Lawrence d'Arabie

A man has an inner drive that makes him peculiar and intense. He goes to the desert and falls in love with it and its people. Gaining powerful sponsors, he has a grand vision that he accomplishes by inspiring and directing thousands. But in a very short time, that grand work is compromised and disassembled by fat cats in offices who are concerned with different values.

True of both Lawrence and Lean. The legacy of Lawrence is still in violent disarray (I write this a short time after the Sept 11 attacks on New York). But Lean's vision was saved, and what a vision! Of this picture, it can be said that it is perfect if only because it is so visionary that it defines its own rules.

Lean's vision is also lean, with vast zones of sonic and visual silence -- several meditations on the unperceived. Though there is a story (who are you?) this is really a film of TE's 'Seven Pillars,' which creates a romantic vision of sculpted natural forces. So powerful a depiction that Islam experienced a faddish attraction in the West, a place now enjoyed by Tibetan Buddhism. That was before.

See here the original Obiwan, every intonation, movement and dress. See here Peter O'Toole's personality become completely entwined with the character, who is as fictionalized by our eye as by Lowell's. See the most expressive, anthropomorphic train wreck in history.

Watch a particularly interesting brand of acting by the 'Arabs.' Macho men are acting anyway, so an actor can play an actor when he lands such a role.

The star of the film is the clever eye of God, not the clockmaker or judge of the west but the chess player of the mirage. Its face is clearest in my mind when the Turk holds TE down for torture and smiles. Its hand in the creaking of Feisal's tent -- who would ever imagine the wind acting? (Kurosawa's 'Ran' at the beginning is the only other example I know.)

I have a few films I admire for various. mostly intellectual qualities. But in the direct matter of visual storytelling, this one tops my list.

I first watched "Lawrence of Arabia" when I was about 11 years old. Being a big fan of Steven Spielberg at that time, I was sort of awed by the fact that this was his personal favorite (check the "conversation with Steven Spielberg" featurette in the special features disk and you'll really see Spielberg's affection for that film)

Over the years, Lawrence remained among my DVD collection, and I can't say I actually watched it since that first time, when, by the way, I didn't really like it. But "time does things to movies", and when I watched it again last year, I found my eyes to be weeping at the end. It instantly became one of my favorite movies.

Since then I learned a lot about the history of cinema, and I also learned a great deal about the movies of Sir David Lean. I found my self watching films like "Brief Encounter", "The Bridge on the River Kwai", "Doctor Zhivago", "Ryan's Daughter", and the underrated, "A passage to India". Lean became one of my favorite directors, and, just a few months ago, I decided to watch Lawrence with some friends. Although I had seen it a couple of times before, this time it was a different experience altogether: from the starting credits, to the blowing of the match, the crossing of the Nefud dessert, finding Gassim and bringing him back to the camp, the invasion of Aqaba, his torture and rape (?), Lawrence's laugh after the slap by the "outrageaous" guy, his being left alone, to the final gaze to the motorcycle. I sensed something when I watched that film, which leaves my with the undoubted feeling that "Lawrence of Arabia" is the greatest film ever made. For me, this is it. Ever since '62, it's been a downfall. No other film has managed to reach Lawrence in its poetic greatness. Few do come very close (Vertigo for instance).

If we are to classify the two complete different cinematic styles, it would be those of Hitchcock and Ford. Hitch was a very "confined" director. He captured his movies from the point of view of one character. His movies took place, most of the time, in closed spaces. In a sense, Hitchcock's films were a journey in people's emotions and a study in people's characters. On the other hand, Ford was an open director. He wasn't confined to one character, or one location, his films where actual journeys. His basis was mostly on theme, and his main ability was to amaze with his imagery. Thus, these are the two different shooting styles....Well, Lean combines both.

Which is basically why his best film, Lawrence, is the best film of all times. But not only in terms of style. Also, in terms of content. The intelligent script written by Robert Bolt, the powerhouse performances by O'Toole and Shariff (a shame they didn't get the statuette), but also, the ultimately heroic yet tragic figure of T.E. Lawrence, contribute in making this the most visually and emotionally sweeping film of the last 111 years.

Such a shame that Lean retired for 14 years after "Ryan's Daughter", there's no way to know where he would have gotten.

The moment David Lean makes you aware you are in the hands of a master comes early on in "Lawrence of Arabia." Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) holds a lit match close to his lips and with one quick puff of air blows it out. Before the action is even completed, however, Lean has cut to a shot of a desert vista, with the sun slowly rising over the lip of the horizon. It's one of the most famous elliptical edits in cinema history, second maybe only to the bone/spaceship cut in "2001: A Space Odyssey." And it's only the first of countless memorable moments in "Lawrence of Arabia." The appeal of David Lean epics has always been his ability as a director to maintain an equilibrium between the scope of his films and the characters in them. Character development is never sacrificed to massive set pieces or knock-your-socks-off action sequences. "Lawrence of Arabia" has these elements too, but at heart it's a character study of one remarkable man. Lean seemed to understand that impressive landscapes alone are not inherently interesting; but if you place a fascinating character among those impressive landscapes, you can have movie magic.

"Lawrence" feels unlike other historical epics of its time. In most "big" films--I'm thinking of movies like "Ben-Hur," "Spartacus," "Cleopatra," all movies that premiered roughly around the same time as "Lawrence"--one gets the sense that directors framed compositions based on how much they were able to fit into their widescreen lenses. One rarely sees characters filmed from anything closer than a medium shot, and usually the background is stuffed to overflowing with garish art direction. Everything feels static and wooden. But in "Lawrence," Lean keeps his frames constantly alive by juxtaposing huge landscape shots with extreme close-ups of actor faces. In one especially brutal scene, after a battle that results in the slaughter of many people, the action cuts to a close-up of O'Toole, looking panicked and crazed, gripping a bloody knife in his hand as if he's reluctant to drop it, obviously both disturbed and titillated by the carnage he just witnessed. It's moments like that---not just an impressive battle scene but a character's reactions to the results of that scene---that set "Lawrence" apart from other standard epics.

And of course, I have to reserve space in my review for the performance of Mr. O'Toole. He is perhaps my favorite actor, not one of the most prolific, but certainly one of the most unpredictable. He has a flair for choosing eccentric characters that give him almost unlimited room in which to perform. He carries "Lawrence of Arabia" almost singlehandedly on his slim shoulders. That's not to say the supporting cast isn't great, but O'Toole towers above them all. O'Toole understands that the most influential figures in history could also be the most difficult and ruthless when they needed to be, and he gives Lawrence an incredibly complex characterization, leaving his audience in doubt as to whether he should be worshiped or feared, or perhaps both.

Lean would never direct an equal to "Lawrence of Arabia" again. His later films are certainly more than watchable, and "A Passage to India" is even quite remarkable in its own way, but we would never get another "Lawrence." Even more reason to appreciate it now.

My Grade: A+

It is, in a way, depressing to watch this movie today. One winds up contrasting it with the sort of technologically slick and aesthetically shallow spectacles, like "Titanic", that garner the sort of adulation that a truly great movie like "Lawrence" received in its day, and one realizes how far we have fallen.

Ignore David Lean's painterly technique, the way he fills the screen like a canvas. Ignore Freddie Young's stunning cinematography in fulfillment of Lean's vision. Ignore the fabulous score by Maurice Jarre. Ignore the stupendous cast. Ignore the topnotch script.

What we have, beyond all this, is an absolutely gripping and psychologically perplexing character study of a uniquely enigmatic individual that keeps us on the edge of our seats for the full length of the movie. "Lawrence", at over 200 minutes, goes by faster than many a movie of half its length, due to Lean's brilliant pacing and direction, and superb acting all around. To make a comparison in the world of music, this movie, like Mahler's 8th symphony, is a universe contained within itself.

Of course, it is an exercise in self-denial and philistinism to watch this movie in anything other than the wide-screen - or "letterbox" - format, due to Lean's complete use of every inch of the wide screen. To watch it otherwise is to miss half of Lean's intention.

To use a hackneyed phrase, they simply don't make 'em like this anymore.

Although having just watched Lawrence Of Arabia again though I am bowled over by the size of the epic, I still can't believe that for the entire length of the film, the word oil was not mentioned. If it were done today it sure would be.

T.E. Lawrence's story fascinates people today more than ever because he was in the center of the events that gave us the Middle East we have today. In the previous century and a half questions about that area revolved around the Ottoman Empire, the so-called sick man of Europe for that conglomerate of territory spilled into quite a bit of Europe. What's to happen if one country gets control of the place should that aging and decrepit empire falls apart. The question was postponed right up to World War I when Ottoman Turkey committed itself to the Central Powers.

It was time then for the various peoples still under Ottoman control to rise and rise they did. In Arabia a young staff officer named T.E. Lawrence gained the trust and confidence of many Arab leaders and had a lot to do with uniting them and forming an army to chase fellow Moslems, the Turks out of the area and helping the British and French win in the Eastern theater of World War I.

If going native which was the expression used by the British for one of their's who starts to identify with those he's supposed to subjugate than T.E. Lawrence went native in a big way. When his fellow countrymen did not keep pledges made to his Arabs he opted for a life of obscurity which is what he got until his death in 1935.

David Lean when he couldn't get Marlon Brando for the part, opted instead for a young Irish player named Peter O'Toole who he had seen in the Walt Disney version of Kidnapped two years earlier in a small role. It was a felicitous choice as O'Toole became the star he remains to this day as a result of Lawrence of Arabia.

It's a complex role and one you have to keep the audience interested in for over four hours. O'Toole runs the whole range of emotions here. We see him as idealistic, as arrogant, as humble, as honorable, as a stone killer, even a bit of a fathead at times. Sometimes a few of these mixed together at different points. Although David Lean got him a stellar supporting cast, if your Lawrence isn't any good, the film would flop. But Peter O'Toole was up to the challenge, he got the first of seven Oscar nominations. In this particular year he had some stiff competition with Burt Lancaster for Birdman of Alcatraz, Jack Lemmon for The Days of Wine and Roses, Marcello Mastroianni for Divorce Italian Style and the eventual winner Gregory Peck for To Kill a Mockingbird.

Omar Sharif also making his first film for a world market got an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Such Lean veterans as Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins, and Anthony Quayle got plum roles. Anthony Quinn and Arthur Kennedy are the Americans in this film. Kennedy plays the fictitious Jackson Bentley who is really Lowell Thomas. Presumably Lowell Thomas did not want his name used here, but Thomas got his career started in the news field by reporting on T.E. Lawrence in this backwater theater of World War I, making his name famous and launching Thomas's own career in the process.

One thing ever so gingerly hinted at was T.E. Lawrence's homosexuality. You can see it in his relationship with the two young men Daoud and Farraj played by John Dimech and Michel Roy. There is the alleged incident of gang rape when he's taken by Turkish soldiers led by their commander at Deraa, Jose Ferrer. It too is part of Lawrence's story though if Lawrence of Arabia were made today, they would be far more explicit.

They would also be more explicit about oil instead of these unnamed 'British interests' that Lawrence is supposed to be really concerned with. You do get the idea that all they're interested in is the right of transit in the Suez Canal and the right to say who has the right of transit.

Still Lawrence of Arabia is one sweeping epic both capturing the grandeur of the Arabian desert with the complexity of the issues and the man surrounding the desert campaign in World War I.