Peter O'Toole, Alec Guinness,
Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, Omar Sharif, Jose Ferrer, Anthony
Quayle, Claude Rains, Arthur Kennedy
Genre:
Adventure/War/Drama
Director:
David Lean
Screenplay:
Robert Bolt & Michael
Wilson from the writings of T.E. Lawrence
Cinematography:
Freddie Young
Composer:
Maurice Jarre
Runtime:
216 minutes
David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia is an epic of A-rate proportions. Why the
term A-rate? Recently, Hollywood has been backtracking to genres that once
made Hollywood, well, Hollywood. With the critical success of Braveheart,
and the box office successes of Titanic, Gladiator and Pearl Harbor, Hollywood
wants to return to its heritage of films of the grandest scale, the one aspect
that marked a Hollywood film in the '50's and '60's. However, "want"
is the key word; the aforementioned films are barely hitting the ceiling
of top class B-rate epics. They are not on the level with films such as William
Wyler's Ben-Hur, Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the
West and Once Upon a Time in America, Stanley
Kubrick's Spartacus, Akira Kurosawa's Ran and Seven
Samurai, and Bernardo Bertolucci's The Last Emperor.
What separates today's Hollywood epics from their far superior predecessors?
First and foremost, they are from a tradition of uncompromising directorial
vision. The likes of Leone, Kurosawa, Kubrick and Lean were notorious for
their one directedness on the set, regardless of bottom line, money mentality.
There is no ill will towards James Cameron and Ridley Scott, but their films
were made for the bottom line, products at the top of the current Hollywood
assembly line. Today's "epics" are not personal. It also has to
do with how the sweeping landscape of the film is utilized. The earlier films
all deal with one (or in the case of Seven Samurai, seven) person's journey
through the landscape and how they change from the opening credits to the
ending credits. Their journey is set against a marvelous backdrop. It is
grand and personal at the same time. However, films like Pearl Harbor just
use the scale to make a bigger action picture, not that there is anything
wrong with that, it just takes away the potential for what could have been
a great film (though there was not that much potential there to begin with).
Lawrence of Arabia, along with Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) are representations
of both the film's director, David Lean, and Britain's view of colonial practices
at the time. Considering that Britain had several colonies around the world,
it is very plausible to put films, by British directors, that deal with the
relationship between Britain and her colonies as a part of British cinema
because it is just as much a part of its heritage.
There is a correlation between Lean's use of international setting and British
social conditions. After 1955, he would never exclusively film in Britain
again. The film industry there was collapsing but rather than go to Hollywood
he opted to go the independent route joining American producer Sam Spiegal
to produce films. This professional and international relationship is what
produced Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. When Lean exited
the exclusive British cinema for international cinema, his British roots
did not disappear but changed location. Britons are still the main characters
in both films, but are now somewhat displaced on the British colonial landscapes
of Malaysia and Arabia respectively. Both of these films then can be viewed
as criticisms of British attitudes of their colonial practices and director
David Lean's own fascination with international themes.
To understand both films, it would be beneficial to understand David Lean.
When he was a child he had traveled around Europe with his parents to Switzerland,
France and the Mediterranean on vacations. Lean himself stated that these
were the happiest memories of his childhood. This led to a fascination with
photography and travel to exotic locales. However, when he saw his parents
separated in his teenage years he became disillusioned and self admittedly
turned to his camera for solace. It seems that he felt the further he would
get away from England he could be leaving his problems behind and finding
a new "love" in exotic locations and travel. Since, there is no
romance in both Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia, these films
can be seen as a "male adventure" or search for masculinity abroad.
Ironically, the film begins in England. T.E. Lawrence is killed in a motorcycle
accident. Quickly there is a shift to St. Paul's cathedral, where only England's
finest are buried. There, debate develops among the attendants as to the
true nature of Lawrence's character. After the debate among the characters
that will recur later on in the film, the scenery changes to Egypt during
World War I where the English are in battle with Germany's Turkish allies
over the control of the Middle East. It is here where Lawrence (Peter O'Toole)
is truly introduced.
His features are not masculine in any sense, but rather a little more feminine
than many would have believed him to be (this caused a lot of outrage in
England at the time of the film's release). He is given an assignment to
go and assist Arab tribes in fighting the Turks. After a fatal crossing of
the desert to meet the tribes he is met with hostility immediately. Even
though Lawrence is an expert in Arab culture, they do not trust him or his
sincerity. He comes up with a plan to cross the desert and attack the city
of Aqaba, a Turk stronghold. He somehow convinces the tribes to go along
with this plan. While on the journey he adopts Arab clothing, dumping his
British Army uniform, and gaining acceptance with the Arabs.
The attack on Aqaba is a great success, leading the British Army to appoint
Lawrence to keep in charge of the Arab forces. They then start to attack
railway lines that would cut off the supply lines of the Turks. It's a this
point where an American journalist (played by Arthur Kennedy), begins to
chronicle Lawrence and turn him in to a celebrity in the United States, resulting
in American support of the war effort. Shortly after, Lawrence is captured
in a Turkish prison, and after his release becomes greatly discouraged by
all the infighting of the Arab tribes. After viewing the Arab congress (what
would become known as Saudi Arabia), bicker uselessly after the conclusion
of the war, Lawrence gets on a jeep to travel back to England. While in the
jeep, a motorcycle quickly passes by, bringing the film full circle.
There are great performances all around in this film. Of course, Peter O'Toole
is first to come to mind, but there is also Lean regular, Alec Guiness as
Prince Feisal, Egyptian star, Omar Shariff as the idealistic Sherif Ali,
and Anthony Quinn (no stranger to epics), as tribe leader, Auda abu Tayi.
The film itself is not built on set pieces, but rather the acting and the
sweeping cinematography. It was a coup that Sam Spiegal (A Pro-Israel, American
Jew) was able to get permission to film in Jordan, the actual locale of where
most of Lawrence's real life journey took place.
The film does not even try to be true documentation of the "real"
T.E. Lawrence. It is hard to picture Peter O'Toole, with the same person
that Winston Churchill labeled "the greatest man I ever knew."
The historical significance of Lawrence's actions (uniting the Arab states
and practically giving Britain a monopoly of influence in the middle east)
is barely even touched upon. Instead, David Lean uses the most famous British
figure of twentieth century, to explore and tell a personal story of a man
among a collapsing empire. This might be the first truly revisionist epic.
Bridge on the River Kwai is complementary in many ways to Lawrence of Arabia.
The protagonists actively seek greatness, their desires are selfish not selfless.
Both films have characters that revolve around three certain characteristics:
Professionalism, idealism and pragmatism. Madness can be associated with
this conflict being precipitated by moral and cultural confusion. In both
films, the conflict and madness arise when there is an attempt at internationalism.
The need to belong also fits in here, but it only has success when a character
stays within its certain nationality rather than a crossing of cultural boundaries.
In both films there is a criticism of British colonialism usually marked
by the protagonists' turn to madness and fascism. T.E. Lawrence feels a need
to belong outside of the British group and with the native tribes. His madness
is marked by the loss of his compass in the desert, his only sense of direction,
contributing to the cultural conflict present in the film. At the conclusion,
he has lost all his idealism and finds himself leaving the desert and back
to Britain. Lawrence can be seen as physically a weak character, emphasizing
endurance rather than strength. However, due to his strong personal tendencies
of pragmatism, professionalism and idealism, internal conflict is the result
leaving him imbalanced and "mad". Comparing Lawrence's exit from
the desert, a parallel is drawn towards Britain's loss of being a world power.
These many aspects of characterization and social criticism make Lawrence of
Arabia an A-rate epic. The recent films that have tried to use this same
technique of fallen short. It is a good thing that David Lean's films are
now being recognized for what they truly are: the best of what an epic can
be. It is more than just grand special effects, cinematography, and endless
budgets. It is about personal journey among the grandest of landscapes.
