“The Battle of Algiers” has no main character, for the most part it takes no sides, and if it were not for Iraq and other threats of terrorism, the movie would probably not be the least bit relevant in the modern world. I think these things to some extent detract from one’s ability to watch this purely as a movie and try to enjoy it. Fortunately for us, “The Battle of Algiers” quite simply puts the “art” in Art of Film.
I did not have a good time while watching this film because I did not understand it. At the time it was difficult for me to grasp how this could be a movie and not have a main character or tell a war story and not pick a side. I think it takes one complete viewing to understand “The Battle of Algiers”. The artistry comes in the film’s ability to depict a conflict and stay neutral over it. There are characters, but the viewer is not forced to connect with any of them. The two sides are the French and the FLN and the viewer gets to see both their virtue and their corruption. As Ann Hornaday from the Washington Post describes,
Pontecorvo didn’t make “The Battle of Algiers” for the enjoyment of the viewers. It wasn’t made to thrill, to scare, to sell tickets, nor to win awards. I think it was made to show you what happened to the Algerian people. But the movie won’t force-feed you any lessons or themes. It simply shows history as non-biased as possible. And that is incredibly difficult to do. That alone is art. I think all this film asks is that you don’t forget it.
I did not have a good time while watching this film because I did not understand it. At the time it was difficult for me to grasp how this could be a movie and not have a main character or tell a war story and not pick a side. I think it takes one complete viewing to understand “The Battle of Algiers”. The artistry comes in the film’s ability to depict a conflict and stay neutral over it. There are characters, but the viewer is not forced to connect with any of them. The two sides are the French and the FLN and the viewer gets to see both their virtue and their corruption. As Ann Hornaday from the Washington Post describes,
The greatness of "The Battle of Algiers" lies in its ability to embrace moral
ambiguity without succumbing to it. And although Pontecorvo has been rightfully
lionized for the realism of the film, its visual artistry -- the carefully
composed shots, their gestural grace, their unerring temporal and spatial logic
-- is as potent as anything by Goya.
Pontecorvo didn’t make “The Battle of Algiers” for the enjoyment of the viewers. It wasn’t made to thrill, to scare, to sell tickets, nor to win awards. I think it was made to show you what happened to the Algerian people. But the movie won’t force-feed you any lessons or themes. It simply shows history as non-biased as possible. And that is incredibly difficult to do. That alone is art. I think all this film asks is that you don’t forget it.
No comments:
Post a Comment