the illegitimate legitimacy of the battle of algiers in french film culture

19 Pages·2013·0.25 MB·English

by  Patricia Caillé

This article was downloaded by: ["University at Buffalo Libraries"]
On: 13 January 2013, At: 16:18
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Interventions: International Journal of
Postcolonial Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riij20
THE ILLEGITIMATE LEGITIMACY OF THE
BATTLE OF ALGIERS IN FRENCH FILM
CULTURE
Patricia Caillé a
a Strasbourg, University Robert Schuman, France
Version of record first published: 16 Oct 2007.
To cite this article: Patricia Caillé (2007): THE ILLEGITIMATE LEGITIMACY OF THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS IN
FRENCH FILM CULTURE, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 9:3, 371-388
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698010701618604
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the
contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,
and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not
be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this
material.
THE ILLEGITIMATE LEGITIMACY OF
THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS IN FRENCH
FILM CULTURE
3
1
0
2
y
r
a
u
n
a
J
3
1
8
1
6:
1
at
] Patricia Caille´
"
s
e
ri University Robert Schuman, Strasbourg, France
a
br ................
Li
o
al Algerian War This article explores the three main phases of the reception of The Battle of
f
uf of Algiers in France (cid:1) in 1966 when the film was awarded the Golden Lion at
B
at Independence the Venice Film Festival, on its first national release in the early 1970s, and in
y and film the wake of its screening at the Cannes Film Festival in 2004 (cid:1) in order to
sit
r understand reactions to, and appropriations of, the film by the critics and by
ve critical
ni evaluation the public. This reception history, it is argued, is deeply shaped by the
U
" intersection of the values promoted by a strong film culture and the larger
[
y French film preoccupations of a national culture that has difficulties coming to terms with
b
d culture its postcolonial status. An examination of the critical reception and of the box
e
d
a office figures highlights a very regular pattern: the evaluation of the film in
nlo postcolonial each historical phase owes more to national or international concerns than to
w French film
Do culture the analysis of the film itself. Paradoxically, it also shows the ways in which
the categories imposed by French film culture in the late 1950s and early
reception 1960s have survived and continue to inhibit the development of new questions
about the relationship between film and national culture in France today. The
Battle of
relative invisibility of The Battle of Algiers in French film culture is not so
Algiers
much the outcome of political censorship as that of the film’s inability to fit
......................................................................................
interventions Vol. 9(3)371(cid:1)388 (ISSN1369-801Xprint/1469-929X online)
Copyright#2007Taylor&Francis DOI:10.1080/13698010701618604
i.n..t.e.r.v.e.n.t.i.o.n..s.(cid:1)..9..:3...... 372
into film culture’s privileged categories and of critics’ reluctance to reformu-
late the questions that can be asked about cinema.
................
1 Imagesofthe
AlgerianWarof
Independenceinthe
illustratedpressand
Inacountrythatstillregardsitsfilmindustryasanationallandmarkandits
intheaudio-visual
mediahavebeen capacity to maintain its own film production and distribution networks as
examinedmore well as its own film culture as evidence of its unfaltering commitment to
consistently
13 (Bourdon1992; culture,thetortuouspathofGilloPontecorvo’sBattleofAlgiersdemandsan
20 Cheminot2005; interrogation of the relationship between film and national culture. Con-
y Fleury-Villate2001). temporary French film culture is still deeply influenced by a symbolic
r
ua Cine´mAction revolution that took place in the critical discourse, imposing film as an art
an constitutesasingular
3 J exceptioninthe form only a few years before the release of The Battle of Algiers. This
1 landscapeofFrench symbolic revolution, the auteur policy, and the rise of the New Wave
8
1 filmjournals(see,in coincided with various struggles for independence and with a sharp rise in
6: particular,Berrah
1 the number of films censored (Eades 2006: 12; Stora 1997: 120). While the
at etal.1997;butalso
] Dine1997;Guibbert relationship betweendecolonization and film has been tackled by historians
"
es 1992;Jeancolas (Ory 1990; Stora 1997), it has remained underexplored by French film
ri 1979).Postcolonial
bra Frenchculturehas scholars, who, until recently, have remained impervious to the influence of
Li beenexploredmore cultural studies and postcolonial studies.1 Consequently, this symbolic
alo consistentlyin revolution has had a lasting impact on the questions that have been raised
f Anglo-American
uf about cinema. Even though generalizations are always reductive, it is quite
B scholarship.Inthe
at lasttenyears, clearthatuntilveryrecentlyissuesofnationalcinema,modesofproduction,
y asignificantbodyof film as art and ‘auteurism’ have made issues of reception marginal at best.2
rsit workhasbeen What makes The Battle of Algiers a particularly striking case study is the
ve producedaboutthe
ni imagingofthe disjunctionbetweenthemediaeventandthelifecycleofthefilm,aswellas
U
" colonies,andtoa theblack-or-whitenatureofeachphaseofitscriticalreceptionand,overall,
y [ lesserextentabout the limited interest the film itself has generated since coming out. The
d b postcolonialFrance, relative invisibility of the film has generally been constructed (cid:1) retro-
e byhistoriansof
d
a ACHAC spectively in the promotion and marketing of the film, and in scholarly
o
nl (Associationpourla discourse (cid:1) as the outcome of various kinds of political censorship. In
w Connaissancede
o scholarlyaccountstheneglectofthefilmisseenaspartofthelong-standing
D l’Histoirede
reluctance of the French to revisit the painful experience of their colonial
l’Afrique
Contemporaine),a past and, in particular, the ‘Guerre d’Alge´rie’, as it is commonly known in
researchgroupledby France.3Butitisnecessaryheretokeepinmindthatthereceptionofafilmis
PascalBlanchard.
theoutcomeofacomplexalchemythatmeshestogetherthestatus,inafilm
2 InImaginairesde culture, of the film as film,and the discussion of the sort of ‘representation’
guerre,Benjamin offeredbythefilmasitparticipatesinthedebatesofanationalcultureatthe
Storatakesinto
moment of its reception.
accountissuesof
The purpose of this article is precisely to examine the processes by which
reception,and
reintegratesfilm Pontecorvo’s film was appropriated, evaluated and eventually marginalized
THE ILLEGITIMATE LEGITIMACY OF THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS......................3.7.3
Patricia Caille´
at the intersection of discourses on itsstatus asa film in French film culture
receptionwithinthe
largercontextofthe and discourses on the representation of the Algerian War of Independence.
transformationof
Therearethreedistinctmomentsinthecriticalreceptionofthefilm.First,in
theaudio-visual
1966, the screening and the award at the Venice Film Festival created a stir
landscapeinFrance
atthetime(1997: in the French national press and film journals. The film was not released at
175(cid:1)207).
thetime.Thenin1970,thefilmbecameassociatedwiththestruggleagainst
censorship even though it was granted a certificate for its release in France
3 Muchofthe without any difficulty.4 Attention was focused on demonstrations, attacks,
scholarshiponthe and lobbying for and against its release. It went on to receive a more
13 representationsof ‘normal’ commercial release in Paris starting in October 1971.5 Finally, in
0 theAlgerianWarof
2
y Independencehas 2004,thepresscoveredthescreeningofthefilmattheCannesFilmFestival,
ar beenconstructed itsre-releaseinSeptemberanditsfirstbroadcastonFrenchpublictelevision
u
n aroundthenotions
a in November. The first wave of reviews from 1966 was overwhelmingly
J ofthe‘repressed’,
13 ‘silence’and negative,whilethesecondwaveinthe1970swasgenerallypositive.In2004,
18 ‘amnesia’(Harbiand Cahiers du cine´ma staunchly opposed the film while the national press
6: Stora2004),andthe
1 largely supported it. This most recent phase reveals an inconclusive debate
] at ahbassebneceenorfeigmaradgeedsas about what constitutes film culture in France today.
s" importantinthese An examination of the different phases of the reception highlights the
e
ri debates(Stora1992;
a ways in which the publicity around the release of The Battle of Algiers
r Stora1997:248(cid:1)
b
Li 55). always exceeded the actual encounter between audiences and the film. The
alo BattleofAlgiershasbeenapoliticalandamediaeventbeyondthefilmitself,
f
uf 4 SeeStora’sarticle andonestrikingaspectofitsreceptionhasbeenthewidenationalconsensus
B
at above. in each phase (cid:1) as one cannot but note how few reviews express an
y independent judgement on the film.6 I will consider The Battle of Algiers in
ersit 5 TheBattleof French culture as a ‘social fact’ (‘fait social’) and examine its construction
v
ni Algiersreceiveda based onwhatthebox officereceiptsandthecriticalreceptiontellusabout
U few(verypositive)
" itsfilmicvaluewithinthespecificcontextofitsFrenchreception(Esquenazi
[ reviewswhenitwas
by shownbrieflyin 2000: 15(cid:1)47). I will borrow Roger Odin’s theoretical framework, his
ed 1981inParisaspart ‘semio-pragmatique’,althoughdivertedfromitsinitialpurpose(Odin1983,
wnload oaWbfaoaru,ftitltomhgeefteAhsletgirvewarilaitnh 2th0e0o0n).eIhnatnhde,dtehbeaptoewinefrilomftahnedfimlmedtoialsimtuidtitehseaibnoteurtptrheetabtaiolannocfetbheetwteexetna,nodn,
Do Avoir20ansdansles on the other, the freedom of the spectator to produce meaning and affect,
Aure`sandEliseoula
Odin is very aware of the ‘external constraints in the process of commu-
vraieviebyMichel
Drach,andLa nication’ that may shape the production of meaning and affect but still
QuestionbyLaurent proposesaheuristicmodeltounderstand‘themodalitiesoftheproductionof
Heynemann.Iwill
meaning and affect’ based on the film text (Odin 2000: 54, 57). I will turn
nottakethisfestival
intoaccountinthis his model inside out to start from the critical discourse (cid:1) what the critics
analysisduetothe claim the film does and how (cid:1)to recover the ‘processes of structuration’ of
verylimited‘release’
the film in order to examine critics’ understanding of these ‘modalities of
ofthefilminthat
context. production of meaning and affect’ (ibid.: 57).
i.n..t.e.r.v.e.n.t.i.o.n..s.(cid:1)..9..:3...... 374
The Battle 1966: an illegitimate award, an illegitimate film,
an illegitimate filmmaker
ThepresenceofTheBattleofAlgiersattheVeniceFilmFestivaltookFrench
6 Inthisrespect,the
reviewbyJean culture by surprise, imposing awareness of a nation and a new national
Daniel(LeNouvel cinema at a major international event. Numerous contemporary articles
Observateur,10
about ‘the diplomatic incident’ that could have been avoided and the
May1967)inthe
unnecessarily‘awkwardpositionoftheFrench’blamedthejuryforalackof
wakeofascreening
ofthefilminTunis sensitivityintheselectionofsuchafilm(i.e.,Aurore,6September1966).In
3 andthereviewby reporting the film, journalists and critics alike implicitly considered
1 ClaudeMauriac
0 themselves primarily as Frenchmen, with the foremost question being
2 (FigaroLitte´raire,1
ry June1970)are whether or not the film was ‘anti-French’. Thus, Henry Chapier in Combat
a
nu strikingexceptions, contested the French delegation’s decision to walk out of the awards on the
a asbothwriters
3 J conveypersonal grounds that ‘there is nothing hurtful toward us in the film’ (2 September
8 1 responsestothefilm 1966).SuchconcernsabouttheeffectsofthefilmontheimageoftheFrench
6:1 inthelightoftheir neatlysidesteppedanydetaileddescriptionsanddiscussionsofthefilmitself.
1 ownexperienceof
at thewar. Once the film was awarded the Golden Lion, the articles turned to
] outrage. Whatever the political or cultural status of the publication, the
"
s
e reviews were united in criticizing the low standards of a dysfunctional
ri
a
r international film festival, even proclaiming the influence of a ‘social-
b
Li democrat mafia’ (Combat, 12 September 1966).7 Many critics in the
o 7 Alltranslations
al fromFrenchareby nationalpress deplored the inability or unwillingness ofthe jury toconsider
f
f
u theauthor. the films from a purely cinematographic standpoint, as no one, it was
B
at claimed, could contest the superior quality of Robert Bresson’s Au Hasard
sity BalthazarorFranc¸oisTruffaut’sFahrenheit451.Thus,Frenchcriticsrallied
er in a defence of ‘cinema’, a reaction which coincided with the struggle to
v
ni impose French films as representing the authentic values of any film culture
U
" worthyof the name. The struggle for the autonomy ofart from politicswas
[
y promoted as the only true sign of a commitment to cinema as art and
b
ed dispensed the critics from having to account for The Battle of Algiers in
d
a terms of colonial history.
o
wnl Except foronemixedreaction inTe´le´rama(25 September 1966) andtwo
Do positive responses in Arts (14 September 1966) and Cine´ma (November
1966),thereviewsinthenationalpresswerenegative.Whiletheimpression
of unanimity is striking, there were two complementary grounds for the
dismissal of the film. The first was the illegitimacy of the festival as
institution,whosevocationshouldhavebeentheassessmentofthefilmsand
whosecompetencewascontestedbymanyFrenchreviewers;thesecondwas
basedonthefactthatthefilmdidnotfitintoanyofthecategoriesvaluedin
the new French film culture: its mode of production, the conditions of its
screening at the festival and its formal choices were discredited, and its
director was disqualified as an auteur. On all of these grounds, it was
impossibletoregardthisparticularrepresentationofthe‘BattleofAlgiers’as
THE ILLEGITIMATE LEGITIMACY OF THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS......................3.7.5
Patricia Caille´
a legitimate ‘building block’ in the larger representation of the War of
Independence. More insidiously, one senses an inability on the part of the
critics to watch and ‘adhere’ to images of the War of Independence and of
Algerians through an Italo-Algerian film.
TheBattleofAlgierswasnotonlyregardedasinferiortootherfilmsinthe
festival.Itwasalsodefinedbyitslimitationsandpositionedinfilmculturein
relationtoalistofinternationalfilmsitpurportedlycouldnotmatch.Itwas
most often compared with Salvatore Giuliano (Francesco Rosi, 1962),
another Italian action film about a mobster, a film considered to have more
3 rigour and efficacy. Reviewers made references to classics like Eisenstein’s
1
0
2 Battleship Potemkin and Strike, and Godard’s Les Carabiniers in order to
y
r condemntheabsenceofrealpoliticalanalysis.Thecriticsdemandedeithera
a
u
n documentary representation of the liberation struggle (and found only
a
3 J caricature and commonplace) or a montage film, which was considered the
1
8 legitimate form for political analysis. One reviewer noted the objectivity,
1
6: sobriety and political honesty of Pontecorvo’s film, but turned these values
1
at against the film and its director:
]
"
s
e Neither objectivity, nor historical honesty, nor the courage to take on political
ri
a
r passions that are still burning constitute cinematographic qualities. These are
b
Li conditionswithoutwhichitwouldhavebeenimpossibletomakethefilm...These
o
al are ‘negative’ qualities, but cinema needs artists and creators. (Te´le´rama, 25
f
uf September 1966)
B
at
y Clearly, Pontecorvo did not qualify. The balanced account of the war was
sit likewise turned against the filmmaker:
r
e
v
ni
U never inspired, hesitating between a plain report and exaltation, objectivity and
"
y [ sentimentalism, the individual and collective dimensions...sparing everyone’s
b
d sensitive feelings through a meticulous balance of responsibilities, cautious to the
e 8 By1966
d extreme, Pontecorvo abandons his film to an ill-defined position. (Cahiers du
a Pontecorvohad
nlo directedLagrande cine´ma, October1966)
w stradaazzurra
o
D (1957),aFranco- Thefilmwascondemnedforitsrefusaltoprovidethespectatorwithaclear
Italian-WestGerman message, for the undecidability of its meaning.
productionstarring
As I have already implied, Pontecorvo’s lack of renown in the new film
YvesMontandand
FranciscoRabal,and culture in France and his being Italian were factors in the dismissal of the
Kapo(1959)a film. The Battle of Algiers was very seldom read as being part of a larger
Franco-Italian
corpus (cid:1)Pontecorvo’s previous film Kapo (nominated for an Oscar for Best
productionstarring
International Filmin1961) was hardly ever mentionedexcept toremarkon
LaurentTerzieffand
EmmanuelleRiva. the relative superiority of The Battle of Algiers. Indeed, Pontecorvo was
SeeForgacs’sarticle primarilycharacterized,implicitlyatleast,asaformercommunistjournalist
aboveformore
turned filmmaker (cid:1) i.e., someone who used film as a vehicle to get ideas
informationon
Pontecorvo’scareer. across.8 His reputation as a director of large-scale co-productions on
i.n..t.e.r.v.e.n.t.i.o.n..s.(cid:1)..9..:3...... 376
political subjects was completely at odds with the image of the auteur
interested in exploring the potential of film form through low-budget
personal films. In contrast to other films by Pontecorvo, there are no stars
in The Battle of Algiers, but his reliance on non-professional actors was
regarded as undermining character development. Pontecorvo’s image also
sufferedfromtheinvolvementofSaadiYacef(Djafarinthefilm),whichwas
regarded as evidence of Pontecorvo’s pro-Algerian commitment and the
9 Formoredetailon
film’s bias.9
Yacef’srolesee
Forgacs’article Overall, the representatives of the French film industry and apparently
3 above. mostofthenewspapersandmagazinessharedthesamedisdainforthefilm.
1
0
2 There is even a sense among those who did review the film (Cahiers du
y
r cinema, Te´le´rama) that the numerous articles decrying the presence of the
a
u
n film at the festival had artificially inflated its actual interest. Critics claimed
a
3 J that they were unable to ‘connect’ with the representation because the film
1
8 was shown in Italian, which was implicitly regarded as evidence of low
1
6: production standards. They attacked its large budget, treating it as ‘a
1
at resistance film made in Hollywood’ (Nouvelles Litte´raires, 8 September
"] 1966). It is difficult to assess retrospectively the critics’ reactions without
s
rie relyingondubiouspsychology.Still,wecansurmisethatthecriticscouldnot
a
br recognize themselves in the target audience on two grounds. The Battle of
Li Algiers was obviously a production aimed at large audiences. First, as film
o
al critics in a new French film culture, while they may have been ready to
f
f
u commend the formal choices of a film aimed at large audiences, they could
B
at not endorse what they saw as Pontecorvo’s slick didacticism. Second, as
sity Frenchmen, the critics assumed that they had nothing to learn about the
er ‘Guerre d’Alge´rie’ from Algerians or Italians, a hypothesis supported by the
v
ni French audiences’ subsequent preference for French films on the subject.
U
" They were dismissive of a film in which everything ‘rings false’, with its
[
by string of‘commonplaces’, its‘close-upsofchildren’that ‘leave thespectator
d
e unmoved’ (Nouvelles Litte´raires, 8 September 1966), the ‘tear-jerking
d
oa melodrama and self-righteous scenes’ (Combat, 2 September 1966).
wnl According to one reviewer, the tense faces captured in close-ups all looked
o
D thesameandmadeitimpossibletoidentifywiththeheroismoftheAlgerian
fighters (Le Monde, 2 September 1966).
OnlyinArtswasTheBattleofAlgiersregardedasprovidingasyetunseen
imagesofaconflict,imagesof‘theimmensepotentialbattlefield’thathadso
far remained ‘apparently...empty of direct confrontations [corps-a`-corps]’
(Stora 1997: 187). Arts claimed that for ‘us here in France, to look at
ourselves through the eyes of others has become an urgent matter of public
health’ (14 September 1966). This constituted a very dissonant acknowl-
edgement that French identity had been affected by decolonization and that
the French had from now on to draw on the cultural productions of former
colonies to learn about their own history, a step that most reviewers could
THE ILLEGITIMATE LEGITIMACY OF THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS......................3.7.7
Patricia Caille´
notevenimagineanddidnotneedtoimagineinviewofthehierarchiesthat
prevailed in film culture. Significantly, the review in La Croix (2 September
1966), one of the more positive, engaged with the film only to support the
implicitparallelTheBattleofAlgiers imposed between the‘blindterrorism’
of the Algerian bombers who killed innocent victims and the ‘strong
repressive measures’ carried out by the French air force. Four years after
the end of the conflict, the reviewer questioned the French government’s
rhetoric about the illegitimacy of the Algerian struggle but without contest-
ing the legitimacy of French military reprisals.
3 These categories used in assessing the film (cid:1) regarding the illegitimacy of
1
0
2 the film festival, of the auteur, of the mode of production and of the
y
r representation (cid:1) all guaranteed the legitimacy of the negative judgement.
a
u
n Criticscouldoverlookthefilm’sdocumentarystyle,itsvividrenderingofthe
a
J
3 conflict, and its recreation of the atmosphere of the casbah during the war,
1
8 on the grounds that the film did not meet any of the requirements expected
1
6: from a film in French film culture at the time. Thus the film was criticized
1
at both for its excesses and for its indecisiveness, sometimes within a single
"] 10 Theterm review. It was not only constructed as a failed ‘process of discursive
aries ‘taradnjuslsatmtioennto’fisthheerea structuration’ (Odin 2000: 57), but also and maybe more importantly as a
br term‘miseenphase’ failedprocessofproductioninthattheoperationsinvolvedintheproduction
Li whichOdindefines of the film were not recognized as guaranteeing a legitimate political
alo asthe‘process’that discourse about the struggle for liberation and about the birth of a nation.
ff enablesspectatorsto
Bu letthemselvesbe Consequently, any account of the ‘adjustment’ of the spectator to the film
at ‘moved’to‘the had become superfluous because the diegesis, the narrative and this
y rhythmofthe
sit depictedevents’ particular representation of a historical moment did not require any such
ver (2000:57). engagement (ibid.).10 In France, The Battle of Algiers started its life drifting
ni ontheedgesofafilmcultureinwhichithadnoplace.Thecriteriaimposed
U
" by the Auteur Policy and the New Wave (cid:1)among them the necessity of the
[
y
b autonomyofcinemaasart(cid:1)coincidedneatlywiththedismissalofanItalo-
d
e Algerian production. There was a consensus in the press as well as in the
d
oa 11 Formoreonthis industry that The Battle of Algiers should not be released in France at the
nl ‘censorshipfrom
w timeandnodistributoreverrequestedacertificateforitsreleaseevenafterit
below’,seeStora’s
Do articleabove. had received the Golden Lion.11
1970: a legitimate film for a mature nation
The Battle of Algiers was not the first film about the Algerian War of
IndependencenorwasitthefirstAlgerianfilmtobereleasedinFranceafter
Algerian independence. French audiences had had the opportunity to see
several films about the war in the first half of the 1960s (Eades 2006;
Guibbert 1992), but the attitude of the French toward the Algerian War of
Independence was very narcissistic and most films dealt with France, the
i.n..t.e.r.v.e.n.t.i.o.n..s.(cid:1)..9..:3...... 378
French and French and European culture during the war (Le Petit soldat by
Jean-Luc Godard, released in 1963; Muriel, le temps d’un retour by Alain
Resnais, released in 1964; La Belle Vie by Robert Enrico, released in 1964;
andotherrarelyseenfilmsthathadnocertificate).Otherfilmsdealtwiththe
war in Algeria, including Les Oliviers de la justice by James Blue, a French
production about a pied noir12 living in France who returns to Algeria
12 Seep.366,n.2.
during the war to bury his father and decides to settle there. The film was
released in 1962 and well received by the national press. Les Centurions, a
Columbia production directed by Mark Robson about a French parachute
3
1 regiment in Indochina and Algeria which presented different male points of
0
2 view on the Algerian War of Independence, was released in 1966, shortly
y
ar afterPontecorvo’striumphinVenice.LesCenturionsfeaturedbigboxoffice
u 13 InParisandits
n
Ja suburbsLes draws (cid:1) Anthony Quinn, Maurice Ronet and Alain Delon (cid:1) and did well
3 Centurionssold commercially. Also, Le Vent des Aure`sby Mohamed Lakhdar-Hamina(cid:1)an
1
8 389,983ticketsover Algerianfilm,madein1966,aboutawomanfollowinghersonwhoistaken
1
16: tdeenswAueerke`ss;2L2e,5V7e2nt prisoner and sent to a camp (cid:1) got a small-scale release in Paris and in the
at ticketsoverseven provinces and was reviewed positively in the French national press.13
]
s" weeks;andLes In1970,UniversalFilmsrequestedacertificateforthedistributionofThe
arie O29l,i3v2ie3rstidcekelats.justice Battle of Algiers and obtained it without any difficulty. Nevertheless, the
r
b
Li commercial release of the film due to start in June was suspended owing to
o disruptions and threats from extreme right groups as well as political
al
ff lobbying from war veterans or associations of pieds noirs. Once more the
u
B film became the object of two debates that are related but distinct and that
at
y clearly went beyond the issue of the representation, as most people
sit discussingthefilmhadnotyetseenit.Thefirstdebatewasaboutthevalues
r
e
v associated with national culture, the second about censorship. In the press,
ni
U opposition took the form of articles in extreme right newspapers seething
"
y [ 14 Seep.341,n.2. with hatred for the ‘Italo-Fellagha’14 film, press releases issued by war
b
d veteran organizations, coverage of the disruptions in the cinemas which
e
d
a resulted in exhibitors cancelling some shows and local authorities banning
o
nl others. Even though the ban by local authorities of a few screenings of
w
o Lakhdar Hamina’s Le Vent des Aure`s in southern France in 1969 and
D
January 1970 had also been reported in the press, it is clear that the
international recognition of Pontecorvo’s film made it the object of much
more attention.
The Battle of Algiers became a pawn in a much more politicized national
culture allowing various communities to position themselves in relation to
the Algerian War of Independence. By now most critics no longer saw the
film as an insignificant film production or as a blow to the honour of the
French,butasameanstomarkthedividebetweenanenlightenedhumanist
French community and retrograde pieds noirs and war veterans. (Some
critics questioned the representation of Colonel Mathieu, the fictionalized
THE ILLEGITIMATE LEGITIMACY OF THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS......................3.7.9
Patricia Caille´
French leader of the ‘paras’, regarding it as too positive with respect to the
real-life officers who may have inspired the character.)
Understandably, articles about the need to resist the intimidatory tactics
of various lobbies and to release the film established lines of discussion that
the reviews followed; the protest against all forms of censorship was more
prominent than was actual analysis of the film. Writers were clearly
competing in the overdue recognition of the legitimacy of the Algerian
struggleforliberation.Thus,expressingsupportforthefilmbecameameans
toprovethat‘anationmusttakeresponsibilityforitsownhistory’andthat
3 the national community was a ‘mature people’ (‘un peuple adulte’) able to
1
0
2 rise abovethe divisions andprejudices caused by thisnow-resolved conflict,
y
r an effort that the pieds noirs and war veterans were apparently deemed
a
u
n incapable of making (France-Soir, 5 June 1970).
a
3 J Thus, in the 1970s, The Battle of Algiers became part of a much wider
1
8 protest and was lumped into the category of censored films, even though it
1
6: was never actually censored by the national Commission de la Censure
1
at Cine´matographique.Thedebateaboutcensorshipinthenationalpresswent
"] beyond the issue of decolonization (cid:1) it also focused, for instance, on the
s
rie representation of sexuality (cid:1) and was part of the larger expression of a
a
br growingmalaiseinFrenchcultureaboutwhatwasperceivedastheoutdated
Li andstiflingpaternalismoftheFrenchpublicaudio-visualmedia.Thebanof
o
al a five-minute excerpt from The Battle of Algiers in a political programme,
f
f
u Panorama, in June 1970, generated a slew of articles, the resignation of the
B
at prominent journalist Olivier Todd who hosted the programme, and much
sity hostility towards the government, toward the national committee in charge
er of censorship and toward other forms of censorship including political
v
ni lobbies, distributors who were only interested in making money, exhibitors
U
" wholackedanykindofcommitmentandtheaudio-visualmedia’sservilityin
[
by relation to the government in general. The Battle of Algiers was evoked in
d
e the press primarily alongside films like Elise ou la vraie vie (1970), the
d
oa adaptationofanovelbyClaireEtcherelliinwhichaFrenchgirlworkingina
wnl carfactoryfallsinlovewithanAlgeriancolleaguewhoisanFLNactivist;its
o
D director Michel Drach had to borrow money in order to manage the
distribution himself because he could not find a distributor for the film.
Among other films mentioned were Lakhdar Hamina’s Le Vent des Aure`s
15 SeeEditorial
above;andseeHouse and Comite´ Audin/JacquesPanijel’s Octobre a`Paris (1963), a documentary
andMacMaster about the Paris demonstrations of 1961.15 Shot without authorization, the
2006.
film obtained a certificate after Rene´ Vautier, a prominent filmmaker in the
struggleagainstFrenchcolonialpower,wentonhungerstrikein1973,butit
still has not been shown because Panijel’s condition that a preface be added
to the film has never been met by the distributors (Panijel 1997).
The ‘national’ release of The Battle of Algiers started in the summer of
1970 in the provinces and in October 1971 in Paris where it was screened