nan | 楠木

The Battle of Algiers is a two-hour long reconstruction of the Algerian War for independence in the ’50s and early ’60s. Italian director Gillo Pontecorvo takes a very even-handed approach, showing the brutal tactics employed by both the French army and the Algerian resistance. The now legendary Ennio Morricone is the man behind the tense score. The end-result is a film that is chilling yet fascinating to watch.

While this is largely a film that focuses on the general public as opposed to individuals, there are a few characters that drive the plot loosely forward. On the Algerian side, a few leaders of the FLN (National Liberation Front) are portrayed. For the French, a fictional Colonel Mathieu leads the effort to crack down on the insurgency. These characters, though, are really just the backdrop for the realistic portrayal of guerilla warfare, terrorist tactics, torture and interrogation, as well as general brutality in a police state.

Cliched as it may now seem, the film highlights a key question in political philosophy – can the end justify the means? As in, is it moral for a people to adopt terrorism (bombings targeting civilians etc.) in its fight for a moral cause (independence)? And is it justifiable to conduct torture to stop terrorism (a question that certainly has high relevance today)?

Interestingly, another film that I watched last week, the brilliant biopic Gandhi, shows a contrasting path to achieve independence. While Mr. Gandhi’s methods and morals are highly commendable, it is certainly true that not all peoples can use peaceful non-cooperation to fight their oppressors. Gandhi’s success in India is deeply connected to the circumstances under which the struggle was fought – namely, the demise of the British Empire after the two world wars, changing global political climate, and the unique characteristics of British rule in India etc. And just to go off-topic a bit further, Gandhi’s methods were later shown to be not so successful when it came to the issue of Muslims and Hindus coexisting in India – that India was split into India and Pakistan is somewhat of a twisted ending to a glorious (and mostly peaceful) struggle for independence.

But back to the film under review. The film doesn’t answer these questions it poses – it is an observation, not a argument. The objective view taken is perhaps the most important attribute, since this allows viewers of different backgrounds to appreciate the film, instead of judging it as propaganda. Very watchable for anyone interested in political struggles.

8/10