Rebellion (2011)
8/10
Terrorism (spoilers)
19 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This film has a late and very limited release in London, UK. It's a strong film that shows the terrible price people pay for political expediency. In 1988 as the French general elections were looming, a group of activists in New Calendonia affiliated to the FLNK, a rebel group campaigning for the territory's independence from France, storm one of the island's Gendarmeries, killing four of the policemen and taking another 30 hostage. The GIGN, the Gendarmaries' special forces unit, are enlisted to negotiate and secure the hostages release. Unbeknownst to them the prime minister of the time, Jacques Chirac, has sent in 300 soldiers whose aim is to crush the rebellion by FLNK activists. Chirac's actions are suggested to be for his and his party's political ends in the forthcoming election regardless of the longer term consequences. There is a very nice moment where Kassovitz splices archive footage of a televised debate between Chirac and Mitterand (the incumbent president whose post Chirac was gunning for) where they discuss the hostage situation in New Caledonia. Both are talking heads only and Chirac's words are those of an arch liar.

Importantly the FLNK are labelled a 'terrorist' group by the French government who, consequently, will not be seen to negotiate or enter into discussions with them. The label terrorist is used too readily by governments and has been cynically exploited since the 9/11 events by many countries to crush dissidence. We witness through this fictional account, told from the point of view of the GIGN's lead officer and main negotiator Phillipe (Kassovitz), how destructive a government's might and the blind allegiance of its military is to people it allegedly represents, like the New Caledonians, who the film emphasises are French citizens. In no uncertain terms the film shows that the Kanaks, the indigenous people in New Caledonia, are decent people with a fine sense of morality and honour. When we meet the rebels their leader, Alphonse Dianou, is eloquent and focused and, unlike some iconic freedom fighters, very sorry for the deaths to the Gendarmeries that were not part of the plan but the result of panic. He and his men seek a peaceful solution and place their trust in Phillipe to obtain that.

The lead protagonist Phillipe is a much more complex and dubious character than Dianou or any of the rebels. The film shows the political machinations that thwart his efforts for a peaceful solution based on dialogue and negotiation. Once his own efforts are crushed he pledges himself to his men and to being a 'soldier' and ends up betraying the trust the activists and in particular, Dianou, had placed in him. If the film is meant to engage the viewer to sympathise with Phillipe then it fails in some respects because I despised him for his actions.

This is a solid film with an interesting and layered story, great acting, especially from those who play the rebels, and moving. New Calendonia is not a place with which I was familiar but it's on my mental map now. They are due to vote next year, 26 years since the events of the film, on independence. Good luck to them. I hope they gain their independence if that is what the vote returns. The French interest in the territory has been for the nickel and nothing more. Dianou has a powerful speech about the conversion of the world into money and the legacy that bequeaths. What little we see of the Kanak culture shows quite clearly that people can live happily without a system based upon money rather than goods or services.
22 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed