else notice anything similar?

They weren't bars that were attacked. Well not the kind with alcohol. They attacked a milk bar, a cafe and Air France.

And in my opinion I think the line about not touching their women was out of respect for their religion/culture, not because they are powerless.

The sceen I have enjoyed most in this movie was the interview with M'Blidi(sp) and one of the reporters calls their use of handbags cowardly. Then he turns the question around, I though that made a great point.

I agree with Haftom that the uprising was at least partly motivated by religion.

There are two scenes that jump out immediately that support this: the wedding scene where they said that they hoped one day to have weddings in the open and the announcement in the beginning in which the rebels stated that they wanted to establish an Islamic State

Although religion may play a part in their uprising, I think that for the most part, they are rebelling to gain independence from France.

I think it is interesting how they took a man into custody for the random police murders, and he was just a homeless man. He happened to fit the description of they people that were killing (being an Arab), so they immediately assumed he was guilty.

Also, I think it is interesting the racial views. The Arabs are looked at as the lesser of the two because they are fighting for their independence, and not only are the ones rebelling looked at as bad, but every Arab is looked down upon whether they are part of the rebellion or not.

I think the gender roles are a combination of gender and religion. They look down upon the women whether it is looking at them religiously or genderly. The women are great people to carry the bombs because they underestimated what the women could do, and the Arab leaders of the rebellion took advantage of that.

I think the strongest image when was the French bombed house #8 and children were killed and were being carried out by the other arabs. The music in the background really made the scene intense. In a way, it made the battle hit the innocent, but then I think about when the group of children attack the drunk man on the street.

I think the strongest image when was the French bombed house #8 and children were killed and were being carried out by the other arabs. The music in the background really made the scene intense. In a way, it made the battle hit the innocent, but then I think about when the group of children attack the drunk man on the street.

I want to expand on the comment about using the oppressor’s communication tool to fight back the oppressor... I think that is an interesting idea, because I agree with Heidi on it.

Another time when the Arabs used the colonizers language to fight back was when the Arab women spoke fluent French with the French Army while adorned with bombs; they managed to pass the gate point.

Also because these women took on the colonizers appearance as well as their language they were successful with their attack. These women, who never showed their hair or any other body part other than their eyes, completely changed themselves on the outside to match the colonizers way of dressing. I think that demonstrates extreme dedication to FLN.

O ya I made a mistake the article I was referring to was posted by Chris Z. not Heidi sorry … lol

Though the FLN may be partly motivated by religion, they did allow their women to cut their hair and show their skin to act as French women so they could place the bombs. I think that this shows that their main drive is independence, not religion.

Communication is another great focus of the movie-whether the communication through letters to most people who are illiterate or the using of French to get past guards to place bombs. I think that the communication between the French andd the FLN happens mainly through the violence. When the FLN first attacks with terrorism, the French paratroopers arrive. The FLN strikes, and the French interrogate and torture. The FLN then responds by creating more bombings and attacks. Through this conversation they give the message to one another that each will not stop fighting until there is an obvious winner.

In response to several comments regarding religion as the motivation of the FLN, I think that the ultimate goal was truly independence. To me, it seems that outsiders and oppressors used the religious dedication of the people of Algiers against them as a propaganda tool to gather support for the actions of the French military. To the rest of the world, the Algerians are depicted as merely over zealous, religious radicals. Similarly, I think this tactic is being used today with the war in Iraq.

According to the film, the FLN goal was to liberate Algeria from French colony and the French goal was to stay in Algeria as a colonizers. Yet, I did not like both the FLN and the french methods of violence to reach their goals. I think violence breeds violence, hate, resentment, and despair. We can see in the film unnecessary civilian deaths because the FLN and the french want to achieve their goals. I am inspired by people who engage in peaceful negotiations to solve their differences. I am also interested in humanitarian missions that aim to help people such as the poor, ill, and elderly.

Yes Sirak, but not everything can be settled peacefully. Sadly, sometimes violence is the answer. Though was it the only answer in this situation, I don't know. I don't want to go all Machiavellian, but sometimes the ends do justify the means.

I noticed the theme that everyone seems to be a part of the violence that is occurring. There are many instances throughout the movie where a large crowd of people is watching the event unfold. For example, the marriage, when the French are accusing the homeless man of killing the policeman, and when the Muslims are finding the wounded buried in the ruble. I think this shows that the whole community has a part in the uprising whether they want it or not.

First, I want to touch on the idea of communication. Mandi pointed out that a lot of the communication happens through the violence between the FLN and the French. But keep in mind the other ways they used their actions to communicate. A prime example of this was the organized strike to demonstrate the FLN's unity. They were trying to prove to the UN that they were on a united front and were truly looking for a change, not just stirring up trouble with the French.
In this case, peace was their medium of communication rather than violence.

In response to the idea of the oppressed using the language of the oppressors against them, we can also look at the boy selling the French man a newspaper. More likely than not, that paper was printed in French. While we do not know exactly where the money was going, it was most likely used for food and supplies. While these things were not necessarily bombs or directly used against the French, what they purchased with the French man's money indirectly supported their efforts. For example, if the money was used to purchase food, other funds which would have been used for this was now freed up for weaponry and such.

I think it is interesting how in the movie the FLN is killing not only the French but also their people with bombings and shootings. The children that were bombed we Arab. I think it is also interesting how they are trying to gain independence through violence, which isn't working in the film. All they are doing is killing innocent people, whereas the French had better means of stopping the violence. I agree that some violence is necessary, and can't be avoided, but I think this film goes about it in all the wrong ways. Bombing groups of people didn't have the affect they were looking for - it didn't stop the French. All it did was make the French create baracades that the Arabs had to go through, and other obstacles.

Sirak and Christopher, you both have legitimate ideas but this problem is more complex. I also think both the Arabs and the French are thinking in a utilitarian fashion they want greater good for the greater amount of people.

Yes, yes the end sometimes justifies the means but both the oppressor and the oppressed feel this way. Let’s think of it this way, if both use violence and they both think it will all end in a just way, who is to say when it will all end? Both sides have similar goals and their goals will never get reached they will both be stuck in a cycle. They both think a little violence here and there is nothing compared to what will be accomplished at the “end�. Which is the Arabs free of the French and for the French it is submissive Arabs…

Cycles once started are hard to end or stop....

I think violence is necessary in this movie. Both sides feel too strongly about their position to be able to negotiate. Additionally, there is really no middle ground. Although the choice of targets, on both sides might be inefficient at proving their point. By killing civilians, all either side is doing is outraging people and forcing them to choose a side in the conflict. By interrogating innocent people, the French are also building support among the Arabs for the cause. I think in the end whichever side has more heart and determination to withstand will be successful.

I thought there was an interesting parallel between the bombings, because in house #8, you see many Arabs clearing rubble and pulling people out. In the bombings by the FLN, like at the milk bar, you see groups of French running to pull people out. I know the two races are very separate, but if they were not, I wonder if any French would run to pull Arabs out of a collapsed building, and vice versa.

Also, along with the comments about women, I do not really think that not touching them was about respecting the culture, even if it was under that pretense. It seemed more to prevent unneeded hostility that would further provoke the FLN, and if the French really thought that women were capable of any violence, they would have searched them anyway.

I think one of most interesting scenes was when the Muslim women were cutting and styling their hair, applying make-up and putting on stylish dresses that the one would see the French women wear. It is part of their religion to have the women completely covered and having these women change their appearance when it is against their religion shows that their fight for independence is more important than their religion.

Another important scene that I think is interesting was when the Arabs went on a strike which ultimately shuts down the whole city. The interesting part of this scene is when the military troops go and use force to make the Arabs go back to work. It's ironic that the troops use violence as their solution when strikes are meant to be peaceful.

In reference to the comments regarding the necessity of violence in the decolonization of Algiers, I think that unfortunately there is no other way. Fanon emphasizes this idea in the first paragraph of his essay when he states that "..decolonization is always a violent phenomenon," (29) and that "Decolonization is quite simply the replacing of a certain species of men by another species of men." (29). Also, I think that the attempt at a peaceful strike with little to no recognition by the UN also supports the idea that violence is unavoidable.

I agree with Mahlet that both groups thinking their way was best really wasn't getting anyone anywhere fast. After all, doesn't an eye for an eye leave the whole world blind? Why couldn't grown men see their tactics were leading them in circles?

In response to the ineffectiveness of the strike, I believe that its occurance was not fruitless. I believe it stood for so much more than just a demonstration for the UN. The strike gave the people a new sense of unity and renewed their sense of support for one another. Additionally, I think the power they demonstrated by practically shutting down the city put the French in their place. I don't think the French realized how much influence the native people really had in Algiers.

In reference to all the comments about the women involved in the bombings, I wonder whether their actions were forced or if they were by choice. The woman carrying the bomb in the milk bar seemed extremely uncomfortable. I actually thought she was going to back out and not follow through. Did anyone else get that impression?

Oh, wait! One more question! Why did the Colonel refuse to answer the question the reporter asked about Ben's suicide? Was it really just a reporting error as the Colonel suggested, or was there more to it?

Another thing I noticed was that there seemed to be constant struggle within the FLN. They all had the same basic goal, but they fought over how to go about. A main struggle seemed to be how Ali always wanted to get to their goal through violence. He wanted to start bombings again etc. Another member, who seemed to be above him in the hierarchy, wanted to peacefully regain contacts before making any other decisions.

Ali always seemed to want violence. Maybe it was for revenge? I think this was first evident when, instead of just shooting the police man from behind, he felt the need to run in front of him and make a show/speech before shooting him publicly.

Obviously that backfired.

One theme that I find particulary interesting is the role that women have in this film. In previous readings, women have had no voice and are looked at as insignificant. In the Battle of Algiers, the women play an immense role in the progress of the FLN. The women transported weapons, planted bombs, delivered messages, and hid the FLN members that the French army was looking for. I think that the women were vital to the FLN's goal of achieving freedom from French oppression.

I agree with Kristin's comment about how the whole community is involved whether they want to be or not. On several accounts innocent people, both Algerians and French, where getting killed. If an Algerian didn't want to help the FLN, he was rejected and possibly killed by his own people. The FLN knew that they needed to get a large amount of public help in order for their fight to be effective, which is why they were forcing people to pick their side.

I agree with Mandi that the FLN is independence driven and not religion oriented. I also could not help but watch this movie and feel many parallels between the French army and the Arabs, to the current situation in Iraq and the middle east today. I also found it interesting that the word terrorism was used. When the word terrorism was used in this movie, we saw the people committing the acts of terror and we are not meant to hate them. We see their point of view as to why they are committing these acts. When we hear the word terrorism today, we are filled with anger towards the people who committed the 9/11 attacks but we don't really know their side of the story. I am not at all saying here that I agree to the slightest degree to what the terrorists have done, but it was very thought provoking for me to think about why people commit violent acts.

I am wondering about the draft that Ali la Pointe dodged, which was mentioned in the beginning describing his character. Were all Algerian men oblidged to serve for the French goverment's army? Was this the same army that barricaded and questioned the Arab people? What were the consequences of his not serving?

I was very suprised that the women played such a large role in the rebelion acts. They never were the one's to actually fire a gun, but the were the ones to concele them and hand them off. In addition to this, I was suprised that the french army, in the one scene, respected the fact that they were not to touch the women.

However I think their act of rebelion held alot of power. I don't think it was pointless at all. They were very smart about it too. The whole pyramid scheme really made it difficult to reach the root of the problem. However it was sort of "movie-ish" that the eliminated them from the bottom up. There weren't that many levels to their organization, it would have been likely that they would've gotten a lead somewhere early on. Not to mention their actual acts weren't that sly themselves.

A common theme that we have touched on lately, having just read Nervous Conditions, and is brought up in the film is oppression of women. The Algerian women are reserved, standing quietly aside as the men take control of the quest for Algeria's independence, using women only as a means of doing so. For instance, a woman provides Ali with the gun he uses to kill French guards, and is beaten when she gives him a faulty gun.
Another thing to note: it is ironic that in trying to create a peaceful and independent Algeria, violence and terrorism is occuring, not only toward the French, but also toward citizens of Algeria.

One thing I noticed and didn't really understand was the Spanish music played in the bar. (At least I think it was Spanish...maybe it was just too early in the morning) What was the director trying to portray by playing Spanish music in Algeria (if it was in fact Spanish)?

I think that Colonel Mathieu was just beating around the bush, so to speak, in his responses during the press conference after Ben M'Hidi's suicide. He claimed that his paratroopers ask the captured Arabs questions like in any other police operation. He also said that 'torture' does not appear in their orders. We see later that torture does take place and plenty of it.

I would like to draw a parallel from this scene to what is happening with our "war on terrorism" here, today. American soldiers are torturing prisoners in the prisons of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib yet, when asked, our administration refuses to use the term 'torture'. Instead, what they are doing are 'interrogation techniques.'

How about the required screening of this film in the Pentagon for generals heading to Iraq? Did they get this deleting of the word torture from their vocabulary directly from this film? And, the French won the battle of Algiers but ultimately lost the war. I think that their defeat was partly because of the ineffectual use of torture. Does this show us, through the many parallels drawn between these two wars, that we will ultimately lose? Then what, again, are the meanings of the screening of this film at the Pentagon?

It seems to me that the war between the FLN and the French is one that neither side could win. There will always be people who will do anything to protect something they are passionate about, like religion or in this films case, independence. Contrastingly, there will always be people who need to show off their superiority and prestige. Because of this, I tend to agree with Tricia's parallel to our current situation in Iraq. The Iraq war is very controversial throughout the world and the United States as you all know. Due to the controversy surrounding the wars validity, we get to see both sides of the story, or an unbiased view of the war. You can flip on the television at any time of day and hear from Democrats and/or Republicans. This correlates to the movie because as I see it, the film gives a surprisingly unbiased account of the war. In both cases we are given the option to form our own opinion given an unbiased account of the situation.

Like many of you I was also shocked at the role of women in the rebelion. Although they were never the one's to fire the gun, they still were the one's to conceal them and were relied on heavily by the men. In additon to this I was shocked that the french soldiers respected the fact that the arab women were not to be touched even durring a search.

On another point I think it was very smart of them to form the pyramid structure for their organization. Ultimately I think it was unrealistic that the 4 main men were the last to be caught. I think a main point in the movie was to show that the french were rather mindless where the Arabs were very intuitive and brite.

oops I posted twice

Earlier, Chris B. commented on his interest in the scene where the reporter is interviewing Ben M'Hidi and Col. Mathieu. I too find this scene especially interesting. Also, expanding on the quote he talked about, I found it very witty. The reporter asked Ben if he found it cowardly to use women's handbags to kill numerous people. Ben responded saying if the NLF had their airplanes it would be a lot easier for them. He then says, "Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets". That entire scene shows that both sides, the French and the FLN, see violence necessary for their respective ultimate goals. The FLN wanted liberation whereas the French wanted colonization. This again reiterates my earlier point that this film is definitely unbiased. Throughout the entire film, both sides of the war were illustrated, it was not trying to enforce a specific opinion on us. I really liked that aspect of the film.

In line with Hope's comment, I was also wondering about the draft dodging mentioned in the beginning of the film. If he were not a draft dodger, would he have been forced to serve in the opposing force?

I also wanted to comment on the fact that I agree with the many people who have said that the Algerians did not really have a choice in being part of the rebellion. In one part of the movie, Ali runs into someone who says he is "an old friend" but when the man refuses to join the FLN, Ali shoots and kills him. Ali also warns the other men with him to learn from the man, that if they do not join they will also be killed.

One tactic I found interesting that the French army used was they tried to turn around the FLN's points by saying things over the loud speakers such as the FLN was out to starve their people and turn them to poverty. They also said France is the future. I was curious if the people started to believe what the French were saying or if they stood by the FLN, and if they did start to believe the French, how long would it have taken for them to be "brainwashed". In a broader context, do you think colonizers in general used this tactic as a way to try to get peaceful submission over time from the people being colonized?

Like Tricia, also found the word Terrorism interesting. Even though the people killed many other people, we didn't hate them, because they had a reason for their terrorist activities. However, now the word terrorism only brings anger to everyone. I also founding it interesting how the women were portrayed in this film. The women look innocent from their appearance, however, they are the ones that help carry out the assassinations by carrying guns in their baskets.

I thought the kids’ role in the rebellion was very big, like delivering massages from one FLN member to another and to the people in general, one good example can be how Omar (I am not sure if that is his name) stole the mic, and told the prisoners not worry and to keep fighting and I am sure the people knew from his voice, the message is coming from a kid but they trust him and you can see that every prisoner start smiling and shouting after hearing Omar’s voice. It was interesting how he had a huge value in the FLN and he was very trusted by FLN. I mean he is a kid and you can foul him by a candy or some thing, but at the same time the French were not smart enough to see that coming.

From the scene, FLN gathered people for making revolution against France colonism. Mostly, what we could see of FLN was killing police officers, bombing public sites, and shooting at pedistrians on side-walk. Even though, Fanon of course packet mentioned, "decolonisation isalways a violent phenonomen" (p29), FNL's violence looked endlles untill the last scene; more over, none of the FLN's activities were peaceful.
Then, what were this violoences for? Didn't they started to mobilize natives in order to repel the colonial regimes? Aiming on colonized polices was effective, but now their targets are extended to settlers who didn't involve in the colonisation. Were the bombing sites religiously corrupted? Some might be, but air France bombing and side-walk shooting seemed mere revenge rather than organized movement.
On course packet page 40, it says, "At the beginning... the native intellectual over-stresses details and comes to forget... the real object of the struggle." Since Franch bourgeoisies started unmoral colonisation, FLN's using violent was somewhat inevitable. Even with strong reason like defeating colonism, killing people must not be forgiven, but this violence is already lost its purpose. I want to say one last thing that with this relentless killing, no one will think FLN was right.

I also agree with Tim, on how the film shows both sides of the war, and that there are no biases. I also found it interesting how immediately after the explosions, while the bloody victims are being carried to safety, the French pounce on the child, striking, kicking him, and shouting at him. However the child is saved by a French policemen, who asks the crowd to take it easy and that the boy is only a child. I thought this shows the Western sense of justice and fair play.

I also agree with Tim, on how the film shows both sides of the war, and that there are no biases. I also found it interesting how immediately after the explosions, while the bloody victims are being carried to safety, the French pounce on the child, striking, kicking him, and shouting at him. However the child is saved by a French policemen, who asks the crowd to take it easy and that the boy is only a child. I thought this shows the Western sense of justice and fair play.

Sorry, accidentally posted twice

Sorry, accidentally posted twice

Was Ali recruited by FLN because he was a draft dodger?

At the end of the press conference someone(I believe it was Col. Mathieu)made the comment that the conference had the opposite effect than was planned. What was he hoping to achieve with the press conference? And what role was Ben M'Hidi playing?

I noticed the FLN recruited the weak such as Ali who can't read and was imprisoned to do the violent acts. Does the film want to show us FLN members recruit primarily people who are uneducated and people who are in despair?

I realized that the women somewhat played an important rule during this movie. They had performed major attacks, such as bombing in the cafe' shop, milk place, and the that etc. I think this is a significant part for them as women to show their power. Even though they were told what to do and planned my man, but they had the courage to do so.

the second common I had is that they(Ali and the FLN) are consider "freedom fighters" in a way, because they are trying to gain independence for Algerian, but in a violent way instead of verbally or any other none violent way. Maybe they think these actions are the best way to attract attention also is much more powerful than just words.

The Machiavelian thinking process the end justifies the means leads us to accepting violence as a right thing to do in the name of freedom or independence. I disagree with this thought because there is not a clear line where violence is effective or necessary. I think extreme measures of violence such as killing becomes difficult to end once the violent act started even though it is agrred we pursue thru violence because we find no other choice or the pursuit of our idea is noble. I think people should strive and pursue peaceful negotiations to solve their differences to prevent innocent civilian bloodshed to accomplish a mission. I think people agree violence is necessary because they believed or thaught it is necessary. For example, a farmer who is deep in debt that his family does not have a food to eat if he loses his farm. A debt collecter harasses him or tells him he would seize everything he has if he is not able to give him money soon. Do you justify that the farmer commit a violent act toward the debt collecter because the farmer's life situation puts him in to a corner? Should situations in life dictate whether we resort to violence as a necessary? I think violence brings the worst in humans that we should not justify it because we think it is necessary.

I found it very interesting that they relied on the women to carry out much of the dirty work. I reflected on this idea much throughout the whole film, and found that they relied on the women alot. I felt that they used thier apparent "innocence" to force them into violent roles. WHen you think about it though this is not something that I would find offensive if I would have been one of those women. I would have been thankful to be apart of the acion, even if it was true that they were simply using me for my role in society!

The difference between the European women and the algerian women. The scene that struck me the most was when the three women were in the small room changing and the women cut off her hair. I felt that was a move to appear more grown up. The symbolism of her having a small problem with this, means that she values vanity a small bit! That is clearly different than the native women.

Thanks for this! I’ve been searching all over the web for the data.