Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[dave jenkins]

We Need to Talk About Kevin
Unbearably awful. Anyone seen it?

I've been meaning too (I have the Blu-ray). Maybe I'll get around to it this weekend.

[Groggy]

Harry Brown - 6/10 - Death Wish meets Unforgiven, with geriatric ex-Royal Marine Michael Caine waging a one-man war on London's underworld. It's not as fun as it sounds, getting caught up in faux-sociological ponderings (did we really need the riot subplot?) and ostentateous style choices that don't amount to much. It's satisfying to watch Caine blow away chavs but the constant fallback on cliches doesn't help. Still, Caine's in top form and it's much less obnoxious than, say, Death Wish or Taken.

[rrpower]

Batman Begins - Pretty good
The Dark Knight - Really good
The Dark Knight Rises - Somewhere between the two

[Groggy]

Got through a half-hour of The Dark Knight Rises before our theater's power went out. What I saw was good.

[drinkanddestroy]

I recorded a whole bunch of movies off TCM last week. Three pretty atrocious ones I saw were THE RECKLESS MOMENT, RUN FOR THE SUN, and HOUSE OF NUMBERS. And those were the three that I made it all the way through; there were several that I deleted after watching anywhere from 10-45 minutes. So was a pretty bad week on TCM. Although I did get to see CITIZEN KANE again (3rd viewing). It's still not the greatest movie of all-time  

[drinkanddestroy]

Just watched The Battle of Algiers for the first time. I'm sure everything that I feel like saying has already been said. Amazing documentary-style of cinematography. And amazing how relevant these very issues and styles of fighting are relevant today.

I should also mention that I don't know a damn thing about the story of French colonialism in Algeria, so I'm just accepting the movie's version of events. Still, what can you say. Colonialism is certainly evil, as is indiscriminately blowing up cafes in the European Quarter. The ends never justify the means. Torture is often the only successful method gaining intelligence, and following laws of criminal procedure and due process will often render intelligence-gathering impossible in a battlefield. An urban setting can often be no less a battlefield than how we traditionally define the term; in such a setting, the choice for uniformed soldiers can be to either use brutal tactics or face death. In these settings, outmanned resistance fighters can use every possible agent, including children, women, or men dressed as women. I'll stop right there, cuz I'm not saying anything new or anything that anyone doesn't know. It's just amazing how similar these issues are to what's happening in so many other places around the world today. To be sure, I am certainly not saying that the moral issues and the questions of right vs. wrong, are identical in every instance where it's traditional armies vs. civilians/resistance fighters/nationalists/terrorists. Certainly not. The  issues can be very, very different, depending on the circumstances. But some of the main issues have striking similarities.

And I can hardly think of a movie that was this good, yet this difficult to watch. Largely because there really is no side to root for. No good guys. The European families peacefully enjoying an ice cream in a cafe deserve to die no more than the Algerian kids blown up by a bomb set by the police. And the men and women who blew up the cafes are no less evil than the soldiers they are fighting against.

There are conflicts that are clear good vs. evil. And movies about those conflicts are much easier to watch.

[Groggy]

Pontecorvo's film in unabashedly pro-FLN, a position which becomes more obvious on rewatches. Its bias is more subtle than grandstanding agitprop. Still, unlike most other pro-revolution films it's least honest about the consequences of their actions.

[drinkanddestroy]

Pontecorvo's film in unabashedly pro-FLN, a position which becomes more obvious on rewatches. Its bias is more subtle than grandstanding agitprop. Still, unlike most other pro-revolution films it's least honest about the consequences of their actions.

It's interesting you say this: Here is  Ebert's initial review of the movie in 1968, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19680530/REVIEWS/805300301/1023 ; here is the third-to-last paragraph of that review:

"Pontecorvo has taken his stance somewhere between the FLN and the French, although his sympathies are on the side of the Nationalists. He is aware that innocent civilians die and are tortured on both sides, that bombs cannot choose their victims, that both armies have heroes and that everyone fighting a war can supply rational arguments to prove he is on the side of morality."


Well in 2004, Ebert added this movie to his Great Movies List; here is that review http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041010/REVIEWS08/410100301/1023

In this review, Ebert quotes the piece from his 1968 review that I quoted above, and then comment,

"True up to a point. But watching the movie again on the new Criterion DVD, I believe Pontecorvo's sympathies were clearly with the FLN. The resistance opens with FLN members walking up to French policemen in the street and shooting them dead, often in the back. Bombs are used against police strongholds. These actions are seen in silence, but when the French respond by blowing up the home of a terrorist, the score by Ennio Morricone becomes mournful as survivors pick through the debris. His score withholds sympathy for the dead police."    (Ebert then goes on to say, "Pontecorvo does, however, show the French leadership in a relatively objective light.....")


So it seems like Ebert had the same experience you had, of realizing fully how pro-FLN the movie is after repeat viewings. The reason I mention this: as a first-time viewer, it seemed instantly clear to me that this movie is absolutely pro-FLN. Sure, they depict the atrocities committed by the FLN. And they try to depict the dilemma faced by French officials who have to reconcile the need for due process with the need for immediate and reliable intelligence. But this movie seems, absolutely, positively pro-FLN, from the first (news)reel   However, I have to say that I happened to have recently re-read Frayling's Spaghetti Westerns; (just before I watched TBOA);  there is a chapter in that book on "Spaghettis and Politics," in which Frayling discusses the political culture in Italian cinema in the 60's (even with non Westerns), and he mentions TBOA several times, and it's clear from the book that the movie takes the anti-colonialist perspective. So I was expecting the movie to be anti-colonialist even before I saw it, and I can't say for certain how I'd have felt the first time I saw the movie, if I'd have gone in without knowing what side the movie would be taking 

--------------------------------------------------

As I am writing this, I've come to realize that this is another amazing thing about the movie: this movie is firmly on the side of the FLN, but is still very fair. It depicts the struggle objectively, despite being 100% sympathetic to one side. And that is yet another incredible job. In fact, even though they ultimately basically declare martial law and are brutal, the French are the only side who actually seem to be concerned with the consequences of their actions, and feel qualms about acting this way, necessary as they feel these actions may be; you get the feeling that the FLN, on the other hand, really doesn't give a fuck about the negative consequences/side effects/collateral damage of their actions, such as killing the little kid eating the ice cream (or perhaps they don't even feel that it's "negative,"; maybe they intend to just kill as many Europeans as they can). Didn't seem to bother that female bomber at all. In French headquarters, you see them debating the pros and cons of their actions; in FLN HQ, it's strictly ends justify means, every time. The only debate is over whether the end will succeed in justifying the means.

To be able to firmly support one side, as Pontecorvo does, while not necessarily presenting that side as being "right"; to take the FLN's side, but to present the other side with all their complexities; and to  depict the full measure of dilemmas, moral questions, rights-and-wrongs faced by each side, is simply an incredible achievement. Combine that with the amazing cinematography, and you have a masterpiece. (Albeit a masterpiece that is very difficult to watch).

[Groggy]

Very well said, Drink. I'm with you on this one.

My main criticism, having done some research on the period, is that the French side focuses almost solely on the police/military response to the FLN. The pied noirs living in Algeria are only shown as either bullies or victims, when they agitated as actively and violently as the Algerians. Maybe a passing mention that they had been established as a permanent population in Algeria for 130 years prior to the war, and arguably had as much "right" to be there as the Arab Algerians. Or that Algeria was a French state rather than a mere colony. It's much more problematic than, say, India, where British presence was confined mostly to military and government infrastructure.

That said, you're absolutely right that Pontecorvo is honest and fair-minded enough to present a complex depiction of a messy, inhuman war. His Ogro (dealing with Basque terrorism in Francoist Spain) is even more interesting in this regard, albeit not as dramatically effective. A leftist film that isn't bloody-minded agitprop is always welcome.

PS: Ebert isn't entirely correct regarding the music. Sad music does play over the bombed-out café and French civilians being killed. It's definitely a way of differentiating innocent victims from "deserving" ones but more subtly than he suggests.

[Groggy]

For interesting take on Colonel Matthieu's character, I've always liked this piece:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2005/09/the-dark-soul-of-colonel-mathieu

[dave jenkins]

I like the film, but it doesn't explain why France lost Algeria. In fact, at the end we see the French Army capturing the last of the holdouts of the cell we've been following, and it seems that the status quo has been reestablished. How, then, did the FLN prevail? What happened of course is that the French at home lost all stomach for the conflict, and in spite of the Army's successes, pulled its support. This was seen as a betrayal by many (cue the intro to Day of the Jackal). None of this was tactical and so couldn't fit into the necessarily limited scope of Battle For Algiers, but still, you get to the end of the film and, if you have no other info, end up scratching your head a bit.

[drinkanddestroy]

Groggy: Thanks for the link. Very interesting article. (is the comment below the article yours? It sounds just like what you wrote in the post above  ) As I mentioned before, I don't know anything at all about the history, so I'm just judging the film by the what I saw it portray.

Notice that Colonel Mathieu never actually addresses the real issue of whether the French should be in Algeria; that is accepted as a given. His discussion with reporters doesn't revolve around "should we be here?" but "given that we should be here, how do we do that most effectively?"

There's no doubt that the killer who can justify his killings with cold logic isn't any less evil; maybe he's even more evil. The Nazis didn't simply say "we're going to kill the Jews because we want to kill them"; they used all sorts of scientific "studies" and other "evidence" to intellectually support their position. I don't know if they believed in that nonsense in their heart of hearts, but it doesn't matter. I once read somewhere about how Dr. Mengele was conducting one of his brutal "medical" experiments on a 12-year old boy, and he explained to the boy with cold logic that he was Jewish and why he deserved to die... I'm definitely not comparing the French to the Nazis, and I don't think the author is either; I'm just agreeing with the broader point, that a murderer who can justify his actions with cold logic and a seeming cultured intellectualism, is the most dangerous of all.

However, I go a step further than the author does: he seems to believe that if Mathieu had actually believed in the ideals of patriotism, colonialism, or nationalism, then he would be a better person. I don't believe that shit. (Not that those 3 terms are necessarily synonymous ).How many hundreds of millions of people have been killed by uniformed men in the name of patriotism or nationalism? Uniformed men who killed for no other reason than the fact that it was by the order of their president? Men who were fighting on the side they were fighting on only because of their uniform, cuz they happened to be born in that country. Well, people who join a side of a conflict and wear a uniform, only because it's the uniform of the country they live in, are no less murderers than anyone else. Maybe they're even more dangerous. So I disagree with the author's assertion that Mathieu would be any more acceptable if he actually did believe in the cause of patriotism or nationalism...There is good and there is evil, and being on the side of evil isn't even slightly more acceptable just because you believe in fighting for the uniform or the country. A country is just a political border, and a uniform alone is not a justification for killing.


Maybe Pontecorvo is challenging us in that way: challenging us to first say "Mathieu seems to be a pretty decent guy," while then wondering how we could have possibly had any sympathy for a cold-blooded killer just because he uses nice justifications and speaks with respect about his enemy.... But on the other hand, is Pontecorvo making a similar immoral justification for the terrorist acts? All too many times, I've heard it said about certain terrorists, "I don't support their actions, but I understand what would drive them to do it." Usually, that's a thinly disguised justification for said actions.


It's amazing that despite how much the world has changed in the past half-century, military experts are still using this movie when teaching about urban warfare.

[drinkanddestroy]

I like the film, but it doesn't explain why France lost Algeria. In fact, at the end we see the French Army capturing the last of the holdouts of the cell we've been following, and it seems that the status quo has been reestablished. How, then, did the FLN prevail? What happened of course is that the French at home lost all stomach for the conflict, and in spite of the Army's successes, pulled its support. This was seen as a betrayal by many (cue the intro to Day of the Jackal). None of this was tactical and so couldn't fit into the necessarily limited scope of Battle For Algiers, but still, you get to the end of the film and, if you have no other info, end up scratching your head a bit.

Yes, after capturing the cell, it just says that two years later, for no apparent reason, the uprising started again and was successful.

I guess that's the point (and of course this is very applicable with many of the conflicts today): while the local populations can never compete in firepower with the big armies, they may have a greater will to win, a bigger stomach for a long-term fight, and eventually win a war of attrition against a stronger enemy. This is especially true when the army insists on fighting by the accepted laws of war, while the resistance fighters have no such concerns. But the fact that France had no concerns about laws of war and was willing to use terrorist methods to fight the terrorists, yet still couldn't contain them, is perhaps even more puzzling, or illuminating, depending on how you wanna look at it.

[Groggy]

I like the film, but it doesn't explain why France lost Algeria. In fact, at the end we see the French Army capturing the last of the holdouts of the cell we've been following, and it seems that the status quo has been reestablished. How, then, did the FLN prevail? What happened of course is that the French at home lost all stomach for the conflict, and in spite of the Army's successes, pulled its support. This was seen as a betrayal by many (cue the intro to Day of the Jackal). None of this was tactical and so couldn't fit into the necessarily limited scope of Battle For Algiers, but still, you get to the end of the film and, if you have no other info, end up scratching your head a bit.

Certainly the ending is the movie's weakest part. Pontecorvo abandons his docudrama pretensions for straight propaganda. Equivalent demonstrations did occur in the Arab quarter of Algiers but nowhere near as violent as the strikes being organized by the pied noirs. Let's not forget De Gaulle's ascension to power was initiated by a European riot in Algiers. Let alone the Barricades Week in fall '60, the General's Putsch and the OAS terror campaign when things went south.

One has to consider two things when leveling this critique: a) it's a primarily Algerian film in perspective; b) it's a groundlevel view of the Battle of Algiers, eg. a specific campaign in the war. No mention is made of the violent guerilla warfare outside of the big cities. The infighting within the Algerian resistance (basically the FLN vs. everyone else) isn't even mentioned. Certainly higher-level French decision making isn't discussed at all. All fall outside the film's scope and I don't think it's lesser for it.

[drinkanddestroy]

Certainly the ending is the movie's weakest part. Pontecorvo abandons his docudrama pretensions for straight propaganda. Equivalent demonstrations did occur in the Arab quarter of Algiers but nowhere near as violent as the strikes being organized by the pied noirs. Let's not forget De Gaulle's ascension to power was initiated by a European riot in Algiers. Let alone the Barricades Week in fall '60, the General's Putsch and the OAS terror campaign when things went south.

One has to consider two things when leveling this critique: a) it's a primarily Algerian film in perspective; b) it's a groundlevel view of the Battle of Algiers, eg. a specific campaign in the war. No mention is made of the violent guerilla warfare outside of the big cities. The infighting within the Algerian resistance (basically the FLN vs. everyone else) isn't even mentioned. Certainly higher-level French decision making isn't discussed at all. All fall outside the film's scope and I don't think it's lesser for it.

I guess the issue is whether it's omitting certain inconvenient elements of the story in order promote its point of view (unacceptable), or if it's just omitting those elements because you can't fit everything into a 2-hour movie, and those elements aren't necessary to the story that the movie is addressing. As a general point, I don't think that the fact that "it's a primarily Algerian film in perspective" would makes it acceptable to omit any necessary facts; that's what distinguishes documentary from propaganda. (This statement is entirely theoretical; only someone who knows the story can apply it to this movie).