In discussing whether the film maker is trying to show us these acts ‘objectively’ we must discuss spectator positioning. Cinema of the third world stands opposed to imperialism and through spectator positioning Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers does exactly that. Gillo Pontecorvo exploited the “identificatory mechanisms of cinema on behalf of the colonised rather than the coloniser.” He described himself as “someone who approached man and the human condition with a feeling of warmth and compassion.” His approach to man and the human condition was applied to his presentation of the Algerian terrorists. Pontecorvo presents this view through filming techniques of the Western mass media. Pontecorvo uses the techniques of mass media reportage such as hand held cameras, frequent zooms, and long lenses “to express a political point of view that is rarely accustomed to the establishment controlled media.” This documentary style of filming also gives the impression that terrorism and torture in Algeria are a part of history. Pontecorvo also used hand held cameras to decrease the “emotional distance between the audience and the violent events depicted.” Pontecorvo wanted to come close to the truth of the experience of the Algerians. He successfully achieves giving the impression that everything is being shown objectively. Nonetheless, the film is about the struggle of the Algerians and will therefore be subjective.
Algerians are “traditionally represented in cinema as shadowy figures, picturesquely backward at best and hostile and menacing at worst.” In this film, however, they are treated with respect, “dignified by close up” and “shown as speaking subjects rather than as manipulative objects.” This time, it is the colonised with whom the Western audience identify. Pontecorvo allows the audience to identify with the characters of the film, thus the acts they commit become diluted and less horrific. Ali’s character represents the effort of a people. Pontecorvo presented these people, who rebelled against colonialism, not as all good or perfect people but rather they were more aggressive than others. They would not accept the situation, so they became leaders of a movement, which, for Pontecorvo was “pure and noble.” “His characters are defined by the social conditions afflicting them, and what is most important to the mise-en-scene are the means by which they respond to their oppression.” Through Pontecorvo’s representation of the Algerian characters, terrorism does not become the act of terror but rather the fight for freedom.
The mise- en- scene in the scene where the three Algerian women are dressing in front of a mirror, creates a “non-sexist and anti colonialist” alternative to what the Western cinema audience have come to expect. We become close to the three Algerian women only as they strip themselves of their veils, and their hair. By allowing the audience to see this, the film maker is further deepening our empathy with the Algerians. The women “transform themselves into Europeans, people with whom the cinema allows more conventionally to identify.” “At the same time we are made aware of the absurdity of a system in which people warrant respect only if they look and act like Europeans.” The women perform their task in a “disciplined manner” without malicious comments about their future victims. The close up shots of the three women individualises them. And when they are looking at the mirror and transforming themselves to look more Western, the mirror does not act as a vanity instrument but rather becomes “a revolutionary tool”. Due to the film’s representation of the women, we the audience become fully involved and want them to complete their task.
Through the employment of such cinematic identification and spectator positioning, the director places the audience to be on the side of the Algerians. The spectator positioning permits the audience to identify with the characters more thus enabling the audience to believe that terrorism committed by the Algerians is justified and necessary. Much of the scenes in the film are constructed to draw sympathy from the audience. For example, the barbed wire and the checkpoints remind the audience of other occupations and wars thus eliciting our empathy for the Algerians. It is also through Algerian eyes that the audience witness a condemned Algerian’s walk to his execution; and “it is from within the Casbah that we hear the French troops and helicopters”. Thus enabling terrorism to be looked upon by the audience as a justified, political act.
The narrative placement of certain sequences e.g. three women’s terrorist actions presents their action as a response to the French terror bombing of the Casbah.
Pontecorvo gives the impression that the bombing is an “expression of the rage of an entire people rather than the will of a fanatical minority” The way this is constructed therefore is not as an “individual emotional explosion” but as a considered thought out political task. This political task is at time reluctantly carried out by the organised group. The common perception of terrorists in Western mass media has been of fanatics who lack respect for human life. Consequently, in its treatment of terrorism, this film challenges the common restricted definition of ‘terror’ as anti establishment violence. As Stam and Spence state: “the state repression and government sanctioned aerial bombings are not included in the definition.” The Battle of Algiers shows “anti colonialist terror as a response to colonialist violence.”
Terrorism as a political act is not accepted in our society, yet through ‘Battle of Algiers’ treatment of terrorism, the audience indirectly accept it through their support for the Algerians. Pontecorvo is not showing us these acts objectively. Although we are aware that terrorism kills many innocent people, the audience does not suspend their sympathy for the Algerians. Even without the director’s strong usage of spectator positioning our empathy would probably be with the Algerians. Due to history we are aware of the negative impact of colonialism; we are therefore familiar with such situation through today’s society. History has proved that through the colonial process, the colonies’ economic and political structures have been shaped and deformed.
Whether terrorism and torture can be considered political acts also depends on the audience’s cultural background and their own beliefs. Perhaps audience sympathies lie with the Algerians not out of political sympathy but through the “mechanisms of cinematic identification.” Kael believes Pontecorvo is a dangerous kind of Marxist, who uses “the power of the film medium to persuade his audience that terrorism is a tragic necessity.” This indicates that people acknowledge the success of Pontecorvo in creating an audience that would applaud terrorists. What Pontecorvo also reveals without fully recognising it is that the terrorist acts committed by the Algerians although giving the impression that it is a political act it is also for the Algerians a holy war in which terrorism is a sacred duty. Perhaps this is more obvious to a modern audience in the light of recent events.
Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers’ represents both the French and the Algerians as people with both good and bad points. Pontecorvo did not want any of his characters to be solely good and evil. By humanising the French and the Algerians for the audience, terrorism and torture became political acts. It was represented as being a necessity for both sides. However through cinematic devices we were only allowed to sympathise and share understanding with the Algerians. Consequently, revealing the film maker’s own views. The objectivity that was shown also allowed the film maker to show us these acts as part of history.
Sources
Bibliography
Georganas, Don and Rubinstein, Lenny (Eds). Art, Politics and Cinema. The Cineaste Interviews (Pluto Press, 1978)
Horne, Alistair. A Savage War of Peace Algeria 1954-1962 (Macmillan, 1977)
Mellen, Joan. Film guide to The Battle of Algiers (Indiana University Press 1973)
Stam, Robert & Spence, Louise. Colonialism, Racism, and Representation; An introduction in Movies and Methods Volume 2, Nichols, Bill. Ed, (University Of California Press, 1985)
Articles
Hunter, Stephen. The Pentagons Lesson’s from Reel Life (Washington Post published Thursday September 4, 2003)
Kaufman, Michael. What Does The Pentagon see in ‘Battle Of Algiers’ (New York Times Sunday, September 7th 2003)
Pontecorvo, Gillo. “ The Battle Of Algiers” An adventure in filming, (American Cinematographer, Vol 48, No. 4, 1967)
Stone, Alan A. Commentary On the Prospect Of War (Psychiatric Times, March 2003 Vol. XX Issue 3)
Internet
http://www.racematters.org/doctorwhoprescribedviolence.htm
by Shatz, Adam
Filmography
Pontecorvo, Gillo. Battle of Algiers,
Gillo Pontecorvo interview taken from The Battle of Algiers DVD, released by Argent Film 2003
Pontecorvo, DVD interview
