Rebellion (2011)

It's April 22, 1988. Three or four gendarmes are dead and 30 kidnapped by Kanak separatists on the eve of the presidential election in France. They are sending in a platoon of 50 paras to New Caledonia. The PM sends in the Army to take control. There is a political competition between Mitterrand and Chirac, and everything is caught up in it. GIGN Captain Philippe Legorjus (Mathieu Kassovitz) and his men end up following the Army's orders. But soon they have to struggle against the army's barbaric tactics.It's a good historical drama. It's a bit simplistic with the Army being all bad. I'm not familiar with any of this story to have an opinion about its validity. All I can say is that it works as a dramatic movie.

Rebellion is a good hostage movie. It presents a refreshing balanced view of what taking hostage means, which is not without reminding Dog Day Afternoon. Like it, it depicts real life hostage takers, not as dehumanized machiavellian bad guys, but as relatively ordinary people making bad decisions and the unravelling of violence it unleashes. But where Dog Day Afternoon, as an American movie, focuses on individual responsibility, Rebellion focuses on the reaction of society and its flaws, and this is where I have problems with the movie. I am not very familiar with that particular historical event, but the director, in its eagerness to show that violence could have been avoided, seems to give a bit quickly absolution to the hostage takers. They killed 4 innocent and unarmed policemen? Well, they regret, so it's OK to not surrender and even take more hostages. They make realistic demands, such as: "state officially that we are not terrorists or we kill the hostages" (!!), and intend to exploit their crime mediatically. What can be wrong with that?

I stumbled upon this one while browsing through Matthieu Kassovitz's filmography only because i've been acquainted with his previous work. However, it seems that Hollywood remains merciless and after one not-bad movie like Gothika (2003) and one sub-par like Babylon A.D. (2008) Mathieu had to turn back to France for funding.Rebellion (L'ordre et la morale) is as dramatic but not as much action driven as, for example, Black Hawk Down (2001) or Saving Private Ryan (2008), yet we know almost everything about the latter movies and virtually nothing about Rebellion. And at times it paints the big picture as monumental as Apocalypse Now (1979). So, i tried to understand why is this movie kept below radar level.Probably the main reasons are that it's in French and portraying events on an almost forgotten island in Pacific Ocean. But as the story develops we encounter all axioms of colonialism (ore deposit, indigenous people striving for independence, disinterested politicians, trigger-happy military) creating a powder keg bound to explode.Trapped in the middle is a negotiator played by Mathieu Kassovitz himself. He is usually good at what he's doing, but politicians would like to see a quick solution in the light of impending elections. Military is excited to see some action and there is little need for a negotiator that would like to resolve the deadlock by talking to the rebels.This is enough to give you a flavor of what you see in Rebellion, but also leaves you with a question why we don't know about it. Obviously, there are other things that make a movie popular apart from good script, captivating photography and exquisite performance by the actors. Yet i always feel bad when a stupefying blockbuster gets more media attention than a masterpiece like Rebellion.

It's a very difficult topic, a political one. And of course who else to direct and star in it, then the La Haine director. He knows about controversy. And he doesn't shy away from painting a France, that is anything but nice. Of course politicians will generally be seen as evil, but this movie is based on real life events and you can imagine how this might have played out.There are grey areas in the film, but you do get a lot of black&white moral decisions too. Even our main character is not flawless. He might seem one way, but you wonder if he could've gone or done some other things throughout the movie. The fact that you get a subtitle with each new day, lets you know that something is about to happen. So while it does seem inevitable, you still hope for something. Especially if you're not as familiar with what happened in 1988.While the movie seems to lose a bit its tension after a third of its running time is over, it picks up right after that. Not everyones taste, but a drama that will leave you wonder how this could've happened 25 years ago? Which sort of answers my initial question! Though the title cards at the end suggest that there will be a vote for independence ... lets hope it'll happen in 2014 as it is/was announced