Friday, November 25, 2011
Days of Glory and Battle of Algiers
Although there were a few exceptions of sympathetic French toward colonial subjects shown in both films, the fact is they both intentionally try to show how "native" French do not see them as equally human. This is supported by, for example, the tomato incident in Days of Glory and in the decision to implement systematic torture as a strategy in The Battle of Algiers. Say what you will about the complexities of the particular eras (WWII with the inhabitants of the colonies beginning to demand more autonomy and the Algerian War with France struggling to hold on to its position as a major world power), the fact is France had institutional racism. This history is hard to face for most French today. Days of Glory is directly intended to correct this larger wrong through the case of soldiers in WWII because it is hard for the public to disagree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Everyone! Thinking about the Battle of Algiers movie, I found myself pondering the question of why Days of Glory is made intentionally on the side of soldiers from colonies while Battle of Algiers is more neutral? I believe it may be because of the suggestion that Battle of Algiers was made recently after the war had ended where as Days of Glory was not. Yet either film could of gone either way. Battle of Algiers could have been made from a single stand point, since it was written by (I believe we said an Algerian man) who was part of that history, but would it have done so well among the French population? Both films are designed to tell the history in very different terms. They bring to light many of the problems assoicated with battle of any kind, the lost of lives on both sides, lost of innocent lives, etc. If the history of Battle of Algiers was presented in a single point of view, not being French, do you think that many French citizens would have let the film become so popular? Let me know what you think!
ReplyDeleteI think that had the film The Battle of Algiers been presented strictly from the point of view of the Algerians, it would have had controversial reviews. Even presented neutrally, I'm impressed it was received so successfully by the French.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison, I cannot imagine an American film coming out depicting the US negatively in response to the war in Iraq shortly after troops were deployed. A culture is ethnocentric in nature. Even today, Americans are quick to address the atrocities of the Holocaust genocide, yet fail to acknowledge the inhuman treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII following Pearl Harbor.
This is just my opinion, what do you all think?
Nicole and Dimple, you guys both made good points that I found really interesting. As much as I didn’t do so while watching Days of Glory, I definitely found myself thinking a lot while watching Battle of Algiers and now after watching both, analyzing them is definitely necessary. The one thing that I noticed in both films was the angle at which the director decided to place the point of view. In Days of Glory, I was surprised that the angle was on the side of the soldiers so much so that there was a definite division between the two sides. This created a certain tone within the film and allowed us as viewers to see the discrimination that was taking place and want to side with the underdogs. In Battle of Algiers, the fact that there was no real point of view made the movie a lot more interesting, I think. Because there wasn’t any real angle that the movie was being told from, it made somewhat of an even playing field, even though we all know that there wasn’t one. If Battle of Algiers had been told from the Algerians’ point of view or if it had at least focused on them more, I think that the movie would have been a lot more like Days of Glory. I agree with Nicole that it’s interesting that the Battle of Algiers could have been made from a single standpoint and it’s interesting that it wasn’t since it was written by Saadi Yacef in prison. I agree that if it had been presented from the point of view of the Algerians, it definitely would have created a lot of controversy. It’s interesting that the film was so well accepted given the way that it was presented, but I definitely think that the reactions would have been much different if the movie was presented with a different point of view. Dimple I totally agree with you and I also can’t imagine something like this happening with an American film. I think a movie like this on the war in Iraq would create so much controversy that I don’t even know if the movie would be released. Both movies were really interesting to me and it’s hard to decide which one I liked better since they show such different views of discrimination and racism within a war setting.
ReplyDeleteI think that Days of Glory was a great film to understand the injustices and mistreatment of the Algerian soldiers that fought for France. It certainly is told from the Algerian prospective but considering the fact that President Mitterrand changed policy regarding Algerian soldiers after seeing this film speaks to the idea of the films content being somewhat factual. I think that the viewer sympathizes with the Algerian soldiers in this film and wants to villanize the French.
ReplyDeleteIn the second film, The Battle of Algiers, it is a little more difficult to pick a side. Although we see the French use torture, both sides are killing innocent people including children. It seemed that the leaders on both sides of the battle were fighting with sincere motives and were somewhat admirable. I think that the director did a great job of keeping things neutral.
I have read that the War of Algeria is not often talked about or written about. It was not even called a war until 37 years later when the French government took a vote on the term. I think that knowing this information makes both films seem more important and also speaks volumes about the treatment of the Algerians even today.
I completely agree with everything that has been said thus far. It is so interesting that both films deal with the same subject but you walk away feeling like you just saw two different moments in history. This is greatly due to the different filming techniques used by both directors. In Battle of Algiers there is a clear neutral standpoint throughout the film. It is more like a documentary then a film for entertainment. It is clear that this movie is not focused on the emotion of the characters or trying to gain sympathy from its audience. It is an educational movie and lets the story speak for itself. Both sides are the good and the bad guy.
ReplyDeleteIn Days of Glory, the director clearly chooses a side. The audience walks away from the movie heartbroken for the lack of respect the Algerians receive and angry at the French for not treating the Algerians as equals. Like Melissa said, this movie provoked so much emotion that it even convinced the President to change a policy! With that being said one could ask: which style is better? The Battle of Algiers seemed so real that it has been used as a training video for the military and needed a disclaimer to inform people that it wasn’t actual real footage. And Days of Glory used such beautiful cinematography and took the audience on such an emotional rollercoaster that it convinced a nation’s ruler to make an official change to their policy. These two films show how powerful excellent filmmaking can be. It is hard to say which style is better for they both accomplish different things. I think what’s important is choosing the style that’s best for the message the director wants to portray. If they want to show an important event in history and let the story do the talking then the documentary style is best but if they want to tell the story and gain sympathy for one side then an emotional tear-jerker does the trick.
Do others agree or do others think that one of these styles is better? (Some could argue that using the emotional approach is manipulative whereas the documentary style is fair)
Following the conversation thus far, I find it very intriguing how the two directors use such different styles to depict such a similar issue in French culture. Personally, my greatest interest is in "The Battle of Algiers" and how this unique documentary style film was so successful. I find that although it was definitely first and foremost interested in raising awareness of the injustices of the war in Algeria, it also raises bigger questions about the general state of any war. It was brutally honest in both style (hence being so convincing as a documentary...and sometimes incredibly disturbing in the vulgarity of certain parts) and in conscience. Through the neutrality of the film we can call into question the inevitable consequences that any war faces: issues of civilian casualty, torture, etc. Not only does "The Battle of Algiers" achieve sympathy for the repressed Algerians, but it is also beneficial to raising awareness of the overall injustice that both sides of any war face. So, even if the choice to film neutrally was a political one (so that the film would not get bad reviews with the french), I also think a deeper part of its story is the greater tragedy of the true "cost" of freedom. Themes in this film (as we have discussed with Iraq) can continue to enlighten and enrich further political issues outside of its time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what has been said mostly above. In Days of Glory the point of the movie was to expose the inequalities to the people. The movie had a clear stand on what had happened and what it wanted to change. I think this is partly due to the fact that the movie was produced long after the war had ended. I think that is also why it was taken so well by the French.
ReplyDeleteThe Battle of Algiers however did not have such a strong political stand point. It did not take a clear side on the matter. It showed more of the Algerians side of the conflict but did not necessarily want to prove a point with that. Therefore I believe that this movie was not produced with the intention to change policy or anything politically but instead to really show what happened in the war. I believe they did this because there were many people that had no idea what was happening during this conflict at all. It showed the injustices on both sides.