A Semiotic Analysis of the Battle Fo Algiers

The passage of arms of Algiers, which was produced in 1966 and tell by Gillo Pontecorvo, is a select which explores the Algerian struggle for independence amid 1954 and 1962. The film is constructed using a documentary style and was filmed on the actual locations where events unfolded. The Battle of Algiers is an example of neorealist filmmaking which purports to book an objective, realistic account of the battles waged in the midst of the FLN (National Liberation Front) rebels and the cut strong point.The formal elements of style which create the narrative give the bounce be examined using semiotic theory in order to ruin understand how the witness can be interpellated into particular ideological sets. Interestingly, the sample attitudeing position is non easily recognisable, which is why the film whole kit and caboodle well in striking a balance in presenting the points of views of combating sides. semiotics refers to the study of and meaning created by signs, whic h be composed of signifiers and their signifieds. Semiotic systems ar culturally contingent they appeal to and ar informed by political theory (Osullivan, Hartley, Saunders, Montgomery & Fiske, 2004).Therefore, it may be earthshaking to note that The Battle of Algiers is essentially a European production as the key germinal positions in the production of the film were occupied by Italians (Wayne, 2001, p. 9). With this in mind, it would place that the fictitious fountisations which are constructed through the combination of formal filmic conventions can be seen to position the informant into considering the futility of continued political control over a colonised state, regard little of the viewers ideological point of view. Ostensibly, the characterisations of the combatants from the FLN and the french host are polarised opposites.The FLN rebels are less organised, scant(p)ly funded, less literate and aver on deception and terror to further their ca call. Opposed to this, the French paratroopers are well organised, disciplined, calculating, brutal, and hire torture and modern weaponry to counter the rebels. The character of Ali La-Pointe can be read as the personification of the FLN, whereas Col cardinall Philippe Mathieu can be read as the embodiment of the French military machine. La-Pointe is compete by non-professional actor, Brahim Haggiag, a real life petty criminal (Odeh, 2004). On the other hand, Colonel Mathieu is played by the only professional in the cast, Jean Martin (Odeh, 2004).La-Pointe is presented as existence poorly educated and disenfranchised. His poor education is signified in the pellet where he asks the boy messenger, Petit Omar, to read him a communication from FLN leader, Jaffar. Other signifiers of his poor education and low socio-economic status are his tatty clothing, unkempt mien and lack of paid employment. La-Pointe is characterised as creation ill-disciplined and short-tempered. This is signified clea rly by La-Pointe punching a young French humans later on he is called a dirty Arab. His aside crimes, albeit petty, are signified by voiceover.La-Pointe is also impulsive in his government agency as a rebel leader. He is impatient to fight the French military and does not see the sense in the more than metrical approach suggested by Jaffar. Whilst La-Pointe is not a model citizen and is not user-friendly to sympathise with he is, however, characterised as beingness a strong leader, fearless and loyal to his cause. La-Pointes characterisation perhaps works to interpellate the viewer into a position which favours a bourgeois ideology, because La-Pointes rise to preeminence within the FLN is appearingly more out of vengeance and revenge, rather than e genuinely political manoeuvring or prowess.Ironically, this lack of political power which results in force out and terror adds au then(prenominal)ticity to La-Pointes character and in so doing, his character positions the view er to understand that the French hegemonic ideology is the root cause of the Arabs disenfranchisement. In contrast to La-Pointe, Colonel Mathieu is characterised as being intelligent, charismatic and disciplined he is the embodiment of the French military and by extension the French culture. Mathieu is the close to highly-developed character in the film and this can be read as being metaphorical of the French cultures supposed sophistication.The mise-en- injection when Mathieu is parading mastered a large street along the seafront subsequently being recruited to ascendence the offensive a gullst the FLN rebels is significant. Matheiu, a tall, sturdy, middle-aged man looks resplendent in bountiful military uniform amidst cheering French locals and is presented as the messiah desire character. Tellingly though, it is the dark sunglasses, rolled up sleeves and unbuttoned shirt which give him an authentic and individual appearance he appears to be a man of action and experience. The viewer is immediately positioned to sense that Mathieus arrival provide coincide with a significant modification in events in Algiers.As the viewers expectations are played out they are positioned to sympathise with Mathieus point-of-view. When Mathieu first arrives in Algiers, he sets about systematically dismantling the resistance, however, he points out to his colleagues that not all of the Arabs are terrorists and that most do not present a threat at all (Odeh, 2002). This is signified by Mathieu saying There are four hundred thousand Arabs in Algeria are they all enemies? We know they are not. But a low-spirited minority hold sway by subject matter of terror and emphasis (Pontecorvo, 1966).He describes the organisational structure of the FLN, how they recruit members and why they are a significant threat. This signifies Mathieus knowledge of military tactics and strategy, as well as his respect of the enemy. This respect for his enemy is also signified through the fo llowers quote Its a dangerous enemy using tried-and-true revolutionist methods as well as original tactics (Pontecorvo, 1966). Although Mathieu is presented as being respectful of his adversaries, he is, on the other hand, ruthless and actively condones the use of torture.His is an attitude of win at all costs and the end justifies the means approach. Mathieu euphemistically uses the word dubiousness for torture in order to gain intelligence to dismantle the FLN pyramid structure. As he emphatically puts it, the interrogation will be conducted in such a way as to ensure we always get an answer (Pontecorvo, 1966). When questioned about these tactics in a press conference, Mathieu justifies his tactics as being the lesser of both evils, and the only way to counter clandestine tactics such as setting off bombs in public places.He is fully sure of the creation of a vicious cycle of terrorism and counterterrorism which highlights the complexity of the federal agency and the necessit y for decisive actions. The viewer is positioned to sympathise with Mathieus persuasive free words not only through his words but also because of the tv tv camera angles in this scene. The use of a low camera angle from the journalists placement reinforces Mathieu as the dominant lick in the room and adds weight to his gravid rhetoric.Mathieu is also belligerent towards the hypo faultfinding journalists who want the FLN defeated, but are critical of the methods employed. The mise-en-scene during the press conference shows the dominant figure Mathieu standing slightly in front of three military colleagues who are wearing stern expressions in a show of solidarity with their leader. They are flanked by a blackboard which shows a line graph with an upward trend. This could be read as signifying an upward trend in terrorist acts or bombings.Throughout the press conference, Mathieu is in the optic of frame and stands bolt upright in a dominant mould with hands on hips. The position ing of Mathieu as a tendinous figure with courage and vigour sets him up as being a metaphoric representation of French pride. Mathieu sits down in a more relaxed way of life as he appeals to the journalists sense of pride. He states, Were neither madmen nor sadists and reminds them of the usance m whatever of us played in the resistance (referring to WWII Pontecorvo, 1966). In this powerful scene Mathieu is juxtaposed with the captured FLN commander Benjamin Mhidi.Mhidi is questioned by a journalist about the use of terror tactics and is asked, isnt it cowardly to use your womens baskets to carry bombs which cast taken so many innocent lives? (Pontecorvo, 1966). Mhidi replies by comparing these actions with the even more devastating effect from use of bomber planes and napalm, and suggests that he would swap the baskets for the bombers. This acknowledge highlights the difference in the midst of the resources of the French and the FLN and by extension the difference between t he wealth and infrastructure of the French Algerians compared with the much poorer and disenfranchised Algerian Natives.The camera angles are higher when Mhidi is in shot and the reader is positioned to view him as less powerful than Mathieu whats more most of the journalists are also standing, making the camera angle similar when they are in view which works to present them as being equally important as Mhidi. The journalists and photographers are also rowdier and jostle for position signifying less respect for him. However, Mhidi who is clearly surrounded by such ill is defiant when asked if he thinks the FLN can defeat the French army, he touchingly suggests that they have a better chance of victory than the French have of changing history.While Mhidis argument is compelling, it is Mathieus charisma which is most memorable in this scene as it is in most others in which he is involved. With this in mind, it could be argued that it is most likely that the viewer will be interpel lated into the ideological position of bourgeois subject. The Battle of Algiers is very complex in its viewer positioning however, and while on the one hand it positions the viewer to respect Mathieu as an indomitable character with estimable intentions, this is somewhat countered by some negative antiblack traiting. Shortly after Mathieus arrival, it becomes clear that he has a racist attitude.This is signified by his description of the Arabs as being like rabbits in a chicken coop and is reinforced by the smirk on his face. When asked by the General, what he is art the operation, he whimsically looks through a pair of binoculars and sees a sign by the shipping pier which says drink Champagne. He then informs the general that he will call the operation Champagne. This use of the word champagne is metaphoric of the hegemonic rise of the French culture being imparted upon the Algerians, especially inclined the fact that the sign is at a dock yard symbolising the foreign influe nce being transported from abroad.However, Mathieus racist attitude is somewhat tempered throughout the film. This is signified in the scene where FLN commander, Jaffar, is captured in a seemingly inevitable fashion as the FLN are being systematically destroyed by the French paratroopers while Mathieu escorts Jaffar in a vehicle he admits that hed have hated to have blown you all up (Pontecorvo, 1966). Mathieu explains that he has had Jaffars motion-picture show on his desk for months and he felt like he knew him a bit.He also signifies his admiration in a subtle manner by telling Jaffar You dont strike me as the kind for empty gestures (Pontecorvo, 1966). Mathieu does not demonstrate any animosity towards Jaffar and the only satisfaction he finds in his capture is through the achievement of his military objective. This complex traiting is significant, given that Mathieu works, in a broad sense, as a metonym of the French military and government it shows that even the most admirab le of characters is not truly empiric in nature.He is still a subject of the French ideology, and thus when surrounded by colleagues he assumes the racist persona. However, when he is interacting on a one-on-one basis with Jaffar, he is able to express empathy for his prisoner. What this highlights is the difficulty in effecting political change as a subject of the dominant ideology. It is significant that the film works to develop the character of Mathieu while neglecting the development of any other French characters. In contrast to this, several Arab characters are at least partially developed, albeit not as well crafted or nuanced in their presentation.This can be seen as symbolic of the opposing ideologies at work. Mathieu who represents the force of the dominant ideology is an empowered character who is allowed to express himself and has the support of the educated, monied French colonialists. In contrast, the main Arab characters including FLN Leaders La-Pointe, Jaffar, Mh idi and boy messenger Petit Omar are less developed, but in so doing appear to be more archetypal and representative of typical characters who inhabit the poverty-stricken Casbah.This sets up an us versus them dichotomy in terms of ideological positions. The less-dominant Arabic ideology is becoming more powerful and is reflected in more characters performing a powerful role for change. In contrast, the dominant French ideology is change magnitude in strength as the French colonialists are seen to be more ambivalent towards change. This is understandable as they are wealthier and have more political power. The French military finally win the battle in 1957 by capturing or killing all the FLN leaders.Ultimately though, it is the native Algerians who win their independence. The film finishes by depicting the large scale demonstrations which occurred two years later, which (according to the French press) appeared unexpectedly and originated in the mountains. Many unarmed Arabs are kil led by the French military during the demonstrations but the Arabs continue to demonstrate and march for ten days, modulation and waving flags. The flags are an obvious signifier of unity, pride and a desire for independence.The film ends with one of the more powerful images of the film an Arab woman is place a flag whilst dancing and yelling at the French military in obvious defiance. She has a determined, almost hypnotised expression on her face. This powerful mise-en-scene with the woman being backed by hundreds of demonstrators defiant in the face of powerful suppression foreshadows an inevitable change of politics after another two years of struggle. The words of Benjamin Mhidi seem even more profound by the end of the film you cannot change the course of history (Pontecorvo, 1966).Referenceshttp//www.brightlightsfilm.com/46/algiers.htm