I'm certainly not going to challenge that this is a great film, but doesn't anyone see the bias in it?
Its whole purpose is to glorify the uprising of Algerians. It justifies terrorism! However, it does show the French side, although I don't feel that makes it unbiased...just..."balanced"?
<Its whole purpose is to glorify the uprising of Algerians.
And what's wrong with that. Everybody should have freedom.
<It justifies terrorism!
Does it?
We're talking about unchecked aggression here, dude.
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=6221274
Franco Solinas, who co-wrote the screenplay based upon the diary of Saadi Yacef, was a member of the Italian Communist Party and a dedicated supporter of a global Marxist anti-imperial revolution. Here are some quotes from an interview in 1972:
"A deep analysis of the political situation had completely ruled out the possibility of a revolution on our continent. You can understand how the explosions of colonial contradictions, the revolutions, the armed struggles that were then erupting from Cuba to Algeria in the entire geography of the third world, stirred up hope as well as interest. You had come to believe that capitalism, seemingly undefeatable at home, could have been defeated once and for all in its supplying bases."
"Of course, but you don't attack colonialism for using torture. If you like, you can call torture only the 'signal' indicating a decaying situation; but do not wait for the exposure of torture to become aware of the colonial situation. If you do, you are both irresponsible and naive. The Algerian colonial situation was rotten long before torture became an issue... Suddenly the question of torture explodes and in France they say it's unethical to torture. Then and only then is the Algerian war a 'dirty war,' colonialism wrong, and the French position anti-historical... This kind of reasoning is ridiculous. For centuries they've tried to prove that war is fair play, just like duels, but war is not, and therefore any method used to fight it is good."
On the character of Col. Mathieu:
"Actually, Mathieu is extremely sincere when he rationally and pitilessly says that torture is inevitable and that those who want a French Algeria must steel themselves to it. If his position is immoral and inhuman because it tries to halt a historical process, at least he is honest in his dishonesty. He dispenses with hypocrisy. He has no use for it."
The movie is deceptively neutral. Solinas claims to have no problem with the use of terrorism on both sides, but he still feels the need to have Ben M'hidi justify the FLN's terrorism by accusing the French of bombing whole villages. He neglects to mention that the FLN is not uniformed and intentionally forces French troops to attack civilians, thus bringing more support to the FLN. But French soldiers and policemen are clearly uniformed and identifiable. That is an extremely important distinction.
I mostly agree, except I don't think anything "forces" French troops to attack civilians. Violence is always an active choice and, while the FLN was probably trying to provoke a heavy-handed response on the part of the French, nothing says they had to react like that. After all, if they'd found attacking civilians to be truly abhorrent then they would not have done so.
shareThank you valirus1 for these precisions.
And not only for them.
The scene that impresses me most is the one
in the stadium after the explosion, when the
enraged Frenchmen wanted to lynch a little
Arab boy selling refreshments,shouting:
"You are one of them !!!" and then 2 French
policemen, braving the mob's fury, snatched
him away pleading:"leave him alone,he's only
a child !".The incident was related matter-
of-factly without hype or exaggeration,
unexpected and all the more poignant.
Kipling, so often vilified for being an apologist
of imperialism, had however written:"Terrorism is
the poor man's war. War is the rich man's terrorism."
MuSTAche#2 had once said that a population fighting
on its own soil is not bound by the rules of war.
"Justifying" thence the use of women and children in
bomb-placing.
Unfortunately this is the only philosophy we have left.
"It justifies terrorism!"
I haven't read the other responses, but I think this is the point of the film. Not to justify "terrorism," but to question what terrorism really is. As Ben Mhadi (sp?) is brought before reporters and the question of ethics in revolutionary times is brought forth. A reporter asks him to explain the use of using women's baskets as a means to disguise bombs. His answer is very telling:
"Isn't it even more cowardly to attack defenseless villages with napalm bombs that kill many thousands of times more? Obviously, planes would make things easier for us. Give us your bombers, sir, and you can have our baskets."
Is this terrorism any worse than the actions of the French? Who are the terrorists here? Since the French are well funded and more high tech, are their actions any more justified in the killing of the innocent than those of the revolutionaries? Are the torture methods not a mean of terrorizing the arab community of Algeria?
This word "terrorism" gets thrown around a lot now adays after 9/11, but I think it's become a blanket term for underfunded means of warfare. These men and women could not meet on some battlefield and bring about change and freedom. They could not have their political voice heard, so what do they do?
I'm not saying war and death are the only answer to the problem. Take Ghandi for example. But when your back is against the wall, it makes sense to lash out and attack your oppressors.
Would the Owner of an Ounce of Dignity Please Contact the Mall Security?
France invaded Algeria, the rest of the Maghreb and many other countries in Africa, killed millions of people and stole their natural resources. And to this day France has never apologized for its crimes!
I am not amazed that a French person is calling Algerians terrorists for defending their country and their dignity... A couple of months ago France made it illegal to deny the Armenian genocide by the Turks, and forgot the millions that it killed in Africa and Indochina.
I am proud Algeria knocked France's teeth out and brought its empire to its knees.
it justifies terrorism in the same way that films about the american revolution justify terrorism.
shareWhy shouldn't a film be biased? It's not a news report, after all.
Anyway, it's biased against the French, which is always a good thing.
--
Ratings: http://us.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=4996900&s=uservote&s=reverse_uservote
The sad thing is that pretty much all news reports are a lot more biased than this film.
share[deleted]
Actually you're all wrong: France won in Algeria in military terms. The FLN were comprehensively defeated by 1958. The terrorism on the part of the FLN did not win Algeria independence. In the end, it was DeGaulle who wanted shot of Algeria as a colony even going so far as to wash his hands of the colonists. This in turn led to the aborted military coup in 1962 and the killings in France of Algerian refugees in the same year.
The film expertly portrays a conflict where there is no clear goody or baddie. The viewer's sympathy is constantly shifted: The FLN say they're not as evil as the French, who bomb villages. Then Col. Mattieu makes that brilliant speech about how the press label his men Nazis when they survived Dachau and Buchenwald and sympathy switches back. Then you see the French soldiers torturing FLN members for information so the sympathy switches again, followed by FLN members randomly gunning down civillians in the street. No other film has been that ambivalent about a cause and so captivating at the same time.
In the end, the movie shows what people are prepared to do if they think the cause is worthy enough. Mattieu wants to save civillian lives and he can't wait for the legalities so he resorts to torture and justifies it. The FLN are angry and feel opressed so they're prepared to murder anyone to get what they want. Everyone is right and yet everyone is wrong.
www.rhubba.com for comedy movies, radio, blogs and...erm...stuff.
If bias means distorting the truth if favor of one side, then I dont think the film is biased. In the end you might end up sympathizing with the Algerians, but it's not that the film would lie about them in order to make them more likable. It's just that they really were the underdogs and they won.
Notice, that colonel Mathieu is a likable character in Battle of Algiers and you can feel his dilemma. He really saved civilian lives by torturing the revolutionaries and preempting the bomb attacks, but on the other hand his methods alienated the Algerian population even more. I saw an interview with colonel Bigeard (who was depicted as Mathieu in the film) in which he stated that the film was pretty accurate.
The film doesn't justify terrorism. First of all, the term "terrorism" today is a kind of a scarecrow for the western population. Notice that the algerians never ment to wage war on unbelievers or anything like that. They just wanted to drive the french away from their own (algerian) country. They even asked them politely to leave Algeria without bloodshed before initiating any attacks. Afther the french occupation army left, the attacks stopped. This is a fundamentaly different approach then that of Osama bin Ladin for instance.
The unsettling fact is, that the terror tactics of the revolutionaries worked. On the other hand - the "interrogation methods" of the french paratroopers were proved also very effective for crushing the FLN organisation. But would you say the film actualy promotes torture?
So blowing up unsuspecting civilians is just a scarecrow for the West? Nice. There was an islamist component in the struggle and that came out during the civil war later in which islamists killed a couple of hundred thousand (mostly in terror attacks). Also note that during first free elections, Algerians overwhelmingly voted islamist....
shareNotice the difference between the "act of terrorism" - e.g. blowing up civilians and the "term terrorism" - i.e. a word used by politicians. While the former is an attrocity, the latter is a scarecrow (if you don't support war on Iraq, the big bad terrorist will get you).
What you are presenting here, is "islamophobia". What is wrong on voting for islamist party? Once again - even though the FLN were islamists, they did not wage a religious war - it was political.
Unfortunately, it's not that cut and dry. Do you recall the scene where they attack the drunk? Seems as though there was a purge from within as well. Of course, you might say that it was just 'cleaning the derelicts' out of the way so that the 'clear-headed' people could rebuild Algeria, but I suspect that there was indeed religous overtones behind their methods.
FWIW, I dont think that TBOA is biased at all.
Yes, thats true. Their actions against drugs and prostitutes were a kind of "religious clensing". However there is a difference between trying to get your nation rid of alcohol and declaring holy war on all unbelievers. Still I think it was partially a political move with the religion being the unifying element for the nation.
shareThe actions against the prostitutes and drug addicts was not about religious cleansing though religious language was used to persuade the people in joining the FLN in rooting out such people. The FLN feared that these groups of people would be vulnerable to police tactics to extort information about the FLN who wished to use the Kasbah as their base in Algiers. This is why the FLN used religious propaganda to get rid of such people.
my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ishshare
''However there is a difference between trying to get your nation rid of alcohol and declaring holy war on all unbelievers.''
In fact, many leftists are against and have banned alcohol. Tabasco under the Marxist governor Tomas Garrido Canabal comes to mind.
---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.
What is wrong about voting for an Islamist party? How about the fact that you might end up living under Sharia and without free elections in short order (see Saudi Arabia or Iran for an example, before you say there are elections in Iran you should know that only parties approved by theocracy get to participate). Oops.
shareI think you missed the point. There are many reasons why a political party might be bad. If the party wants to disrupt democracy or break basic human rights, then it is a bad party and one should fight it (by political means if possible). But to dismiss a party just because it is islamic, is wrong. Islam is not just the terrorists. Just as christianity is not just Westboro Baptist Church or IRA.
Here we were talking about the first rulers of the independent Algeria. While they were certainly not perfect (they made a lot of poor decisions) the problem was not in their islamic background and they were not trying to implement any Sharia rules or anything similar...
[deleted]
''How about the fact that you might end up living under Sharia and without free elections in short order (see Saudi Arabia...''
Supported by the good ol' USA, no less. They are one of the USA's main allies. All you Islamophobes should probably know that.
---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.
^Maybe thats because the newly formed goverment became corrupt and useless! It's *beep* colonialism that makes countries like Algeria!!! You deprive those people of freedom and dignity for all these years and expect their countries to function when they suddenly have freedom?! Half of the *beep* atrocities commited in Algeria are commited by govermental forces claiming they are fighting against the Islamists! It also seems that you are against democracy as well!
shareThere are four levels of terrorism, not going to cover all of them, if you really interested, go read Paul Johnson's theories on the subject.
One of them is, however, the state inflicting violence on their subjects to coerce them into following the state without resistance... fit in anywhere for you?
The difference is that the FLN adopted (what we today would call terrorist) guerilla tactics while fighting the French.
I didn't see any bias because I thought it presented the negatives of both sides.
One of the most disturbing scenes was showing Algerian children attacking a homeless man for using alcohol.
And the only thing close to heroism was the French racetrack guards who rescued the Algerian boy being kicked by a mob.
Fully agree with you aorourke55.
The situation in Algeria today is summed up
in three cartoons by the French caricaturist
Plantu:
#1 A GIA(GroupeIslamisteArme)member with his assault rifle
jealously guards a picture of his Imam with the
warning:"Touche pas a mon PolPot !"
("Stay away from my PolPot !")
#2 An Algerian Army officer with his assault rifle
jealously guards a picture of his general with the
warning:"Touche pas a mon Pote !"
("Stay away from my Buddy !")
#3 An Algerian civilian with his double-barreled shotgun
jealously guards his kitchen with the warning :
"Touche pas a ma Popote !"
("Stay away from my Stew !")
My apologies for the loose translations !
Any bias in American movies about WWII?
Do filmmakers put an equal sign between Nazi and Allied soldiers?
I don't think so.
Why should there be an equal sign between the actions of the colonizers fighting to maintain oppression and the actions of the colonized fighting to end oppression?
"Terrorism" isn't different from what regular armies do, it's just that it's not a regular army that does it.
share