Analysis of the Film "The Battle of Algiers" Paper Example

The film "Battle of Algiers," as directed by Gillo Pontecorvo, reconstructs a historical event which occurred between November and December of 1954 in the capital city of Algiers that was under the French colony (Pontecorvo, 1966). The story begins in a small town called Casbah, where organizing of small groups of resistance have established their grounds and are resisting the French rule. To restore peace and order the French authority sends the army to fight the opposition and arrest the members of the National Liberation Front (FLN), a movement which is responsible in the ongoing chaos and acts of terror directed towards the government and the innocent civilians (Pontecorvo, 1966). However, when the military gets there, they employ a dangerous tactic which entails a gross violation of human rights such as torture, unlawful detention, and the assassination of suspected terrorist. The movie depicts scenarios where both the French soldiers and FLN disregarded the laws of conduct when fighting the war, and this exposed the citizens to massive terror and suffering. In other words, the in the battle of Algiers, a subtle distinction existed between terrorists and the law enforcers, whereby both parties disregarded the value for the human life and the code of ethics to be observed when fighting any war.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A closer look at how Pontecorvo portrays terrorism in the "Battle of Algiers," one can realize that even though he shows the atrocities committed by these criminals, sometimes it might be necessary. In the movie, the FLN and other terror groups employ the tactic of violence and deliberating bombing of crowded places and thus killing innocent civilians so that the French authority could be compelled to leave the country and grant the Algiers its independence. The film portrays the terrorists as heroes who have to take up their arms against the colonizers and force their autonomy. In one part of the film, when the leader of the FLN is captured by the paratroopers and is asked if the terror movement is defeated, he replies that "the FLN has a higher chance of beating the French military then the chance they have to stop history" (Pontecorvo, 1966). Therefore, the movie intends to depict terrorism in this case as a necessary evil which can be tolerated for the greater good, in this case, the political gain and the independence of the nation.

On the other hand, the French are depicted in the movie as the villains who have employed brutal counterterrorism strategies that will win them the battle of Algiers but will cost them the Algerian colony. The indiscriminate violence and torture when pursuing terrorists seem to contradict the very ideals that the French army is fighting to defend. In the movie, we find one of the French general advocating for torture by indicating that the terrorists are not entitled to the protection given to other prisoners of war (Pontecorvo, 1966). This notion ignores the fact not every person who was captured was a terrorist, and some were innocent civilians who had been trapped in the fighting. Other strategies which were used as counterterrorism measures were instituting barricades and checkpoints in major roads of the cities and also conducting house to house checks in search of terrorist. These strategies are portrayed by the film as an epic failure which turns more people towards the administration and made them hardened critics of the colonial rule. This is shown towards the end of the film by a massive demonstration where people in Casbah come out in numbers to march on Algiers (Pontecorvo, 1966). Despite the brute response of the French army which entails the use of tear gas, machine guns and tanks the revolution had taken shape and people of Casbah had been radicalized into freedom fighters.

In my assessment think the actions of terrorists and the counterfeits measures were unacceptable in the film. Despite the central ideology behind the acts of terror being to compel the French to give Algiers its independent, the tactics employed by the FLN and other groups were unacceptable and primitive. The bombing of innocent civilians, torturing the people who never supported their course, and cult-like initiations into the movement which entailed killing the French police are all unjustifiable despite the end gain. It should be noted that the end cannot justify the means and evil actions cannot be justified no matter how good the course is. On the hand, I agree with the film's view of the French tactics of countering the insurgency as unfair, brutal and in total disregard of the fundamental human rights. Torcher and violence can never be used to bring permanent peace. The movie accurately predicts what happens when an administration seeks legitimacy through instilling fear and intimidating the people. The results of these failed tactics did cost the French its colony, and its name was tarnished domestically and on an international platform.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the movie offers important lessons to the nations involved in fighting terrorism on what to do and the tactics to avoid. Instead of using torture to obtain information, disregarding the ethics of fighting a justified war and violation of human rights, every nation should embrace less violent approaches to ensure that the general population does not turn against the administration. After all, violence cannot be used to solve any social problems. Instead, it only complicates issues and makes the goal of achieving lasting peace more elusive.

References

Pontecorvo, G. (1966, August 31). The Battle of Algiers (English Subtitles). Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/262944870. Accessed 26th September 2018