"Yeah, yeah. Enlightened self-interest. Next."
Best. Girl. Ever.
I'm just sayin'.
I'm also saying that two more movies are up from my infernal journey into enlightenment... first is The Battle of Algiers (1966).
I'm ignorant of a surprising number of things, but history is more of a glaring hole in my awareness than it should be. Much more than I'd like to admit. If you had asked me before seeing this movie to give you three facts about Algiers I might have said the following:
- I think it is in North Africa
- It might be a type of delicious cheesy bread
- It would make a good dog name. Algiers, FETCH!
Acts of violence don't win wars. Neither wars nor revolutions. Terrorism is useful as a start. But then, the people themselves must act. That's the rationale behind this strike: to mobilize all Algerians, to assess our strength. ~Ben M'Hidi (The Battle of Algiers 1966)
And those who explode bombs in public places, do they respect the law perhaps?
When you put that question to Ben M'Hidi, remember what he said?
When you put that question to Ben M'Hidi, remember what he said?
~Col. Mathieu (The Battle of Algiers 1966)
I wanted to watch the movie cold, before reading anything about the actual events, to better catch it on it's own terms without losing my way in historicritical sidesteps. I was not expecting this to be an extraordinarily relevant commentary on current world events, namely terrorism and our relationship / response to it.
A bit of random context: at OU I saw a presentation where a black law professor from Harvard debated himself, presenting, with passion and great arguments, both sides of the issue of affirmative action.
It wasn't a stunt. Well, ok, it was a stunt, but it wasn't JUST a stunt. In his first speech, he argued for it in such a way that most of the room was nodding with him, it was impressive. He even had a panel of local law professors asking him questions and pushing him on the legality of various aspects... then it came time for his opponent to speak.
And he stepped up again. Arguing against it this time, with passion and crafted oration, the gentleman had serious rhetorical game. By the time he was through we were in on the joke, but he did it so well, we didn't care. Even the panel of professors "judging" the debate were smiling in appreciation. I would not want to face him in front of a judge, you could be completely in the right and still have your hands full.
It's not just about what you believe. How you say something and the mental gymnastics involved in formulating a position is not just a matter of perspective. It's a skill, that can be learned and improved and it isn't just spin... there was an appreciation and nuance to a many handled grey area of complexity that by a good, hard look at both sides, was well treated and if we don't know what position he actually held at the end of the session, well so be it.
We'll just have to think for ourselves (a bit) and make up our own minds won't we?
The How:
The How:
The film was slippery in exactly this sort of way. It wasn't a bad thing. It portrayed both sides, in what felt like brutally transparent detail. Both sides of the bloody conflict were shown doing things we would have a visceral negative reaction to.
And both sides were shown doing things that seemed completely rational and understandable.
The plot was more of a series of escalating anecdotes than a simple straightforward narrative and this was extremely effective in drawing us into the humanity and the real losses experienced by the people involved. Somehow it felt like remembering, but without the filter of one sided-ness that comes after you pick a side or a point of view to agree with.
This created a sort of pressure, reflected in the repeated drum beats that would appear in critical moments like a heartbeat... then get louder and louder to a sort of crescendo before the sonic intrusion released.
The way the film was shot went back and forth between drama with great cinematography and the look and feel of what I might describe as an old newsreel. That was a great choice, it worked wonderfully.
Darn it, if it just isn't a sticky mess. Ben M'Hidi, one of the terrorist leaders is eventually captured and interviewed by the press... and it would be so much cleaner if he weren't so smart, well spoken and thoughtful. Ultimately, we're probably not agreeing with his conclusions or methods - but he isn't wearing a red suit and a tail. And what he wants is independence and freedom for his people - hard for this American kid to not appreciate that.
In the same way Mathieu, the leader of the wave of anti-terrorist units, seems to be a good man, but he isn't quite the white hat we might hope for. In many cases, he's brutal and unyielding and not afraid to bend (or break) the rules to accomplish the goal. When the press starts giving him a hard time for hard interrogation techniques and jurisdiction... he gives the quote above.
If Side A in a conflict is murdering people, and injuring innocent people to further their agenda, isn't that at least as bad (or a lot worse) compared to Side B waterboarding to try to prevent future attacks?
That isn't defending the use of torture, but Mathieu has a point. If the press is going to point at behavior of anti-terrorist action and question it... shouldn't they also question the much worse behavior of the terrorists themselves - and more aggressively than they do?
Sauce for the goose.
As things progress, Mathieu locks the city down and is relentless in going after the terrorist cells. There is a harrowing final confrontation where teen (and maybe pre-teen boys) are holding out the last cell in a gunfight with the french troups. The Colonel has them pinned down and all but begs them to surrender.
He seems to be fully under the weight of the moment. Is he acting to remove a clear and present danger to innocent people? Yes. Are his men about to kill a bunch of kids? Yes.
It's just ugly and the film does an amazing job of letting us see more nuance that perhaps we would prefer to in this situation.
Ultimately (years later) Algiers gets their independence and I had to wonder, at the very, very start of the American Revolution - were our initial acts of demanding our freedom, even at the cost of war, so very different?
Next up, Laura (1944).
If you, like me, hadn't seen this before now - please watch the movie before reading on. I don't think I can talk about it without spoiling it a bit. I'll wait.
You didn't watch it and you're still reading. I'm being completely serious. Stop reading and watch the movie first. You'll enjoy it.
The How:
I was expecting lots of things from this one. From Cole's list so far, I knew it would be good. I knew it would be clever, I knew the writing would be top drawer.
I was expecting a hard boiled noiriffic murder mystery with some twists and turns along the way and some dialogue that would be extremely enjoyable.
I was not expecting the victim of the murder to come home and be, you know, ALIVE in the middle of the movie. That was the best reversal I've ever seen - there was absolutely nothing before that leading me to think that even might be an option for the film. I don't know how you could know this... while writing it, and not leave even an unconscious hint that this is where we're going.
It was exquisitely delightful. I literally clapped my hands like a child.
I'll apologize for ruining it for you. In my defense, I told you to watch it.
Twice.
I still feel a little guilty.
The way the film was shot went back and forth between drama with great cinematography and the look and feel of what I might describe as an old newsreel. That was a great choice, it worked wonderfully.
For those folks, that like me, think "Algiers" is a kind of long haired goat, please note that it was actually a country in North Africa that had been under something like French Colonial rule for more than a hundred years, before they really united in a clamor for independence.
One group of revolutionaries was the FLN, they seemed to be the most aggressive and organized, though there seemed to be other groups at play as well. They were opposed pretty directly by the French occupying force and eventually an increasing number of anti-terrorist militia.
The Algerian people seemed caught in the middle to some extent, but were as a group, leaning towards the desire, or at least the hope of independence as a nation.
Many of the scenes were disturbingly familar and the questions asked in the movie, particularly among the anti-terrorist militia are the same questions we're asking now.
Many of the scenes were disturbingly familar and the questions asked in the movie, particularly among the anti-terrorist militia are the same questions we're asking now.
The What:
This is a movie about terrorism and how we respond to it. That's true to some extent, but too simple.
This is also a movie how people respond to a lack of sovereignty and self -determination.
The moral and ethical questions would go something like this:
- Do we have a responsibility to oppose a tyrannical and oppressive government?
- How far do you take that opposition before you're out of bounds?
- Is there an out of bounds in this scenario?
- What's the end game, once you resort to terrorist tactics?
On the other side:
- You can't allow terrorism to go unchecked, without any response
- How do you respond to a subset of a group of people without punishing the entire group?
- If you know other attacks are planned, and you capture one of the terrorists - how far do you go to get information that may save dozens or hundreds of lives?
- How do you effectively stop an individual (or group) who has declared war on you?
The Algerians are suffering from an unwanted foreign led government that is treating them unfairly in many cases. They seem to have a legitimate beef.
So one group responds to that by killing policemen - multiple hits on the police, wounding and killing a surprising number in a short amount of time. Ouch.
The authorities respond with crackdowns, the terrorists respond with worker strikes and escalating violence... shooting, stabbing, bombing. Women and children play their role, helping the FLN obtain and hide weapons in choreographed handoffs to support the hits on the establishment.
The moral and ethical questions would go something like this:
- Do we have a responsibility to oppose a tyrannical and oppressive government?
- How far do you take that opposition before you're out of bounds?
- Is there an out of bounds in this scenario?
- What's the end game, once you resort to terrorist tactics?
On the other side:
- You can't allow terrorism to go unchecked, without any response
- How do you respond to a subset of a group of people without punishing the entire group?
- If you know other attacks are planned, and you capture one of the terrorists - how far do you go to get information that may save dozens or hundreds of lives?
- How do you effectively stop an individual (or group) who has declared war on you?
The Algerians are suffering from an unwanted foreign led government that is treating them unfairly in many cases. They seem to have a legitimate beef.
So one group responds to that by killing policemen - multiple hits on the police, wounding and killing a surprising number in a short amount of time. Ouch.
The authorities respond with crackdowns, the terrorists respond with worker strikes and escalating violence... shooting, stabbing, bombing. Women and children play their role, helping the FLN obtain and hide weapons in choreographed handoffs to support the hits on the establishment.
In the same way Mathieu, the leader of the wave of anti-terrorist units, seems to be a good man, but he isn't quite the white hat we might hope for. In many cases, he's brutal and unyielding and not afraid to bend (or break) the rules to accomplish the goal. When the press starts giving him a hard time for hard interrogation techniques and jurisdiction... he gives the quote above.
If Side A in a conflict is murdering people, and injuring innocent people to further their agenda, isn't that at least as bad (or a lot worse) compared to Side B waterboarding to try to prevent future attacks?
That isn't defending the use of torture, but Mathieu has a point. If the press is going to point at behavior of anti-terrorist action and question it... shouldn't they also question the much worse behavior of the terrorists themselves - and more aggressively than they do?
Sauce for the goose.
As things progress, Mathieu locks the city down and is relentless in going after the terrorist cells. There is a harrowing final confrontation where teen (and maybe pre-teen boys) are holding out the last cell in a gunfight with the french troups. The Colonel has them pinned down and all but begs them to surrender.
He seems to be fully under the weight of the moment. Is he acting to remove a clear and present danger to innocent people? Yes. Are his men about to kill a bunch of kids? Yes.
It's just ugly and the film does an amazing job of letting us see more nuance that perhaps we would prefer to in this situation.
Ultimately (years later) Algiers gets their independence and I had to wonder, at the very, very start of the American Revolution - were our initial acts of demanding our freedom, even at the cost of war, so very different?
Next up, Laura (1944).
If you, like me, hadn't seen this before now - please watch the movie before reading on. I don't think I can talk about it without spoiling it a bit. I'll wait.
You didn't watch it and you're still reading. I'm being completely serious. Stop reading and watch the movie first. You'll enjoy it.
The How:
I was expecting lots of things from this one. From Cole's list so far, I knew it would be good. I knew it would be clever, I knew the writing would be top drawer.
I was expecting a hard boiled noiriffic murder mystery with some twists and turns along the way and some dialogue that would be extremely enjoyable.
I was not expecting the victim of the murder to come home and be, you know, ALIVE in the middle of the movie. That was the best reversal I've ever seen - there was absolutely nothing before that leading me to think that even might be an option for the film. I don't know how you could know this... while writing it, and not leave even an unconscious hint that this is where we're going.
It was exquisitely delightful. I literally clapped my hands like a child.
I'll apologize for ruining it for you. In my defense, I told you to watch it.
Twice.
I still feel a little guilty.
No comments:
Post a Comment