I caught this movie for the first time on TV the other day (AMC I think). And I hafta say, “So what?”
It was a good movie but not what I would call a classic. In fact, Lawrences constant vacillations between impervious mesiah and snivelling coward got down right annoying.
Anyone else get that feeling?
Well, the first problem was, you saw it on TV. Few movies lose so much when not seen on the big screen.
I rented it a while ago, and I rather enjoyed it… It’s more a matter of personal taste, I suppose.
I only saw the movie after I’d read The Seven Pillars of Wisdom and a lot of biographical material on the man, and I thought the movie was an interesting, pretty good portrayal of the psychological struggles of a very private man. I also thought the rape issue was pretty daring to bring up in that sideways-sly kind of way when the film was made - wasn’t expecting to see it.
BTW, has anybody read The Mint? I haven’t been able to find a copy of it, but I’ve heard it’s very Lawrence-funny.
I have watched it several times and am dying to see it on the big screen.
I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate the film but it was one of the last of the great epics of the sixties and has that certain scope and feel that has yet to be captured again.
Gladiator came close but CGI is no replacement for thousands of extras on a real setting.
As for your take on the character I think you oversimplify it. I never once saw him as a sniveling coward. Spoiler ahead…
The scene in which he shoots the man he saves is quite powerful he seems afraid to do it but that is not true. Especially when he reveals he actually enjoyed killing the man.
I’m sorry you don’t see the wonderful moral ambivilence and were expecting a straightforward hero type but this film was about taking some of the gleem off of a mysterious historical figure.
It’s a shame there are few films that have the guts to show their protagonist in the light this film did.
You must see this film on the big screen. It is incredible. And you must see the restored edition, although that’s what sold now.
I’ve seen it twice in a theater. With an overture and an entr’acte. It’s incredible.
The scenes that stay with me is Lawrence’s first meeting with Ali. The tiny dot comes across the desert and then gets larger and larger and Ali finally shoots Lawrence’s guide. Then Lawrence and Ali have their first discussion. You get an idea of what Lawrence is hoping to achieve there.
The other great scene (especially on the big screen) is when Lawrence and Farraj finish their trek across the Sinai Peninsula and come across a deserted building that turns out to be right next to the Suez Canal.
The scene that sticks with me is when Lawrence shows up at British HQ and they pull this snooty “we don’t serve Arabs” until he reveals himself. Oh, and the blood from the whipping seeping through the back of his clothes!
A great movie in that it showed the various machinations and shades of gray in all ‘heroic’ endeavors.
The sweep that the film used to communicate the omnipresence of the descrt was unprecedented. It became a virtual character in the film. Film goers just never saw anyting like that up until that time. Films have copied the film again and again since that time. Take a look at (shudder) Pearl Harbor, Patton and even Gladiator for stylistic similarities.
And to be a film about a real person and to not make him some sort of plaster saint was also unique up until then also. O’Toole captured the humanity, yet strangeness that was Lawrence. As to the character’s show of cowardice, when was the last time you saw a lead that showed fear? It was a real emotion that a real person actually felt that was actually show.
The film is most definitely a classic. If it isn’t, I can’t think of many that would deserve that title.
I managed to see Lawrence on a big screen a few years ago, restored version, but the print was really shitty. I actually appreciated it more when I saw it on AMC. But that’s mainly because I already knew that the star of the show was its scope. And not just the landscape and the extras. The acting is taken to a hyperbolic level, the compositions are universally beautiful, and of course Maurice Jarre’s score is excellent.
The deliberate pacing and intimidating length also help create the feeling that you’re confronting something monumental (the same way I felt with Titanic. No, seriously). The attack on Aqaba takes so long, with so many intermediate stages, that by the time it’s over you can forget what the point was – which is good.
I must admit it’s not among my favorite movies, but I always appreciate being manipulated by an expert, be it Kubrick, Spielberg, or David Lean. Or James Cameron. (No, seriously!)
I saw it again last week on AMC. Epic and then some. I love this film. (Being born in the desert helps.)
Stunningly beautiful. No simplistic people anywhere. Sharif’s the only one at the end still trying to build something without compromise, but he was the one who killed the guide at the well in the beginning. It’s all about ambiguity.
And a great cast. Claude Rains!
Too many people have this Ahnold “one dimensional hero is good” attitude. Good movies have complex people.
I’m dating myself here, but back before there were videos the movie studios would re-release major films. I was fifteen when, In 1968, I first saw “Lawrence of Arabia” in a theater. I had it bad for Peter O’Toole for a while.
In 1989 I saw it at the newly restored Fox Theater in Detroit Michigan. HUGE 30x70 foot screen and I was blown away all over again. It’s the scope of the film, the endless landscapes, the get me. Try seeing it again, sometimes you pick up on things a second time that you missed the first.
I saw the restored version in 70mm on a huge screen with an excellent sound system, and it was one of the great experiences of my moviegoing life. It isn’t a hollywood type war movie; it’s not about the story or the action. It’s about the images and the complexity of Lawrence as a character.
This is a movie that demands a big screen and a clear print if it is to make the impact intended. The best way to see it now is on dvd on a 16 x 9 hdtv with a progressive scan player.
It’s called complexity. Most people consider it a good thing, even if it is very hard to do expertly in a movie. Writing a character as being complex and sometimes contradictory is especially when the movie is based on the experiences of a complex and unusual historical figure.
The impression I get from the movie is of a character who excelled at and enjoyed being ruthless and cruel, which at the same time disturbed him completely, but he accepted as being right because he believed in the cause so deeply, and he continued with it even as it exacted a serious toll on his mental stability. I can’t imagine the shock of being raised as an upper-class, advantaged, “civilised”, scholarly Brit, only to discover that my calling in life was to kill people.