MovieChat Forums > La battaglia di Algeri (1967) Discussion > Comparisons between this film and Munich

Comparisons between this film and Munich

posted 18 years ago by nuv
28 replies | jump to latest

1st. of all, if you haven't seen this film, go see it NOW! It's one of those timeless films (like Network) that seem to be more pertinent as each day goes by. I just saw it on Sundance, and I was mesmorized for the last 1.5 hours (missed the beginning).

My question for the forum is this: is it me, or did anyone see any similarities with this film and Munich? Although I saw Munich before the Battle of Algiers, I can say that both films depicted modern terrorism in a fairly balanced manner...although Munich takes a thoroughly Jewish perspective on being the recipients of terrorism, while the Battle of Algiers clearly sympathizes with the Muslim perspective on why terrorism is justifiable (in their minds).

In fact, if I hadn't given it more thought, I would suspect Spielberg really borrowed heavily from the Battle of Algiers...unintentionally or not.

Thoughts on this?

[–] Bitter_Almonds 18 years ago

Munich was weeeeeak, as most Spielberg movies are. Try a better comparison with another movie dealing with the same subject matter, such as The Sword Of Gideon.

Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

[–] bravomailer 18 years ago

I just saw The Battle of Algiersfor the first time. I thought the tense percussion in the soundtrack while the women are walking to their assignments was imitated/paid homage to in Munich with somewhat similar percussion as the assassination team closes in on a target.

[–] torontodog 18 years ago

Maybe Spielberg borrowed from this classic. You didn't mention the flashbacks to 1972 in "Munich" (which I thought saved the film from being weak), that are almost documentary/newsreel style. This style was also a highlight of the "Battle of Algiers". But overall there are probably better comparisons - perhaps even reality.

I guess your trying to say that one movie sympathised with terrorists while the other sympathised with the victims of terrorists. But do you really think the people in Algiers are any more terrorists than the Americans who revolted against England? French weren't villified in the Battle of Algiers, even though they used torture and violence liberally. On the other hand, Munich was entirely from the Israeli perspective like you said - and it doesn't pretend to be otherwise.

Ultimately the whole issue of terrorism is explained by an exchange at the end of Battle of Algiers. The french soldier with the megaphone shouts at the crowd "What do you want?" Just like we all wonder about these people when they turn to such desperate measures. "Freedom!" Is their obvious answer.

[–] agentofdoom23 18 years ago

I noticed these films shared similarities especially music was quite similar..

[–] justinoregan 18 years ago

Alfonso Cuarón also paid tribute to this film in a recent film and stated that he was trying to achieve a similar atmosphere in The Children of Men.

[–] CaptMal 18 years ago

I hope I don't get killed for saying that, while both are great films, I prefer Munich.

Those are some interesting comparisons, though I doubt The Battle of Algiers meant to imply that the Muslims were terrorists...while they are depicted as such in the film by the French government, I think that the meaning here was that the French were just as much of terrorists as the Muslims. The film does a truly excellent job of blurring the lines between morality.

--The Artist Formerly Known as UnpluggedCrazy Before My Account Got Hacked--

[–] UncleShark 18 years ago

I agree with bravomailer. The music is very similar.

[–] Keen_3 18 years ago

Now that I've read that someone preferred Munich to this specimen of cinematic genius, I have to leave this site.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lovelygreebo 17 years ago

^Why are Algerians terrorists? It's their country. I suppose you are French, guess you guys are terrorists too, the French resistance are a nasty bunch who bomb German soldiers.

[–] Pulpmariachi 17 years ago

"Munich" was not a weak film or a bad film or a terrible film in any way. Sure, it had some problems but whatever. It was well constructed, well executed, and could work on different levels, whether it be for the pure enjoyment of a spy thriller or for a morally questioning film addressing terrorism and what have you.

And to say any Spielberg film is weak is ignorant and blinded by the art snob pretension that just because he's popular he must suck.

Regardless of all that, I personally can see the similarities but the main difference I think is that "Munich" doesn't just show the Irasli spy group taking names, but it also shows how much this vengeance mission tears them apart. It asks if answering violence with more violence really is the most justifiable outcome and when do the people trying to make things right turn into terrorists themselves? "The Battle of Algiers," to me, painted both parties in a sort of negative light (which I suppose is the similarity), though there's a more prominent response towards these people fighting for liberation.

At least, that's how I saw it.

A screaming comes across the sky.

[–] kirby-37 15 years ago

Sorry wrong, Spielberg's films do suck, and whether or not his films are popular is irrelevant.

"Munich" is not as bad as most but it has most of his films' flaws. He doesn't know how to end a film for one thing, and bludgeons the viewer with the "message" he wants everyone to weep over, no matter how obvious it has already been throughout the film. The message of Spielberg in this mediocre film is that terrorism is fine if it's done in the name of Zionism. Otherwise the terrorist is a filthy subhuman, who deserves whatever they get, and if innocent people get in the way, too bad. But wait, a Zionist would never kill an innocent person on purpose, unless of course, they happened to be in the residential areas the Israeli army regularly blows to little pieces.

The Battle of Algiers is a master piece because it doesn't take sides so overtly but instead gives viewers the opportunity to decide on their own what they feel about the events of the films as they are presented. There are good and bad colonizers and colonized.

[–] kbond225 15 years ago

You promise? Forever?
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

[–] alpha_1976 18 years ago

Munich was more or less crap in comparison to this classic!

We're talking about unchecked aggression here, dude.

http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=6221274

[–] marktabolov 18 years ago

I would consider them terrorists, and they did murder civilians on purpose.

[–] Writ_in_Water 17 years ago

I agree with marktabolov: the deliberate, random slaughter of civilians is terrorism, no matter what the "cause" or nationality of the victims. The film is aware of this and doesn't soft-pedal it.

[–] fistjedi 17 years ago

Munich and Algiers are both classic films. People need to quit hating on Spielberg just because he can make box office hits as well as films for the artistic crowds.

[–] jemimakahn 16 years ago

I find the two films quite different. "Battle of Algiers" is like a docu-drama, neutrally showing all sides of the conflict. "Munich" may progress episodically but it's shown from Avner/Bana's point of view, filtered thru his emotional state, his inner conflict.
Treatmentwise, "Munich" is almost silky smooth (as if conveying Avner's contemplative state). Lots of smooth 70's style dolly movements with detailed set pieces that use that wonderful Cinemascope depth of field. In contrast "Battle of Algiers" is in the old newsreel style - jagged, often hand-held, muscular, conveying a great sense of immediacy. How they shot those massive riots & demonstrations using ordinary people boggles the mind.

But yes, I would imagine that "BOA" has influenced a lot of great directors, including Spielberg. The Algerian drums definitely seem to have been an inspiration for the speeded up heartbeat-like music we hear every time Avner & Co. set up an attack. But the film-maker who seems to have been the most influenced by this film is Paul Greengrass - if "Bloody Sunday" & "United 93" are anything to go by.

Both films have stayed with me. If the killing of the female Dutch assassin in "Munich" lingers, then the cries and ululations of the Algerian women echoing all night thru the Kasbah will always be imprinted in my mind.

[–] Trouter2000 16 years ago

You'll likely find a lot of criticism for comparing Spielberg to a film like this, but I did see some similarities, though vague.

[–] colt_89 16 years ago

I too felt they seemed slightly similar in some ways. But this was better, no doubt.

--
Please check out some short reviews by me:
http://filmandtv-reviews.blogspot.com/

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

I think Munich borrowed more from Day of the Jackal, but that's just me. There was at least one explicit homage (the girl who leaves her bedroom door unlocked for the assassin) and the casting of Michel Lonsdale (Commissioner Lebel) as the head of the anarchist group who feeds the Israelis information.

Oh, so now the talking cheese is going to preach to us!