If you haven't seen Gilles Pontocorvo's 1966 classic "The Battle of Algiers"--or it's been a while since you've seen it--I can't think of a better film that resonates with America's 21st Century state of perpetual war. See it in its final days at New York's Film Forum this week. I recently called the movie one of the top three politically effective films ever made.
Guerrilla filmmaking, par excellence, the film employs an urgent, verite-style cinematography, on the labyrinthine streets of the Algerian capital, to tell its story about Algerian freedom fighters and their violent attempts to liberate their country from colonial rule--and the French military's brutally horrific attempts to stop them. The film's torture scenes--with blowtorches, electric shocks and partial drowning (initially censored from the film's initial release in Britain and the U.S.)--are harrowing reminders of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" still being defended by some American politicians. (See Dick Cheney's last book.)
"The Battle of Algiers" shows the horrible cycle of escalating violence in such conflicts, and it's one compelling yarn, with an absorbing cast of nonprofessional actors and a powerful immediacy that grabs the viewer.
And I'm not the only who thinks the film is relevant. Even The Pentagon would agree: In 2003, if you remember, they held a screening of the film as an illustration of the problems facing the U.S.'s intervention in Iraq.
According to the New York Times, a flier for the screening read: "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film."
More than 45 years after "The Battle of Algiers" was released, it seems, we still don't understand.