The flogging scene is on disk two. (if you have the version I have)
The film could be a “teachable moment” if you have the right maps out for them.
The camera focuses on Lawrence’s face as he executes a man who is devoted to him after Lawrence saved his life. Although you never see the man after Lawrence takes aim, it is clear that it was not a quick or clean execution. We see Lawrence’s eyes, full of resolve and anguish, follow the man who must be moving around quite a bit, because Lawrence keeps having to change his aim.
No blood, no gore, but disturbed me more than many graphic depictions of blood and gore.
Absolutely amazing film, though; I envy you for watching it for the first time. I saw it for the first time in 1989 or 1990. A restored print was playing at one of the original Cinerama theaters, and my Dad played hooky from work to take me. Amazing.
They clipped out some of the early part of the scene with nothing but the rider so it’s even longer than what Youtube shows. It was shot with a 482mm lens built especially by Panavision. It’s known as the David Lean lens and you can rent it, if you’ve got the scratch.
An amazing, stunning, movie starring the amazing, stunning Peter O’Toole. I LOVE this movie.
Absolutely agree, one of the best movies ever, and most of the undertones are very subtle, so perhaps the kiddies wouldn’t even notice. ENJOY!
I cannot imagine your kids sitting still for it. It’s why God invented second TVs.
Hey, Wakinyan-- did you watch it?
It’s not nearly as adult as its porn homage Florence of Disrobia.
[QUOTE=SuperNelson]
Absolutely amazing film, though; I envy you for watching it for the first time. I saw it for the first time in 1989 or 1990. A restored print was playing at one of the original Cinerama theaters, and my Dad played hooky from work to take me. Amazing.
[/QUOTE]
I saw it for the first time a few years ago. It was a stunning, restored 70mm print on a huge screen. I was in awe and still don’t understand why it didn’t win every single Academy Award it was up for.
50 Years On, Sharif Looks Back At ‘Lawrence’
I still wanna know if Wakinyan watched it and what he thought of it.
Thanks for asking, ThelmaLou.
After reading this thread (up until my reply above) I decided not to watch while the kids were awake.* I’m glad I did, there are several scenes which might concern a child, and while that isn’t the end of the world, my aim was to enjoy a movie, not to spend time with my kids. (I do that too, you see, but sometimes Wakinyan just want to enjoy a movie on his own.) So I’m glad I asked you first. And then it took some time before I could see it in peace, since it is very long.
It is now a couple of weeks since I saw it, and I must say Lawrence of Arabia sticks with you. The main character, as portrayed by Peter O’Toole of course, has unexpectedly – because I didn’t have any particular expectations – taken its place in my inner pantheon of the Greatest Fictional Characters of All Time. Especially after the movie, the day after or so, there’s a realization of a depth to that character which of course is unusual for a “hollywood movie”.
The movie it self has such an astounding belief in itself; which you do not necessarily have as a “modern day” viewer; and you ponder whether these long self absorbing scenes really works. But they do. You find that they do. You are convinced.. In fact, when he movie came to an end I was surprised – I thought it was longer…! I wouldn’t mind at all following Lawrence of Arabia yet another hour or so.
Alright, some scenes took me little bit out of the illusion (I know quick sand doesn’t work like that), some seemed dated (Omar Sharif had a few lines that didn’t work 100%), and sometimes it was a little bit '60s corny so to speak; but on the whole, it was a tremendous movie experience; however much camels, soldiers and sands there were, the psychology of the main character, the character of the protagonist, is what stays with you. A fantastic achievement by Peter O’Toole, great story by all involved, and probably a top ten i my book.
- For those who didn’t read my OP very carefully (no grudges, mind you) and obviously thought I asked whether I should watch the movie with my kids, I want to quote my OP: “I’m not going to watch it *with *them of course.” I was rather wondering if I should/could put it on while there were kids around who might catch a minute or two.
Thanks for the update. You know that Lawrence was a real person, right? Born T. E. Shaw, he took the name Lawrence. Complicated, troubled man. It is an enduring story. If Lawrence were alive today, he would wring his hands over the Middle East situation. And probably weep.
Actually, T E Lawrence was born “Lawrence” because that was the name his parents had assumed. His father was Thomas Chapman, Anglo-Irish gentry. His mother was Sarah Junner, the Scottish governess hired by Lady Chapman, a devout Protestant who didn’t want an Irish Catholic taking care of their daughters.
Sarah left service pregnant; Chapman was seen with her in Dublin. So he left his wife & daughters–retaining enough income from the estate to raise his second family. (There was never a divorce.) Sarah was illegitimate; her mother had left service with the Lawrence family & it was assumed that Sarah had been fathered by a Lawrence. Thus, “Mr & Mrs Lawrence” raised a family of sons in modest gentility in Oxford.
Chapman inherited the baronetcy in 1914 & died of influenza in 1919. The title went extinct as he had no legitimate male heirs. This matter is touched on in the film; being raised in a devout household that he suspected early on was not quite “right” helped shape Lawrence’s unusual character.
After the war, Lawrence tried to escape his fame by joining the RAF under the name “Shaw”–probably a tribute to his friend, George Bernard Shaw. Michael Korda’s Hero is an excellent biography of this fascinating man…