Monday, July 12, 2004

For Your Anti-War Viewing Pleasure

By Mickey Z.

Read full article...

Posted 07/12 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Dear Mickey Z.

    Your article makes me want to see the movie..but I am being given mixed messages here in Indiana!

    First a store ordered it..then canceled it, then ordered it...and now doesn’t know if/when it’s incoming.

    then another stores just told me it’s out of print except for 35mm.

    Anyway those of you in the big city get to watch...and I’ll still keep trying to get it.

    Dave

    Posted by Dave Stewart from  on  07/12  at  05:04 PM

  2. Maybe you can have some other folks request it, too. You know, create a demand of sorts.

    Good luck, Dave.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  07/12  at  06:31 PM

  3. There’s a chance I can make a copy available to you, Dave, and others...once I get to unpack these relocation boxes.  Mickey, you’ve done a great service plugging an absolutely “must-see” work for activists (and others).  At some point in the future, I can add my two cents about some insider fun stuff related to the production, but, in the meantime let it be known that Mickey Z has pointed you in an excellent direction.  And so eloquently too!  Mickey Fan, Ox ps keep me posted if you can’t secure a copy from private or library sources.  BE CAREFUL THAT YOU GET SOMETHING THAT’S NOT NOT NOT CUT like some of the fare circulating around out there.

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/12  at  07:38 PM

  4. Yea I was very impressed when I saw this a few years ago. The film absolutely refuses the easy route of casting Colonel Mathieu (while a brutal figure), as an Amon Goeth-esque villian (therby functioning as the convienient outlet of our hatred and blame), nor does it need or attempt to romantisize, sterilize, or ‘make nice’ the anti-colonial response of the FLN (especially impressive given the fact that the film was financed by the revolutionary Algerian government.) An honest and difficult film (difficult of course in the best sense - requiring the viewer to a actively engage the issues it raises, rather than producing a passive viewing experience.) An amazing film on a purely technical level as well…

    Thanks Mickey…

    Posted by RzG from  on  07/12  at  07:48 PM

  5. A definitive take on the larger scene...before and after the Battle of Algiers...can be found in a book titled (I believe) A SAVAGE WAR OF PEACE (from the Rudyard Kipling poem of a different name).  The role of the French in North Africa and elsewhere is something that citizens of the world can take a stance against...not their pseudo-stances vis-a-vis our interventions.  The French should be fried, oui, O’Xman. P.S.  Along w the other power brokers.

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/12  at  10:16 PM

  6. (ADDITIONAL POINT BELOW TOO) Just mentioned in the comment section of Mickey’s review of Battle of Algiers that a definitive take of the whole engagement...prior to...during...and subsequent to the “Battle of Algiers” can be found in a book titled, I believe, A SAVAGE WAR OF PEACE (which is a line in a Rudyard Kipling poem).  The French should be fried for their role in North Africa and elsewhere...along w all the other power brokers.  That’s a reason to take a stance against them, NOT for the reasons Americans have jumped on of late.  ONE THING I DIDN’T MENTION IN THE OTHER COMMENTARY SECTION IS THAT AS A RESULT OF FRANCE’S ABOMINATIONS IN ALGERIA...BECKETT STEPPED FORWARD...AFTER HIS PUBLISHER GOT HAULED AWAY FOR EXPOSING THE INSTITUTIONALIZED TORTURE IN NORTH AFRICA...AND TOOK A MAJOR RISK W SEVERAL OTHER BRAVE SOULS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLISHER WAS RELEASED, THE HORRORS REC’D FULL ATTENTION AND THAT THE WAR WOULD COME TO AN END.  Historically and hysterically yours, RMO

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/12  at  10:23 PM

  7. WHOOPS!! THOUGHT I WAS SUBMITTING #6 UNDER MY WHOOPI (Battle of Algiers heavy) aricle.  Sorry for the redundancy, Ox

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/12  at  10:33 PM

  8. Amazon says that the film will be coming out on DVD on September 21. Not much in the way of details, but it is being put out by Criterion and as a three disc set, so there will likely be all sorts of goodies -commentary track(s), essay(s), interviews and a short doc or two covering the making-of, distribution and/or legacy of the film are likely to be included- for which I have too much time to spend enjoying.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  07/13  at  08:23 AM

  9. Well, 9/21 is the Ox’s birthday.  So those who are still w me on this side of the barricades by then...can make a note in the dayrunner to...whatever.  Only problem is...what if Micah, Mickey, Justin, Jordy, Tracey, and the whole gang all giftwrap a copy for me?  No prob. I’ll just put them in the garage to keep company w all those SAVING PRIVATE POWER copies and mail ‘em out in tandem upon request.  Limited offer while it lasts, folks!  Seriously, THANKS for the information, M.  Hugs, Ox

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/13  at  09:20 AM

  10. You want a great antiwar film - the works of Joseph Losey, a blacklisted Hollywood director, are quite radical in general (The Servant is one of the best class struggle films) - but check out “King and Country,” not to mention his many works with Harold Pinter.

    Of the top of my head, other important antiwar viewing - beyond Moore......
    One of my favorite counterintuitively critical films is the 80s b-movie “Dogs of War” with Christopher Walken, as a mercenary who discovers that he is working for capitalism (or even better, “Red Dawn” in which a commy takeover of the USA actually provides director John Milius with the ability to show his knowledgte of guerrila warfare - plus there’s Powers Boothe)...  Of course, “Grand Illusion” is the all time antiwar classic.

    Posted by jordy cummings from  on  07/13  at  10:02 AM

  11. I am happy that Moore’s piece on 9-11 is out there for all its shortcomings. But people would do better to view the epic Italian film. Back in April of this year I went to a dilapidated venue to see The Battle of Algiers. There were maybe only a dozen people there but an interesting discussion followed afterwards.

    Dare I suggest that another way to view it is by download.

    Posted by kim from  on  07/13  at  02:05 PM

  12. I hope you’ll reconsider what you said about the VERY right-wing RED DAWN, Jordy.  I hope readers will never forget that few commercial films --not as many as are listed here-- don’t do History a disservice...both in terms of the time they take to view (robbing filmgoers of time for reading or hearing History from other sources) and the misleading info spread about...always repeated ad infinitum...till the “misinformation” becomes cultural fact. How much time do we ALL watch anti-war films of any aesthetic/socially-conscious value relative to time spent on undermining the civilization that makes them necessary? I’d like Kim to elaborate on almost everything he’s dropped in the pond here; too many ripples in a strange direction for me.  I take it that Kim’s last sentence is an interrogative.  My answer is “no.” On a final note --although I’d love to have time to rip into the likes of some of the other recommendations here-- Moore should not be mentioned in the same brfeath as, say, the great filmmaker touched upon in John Pilger’s entry before last (YOU SHOULD LOOK IT UP!) on http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm.  A look at Ward Churchill’s FANTASIES OF THE MASTER RACE will clue everyone into just how bad historical film across the board is; there’s not nearly enough skepticism and awareness of the problems to judge by the comments here.  Respectfully, O’Xman.

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/13  at  06:24 PM

  13. Although I have some reservations about his aesthetics at times, Ken Loach from Britain is a good example of a socially-conscious filmmaker. Best, Ox

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/14  at  10:39 AM

  14. Red Dawn is actually a SATIRE of the right wing.It is an absolute SATIRE.  An essay by Andrew Kopkind mae this clear around the time of its release, and a look at Milius’s other material provides a raft of contradictions.  The entire film is a contradiction.  On the surface, we see the absolute unbelievable - the truth of the 80s “noble lie’ - the Commys take over America.  They force people to view Eisenstien films.  It is all high camp, perhaps not antiwar...but a sort of allegory about “what if,” showing that insurgents always win - and a key is Ron O’Neal’s character, the Cuban general.. 

    I wrote an honors independent study - hopefully to be turned into a book - about “right wing art” serving left wing purposes.  I can send you a copy if you’d like.  And a note on Halifax - to organizers, attendees, etc..I could not make it because of personal issues, but I hope to attend such events in the future.

    Posted by J Cummings from  on  07/14  at  11:43 AM

  15. Yah, I’d love anything along those lines that you’d be so kind to send, Jordy.  You’re a sweetheart, truly.  However, I BEG to differ re this Kopkind slant on what was a horrifying capitalizing on the lingering public fear of the likes of Nicauguan “threat” as per the ‘84 Reagan climate.  Also, a little sidenote re Lea Thompson who was in the film...who has repeatedly confirmed that the Kopkind slant was neither intended by the film’s producers, nor rec’d as such by the public (obviously).  I don’t know if your previous remark about being able to learn guerilla tactics was intended to be funny or not...but perhaps I better wait on that point.  The Lea thing, by the way, comes from personal contact.  Milius is NOT a model --has never been one-- in any sense of the word.  Best, Ox

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/14  at  02:07 PM

  16. I thought his script for Apocolypse Now was good....maybe I’m wrong.

    Anyway....yeah, the guerilla line was a joke

    Posted by j cummings from  on  07/15  at  09:05 AM

  17. As Frances FitzGerald has pointed out, what just about all fictional films concerning Vietnam do NOT tell us is that most of the horrific slaughter carried out by the US against not only the “enemy” but against other Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians,in general, was committed by air and artillery, technology rather than by individual soldiers.  IMPORTANT.  In this sense, he underscores, Milius’ Kurtz was NOT a soldier...but something much more awful...some kind of abominable representative of Technology gone way worse than amuck.  Coppola’s recreation of a Vietcong village, with regard to the above points, was not true to reality...as after 1965 such a village would have been too easy a target (with our air superiority) to survive very long.  It’s also interesting to think about what effect one of the film’s most famous lines had on our society.  To wit, the “napalm in the morning” line of Kilgore’s was bandied about quarters I frequented with a feeling than I wasn’t happy about.  The question is...to what extent did Coppola take advantage of the opportunity to convince the public that there was zero glamorous about the invasion...that it was, indeed, a US invasion...as opposed to just another grisly war on the planet that was mired down in the mud?  A difficult question, I know.  Coppola’s Kurtz is more like the real life Col. Rheault rather than like Conrad’s character.  That dude was guilty of mucho murder personally...and since that kind of thing was so common...I’m trying to remember if stuff like the Phoenix Program got short shrift by Milius; I think so.  Helicopters playing Wagner are thrilling in a dramatic sense --and, in that sense, I understand the positive response you’re pointing to-- but devoid of an important context...perhaps it’s best to be more critical. Of course, Coppola did NOT set out to make the quintessential Vietnam movie, but we must ask...why was following Conrad more important at that juncture?  Too many people, I’m afraid, left the theatre humming “Ride of the Valkyries” with a smile.  Love, Richard

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/15  at  08:23 PM

  18. Since Richard has brought up the question of technology - in Vietnam and warfare in general (the importance of which grows at an exponential rate) I feel compelled to put in a strong recommendation for a fairly obscure 1969 German nonfiction film (I make the distinction because it is explicitly NOT a documentary) called ‘Inextinguishable Fire’ regarding (but not limited too, or ‘about’) the production of Napalm B by Dow Chemical for use in Vietnam. As far as a film being capable of forcing us to question our own complicity within the production of warfare (while explicitly refusing to invoke a ‘tawdry’ emotional response), I have yet to see it rivaled…

    Slim chances though of being able to see this one I’m afraid…

    Posted by Bruce A from  on  07/15  at  09:32 PM

  19. Frances FitzGerald hasn’t done anything of value since Fire in the Lake, except perhaps her contribution to Past Imperfect: History according to the Movies that Richard quotes from. She’s a middle-of-the-road Mary McGrory liberal who openly supports aggressive military interventionism and projection of power abroad without the hint of remorse that members of the Cruise Missile Left sometimes feel. She’s a true believer in what Wesley “War Criminal” Clark calls America’s “virtual empire,” its network of economic and security arrangements that has allowed the U.S. to dominate through the use of “soft power” before Bush II rode into the picture with his cowboy unilateralism.

    FitzGerald has an impeccable blue-blood pedigree, descending from Boston’s Peabody clan. One great-grandfather founded Groton, and a great-grandmother helped start Radcliffe College. Her father was Desmond FitzGerald, a deputy director of the CIA who was involved in some of the agency’s most controversial operations, including attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, as revealed in the Church committee hearings. Jim Hougan writes in Secret Agenda that on the day JFK was assassinated, Frances’ father was meeting with a Cuban agent in order to pass along a weapon disguised as a fountain pen with which the agent was to murder Castro.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  07/15  at  09:49 PM

  20. Regarding the nonfiction German film, let me know if anyone get their hands on it...and what you think too.  Respecting the comments on F.F., I’m really glad to get the lowdown in such detail from Mark (Thanks,Mark!), but, of course none of the specifics detract from the thrust of the words quoted. I don’t believe, I should say.  Some of the thoughts --coming from a couple of sidebars, as I remember-- might be Foner’s (of Columbia University)...or someone else from the Historical Society that put the book together. Hugs, Hugmeister (?) Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  07/15  at  10:15 PM

  21. No, none of the specifics on FitzGerald’s life detract from the words you quote about Apocalypse Now. I just had to get that off my chest because Saint Frances never lived up to her ordainment by the left.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  07/15  at  10:24 PM

  22. All,

    Hello.  “The Battle of Algiers” is being shown at 8:30 p.m. on Sunday, July 18 in the Crest Theatre at 1013 K Street in Sacramento.  The movie is the final offering of the Third Annual Sacramento French Film Festival. 

    Seth Sandronsky

    Posted by Seth Sandronsky from  on  07/16  at  01:49 PM

  23. Thought Mark and others might like to know about a sidelight on Frances --discussed above-- which I just came across.  To wit, Ms. FitzGerald --in spite of her very serious shortcomings, as per Mark-- at least did...in her 1979 survey of American history textbooks...noted that...in our country’s textbooks...American political life was presented as completely mindless.  That’s a noteworthy comment...regardless of who it’s coming from, of course...and something to chew on...if we’re not keeping our children out of the school system, trying to work with the school system...or thinking that we can advance on any level on any issue very far...as long as what Frances points out is true.  And it still is.  Best, Rich

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/17  at  08:12 PM
    24. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: The Other Side of Darkness

    Previous entry: Imperialism with a Spin

    [ads]

    Support Press Action