Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Date Seen: 7/19/17

Score: 4/5

DIRECTOR: David Lean

PRODUCER: Sam Spiegel

STUDIO: Horizon Pictures (Columbia Pictures)

SCREENPLAY: Robert Bolt & Michael Wilson

CINEMATOGRAPHY: F.A. Young

Peter O'Toole

Lawrence the masochist 

Omar Sharif

Anthony Quayle, Omar Sharif, Peter O'Toole, and Alec Guinness

Peter O'Toole and Alec Guinness

Omar Sharif and Peter O'Toole

Omar Sharif

Peter O'Toole

Peter O'Toole and Anthony Quinn

Peter O'Toole and José Ferrer

Lawrence reaches his breaking point 

Arthur Kennedy and Omar Sharif

"NO PRISONERS!" 

Lawrence the Sadist

Arthur Kennedy

Some films are so beautiful that they "need to be seen on the wide screen of a movie theater to be fully appreciated." Unfortunately, as I am not as ridiculously wealthy as I plan to someday be, I do not have a movie theatre at my disposal, and its last wide theatrical release was in 1989, so I was unable to experience all four hours of Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen, as it was intended to be seen. However, even translated onto a smaller screen it makes for a beautiful viewing experience; the crisp colors of the digitally remastered CinemaScope footage come through so wonderfully that you almost forget that you are watching a film at all, and not just staring at one of those desktop screensaver images that changes every few seconds.

Right off the bat I will say that I do not consider myself to be a fan of movies longer than 2 and a half hours, or, for that matter, war epics. Or epics in general. I was not looking forward to watching David Lean's 1962 masterpiece for these reasons. However, I actually did enjoy it, although I can't say I really understand it- or at least understand its impact. Here's what I could glean from researching the film and thinking about it deeply:

Lawrence of Arabia is a film about the enigmatic real-life British soldier T.E. Lawrence, who became famous for his efforts during World War I to join together the military powers of the Arabs and the British to fight the common enemy, the Turks. It's sort of a mystery how Lawrence ascends from a lowly map maker to a God-like status among both Arabs and his fellow Brits; the film doesn't quite seem sure of how it happened either, and attributes it to a vague mixture of Lawrence's stubbornness, bravery, egotism, and foolhardiness. The tallest task of any biopic is to crack open the protagonist's mind for the audience, attempting to explain his motivations and overall character development. However, even by going off of Lawrence's own autobiography, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, the film is unable to explain for the viewer who Lawrence really is. This is less of a fault and more of a point: not even Lawrence is sure of who he is. With this established, the film delivers nearly four hours of footage that depicts Lawrence undertaking his military duty and undergoing a series of personality changes that disillusion both himself and the viewer. For the purpose of this essay, I will be evaluating the three major shifts in Lawrence's character, and how David Lean depicts the journey of a man from masochist to sadist, from God to mortal, from war hero to disillusioned veteran.

At the beginning of the film Lawrence is a masochist who dislikes bloodshed and detests the lack of humanity present in the war. This, at least, is close to reality; it's well known that T.E. Lawrence was both an ideological as well as a sexual masochist, who even hired young Arabs to beat him occasionally. While the film, still subject to the Production censorship code (which, by the early 60s, was breathing its dying breath), obviously does not go into these details, it instead shows Lawrence as almost carelessly indifferent to violence and pain- when, of course, it's his own. Early on in the film he demonstrates a trick in which he puts out a match with his fingers, yet it all becomes clear soon enough that it's not a trick- he has simply trained himself not to be bothered by the pain. While this doesn't exactly spell out enjoyment, it's a subtle hint towards Lawrence's preferences and early personality quirks.

Lawrence's aversion to bloodshed and casualties basically translates to an inability to endure sacrifice, certainly nothing beneficial for a man whose job is to lead a guerrilla war in the middle of the damn desert. At first this means that he's willing to do stubborn things like attempt a rescue of a man who's fallen off his camel miles behind the migration, actions that are ultimately successful and win him some appreciation from his Arab counterparts. However, just as the invincibility felt in youth passes into cautious adulthood, Lawrence's carefree, pacifist spirit sours as the film delivers an onslaught of increasingly difficult challenges.

The first obvious challenge to Lawrence's initial peacefulness is when he is forced to execute the aforementioned man whom he's risked his life to save. This ironic turn of events leads Lawrence to the frightening conclusion that he actually likes bloodshed- that he derives pleasure from the powerful feeling it gives him. Thus begins the film's second Lawrence persona- that of the budding sadist, or Lawrence as a Godly figure. Soon he becomes intoxicated with the power of his position; as Gene Phillips writes, "as the Arabs begin to treat him like a god, he becomes vain, egocentric, and erratic." I rather like Peter O'Toole's performance, and I think that in this stage of the film, his portrayal of Lawrence is exquisitely nuanced. In one of the famous train scenes he parades about the dirty Arabian men around him, hovering above them on the train in his mass of white, godly robes, twirling and laughing, unaware of a dying Turk who will soon fire a potentially lethal bullet at him from close range. The bullet strikes his shoulder, and once he's hit petals of scarlet blood blossom through his white robes, revealing his mortality. As Phillips puts it, "An expression of amazement crosses Lawrence's face; he has been jolted into realizing that he is, after all, still a mortal and not the god his warriors believe him to be." This realization of mortality reaches a high point during the scene in which Lawrence is tortured by Turkish guards.

Many critics point out that the reason Lawrence is sent to be whipped with canes and potentially raped is because he rejects the sexual advances of the Turkish bey, played by José Ferrer. If the implication is that he's sodomized offscreen, I think it says something about censorship laws- it would have been too explicit to depict Lawrence as he probably was, a homosexual, but it is perfectly okay to include depictions of abuse as stemming from repressed homosexual urges. Way to go, David Lean. Anyway, Lawrence reaches his breaking point during this scene, and everything that happens afterwards is a reflection of his radical change in character. He's essentially been stripped of his innocence and of his egotism, and seeks revenge against the Turks who attacked him by launching a massacre against the enemy. 

The massacre scene is undoubtedly a show of Lawrence's sadistic potential. He participates in the brutal attack on the Turks, vastly outnumbered and viciously killed, and late in the scene clutches the dagger he once glanced into lovingly to see his reflection, an allusion to the earlier scene in which he first dons his pure white robes. This time the reflection staring back at him is as vicious and bloodthirsty as the "enemy." In this moment, he comes to another realization: that he must leave the desert and return to his own civilization. Like so many other white protagonists before him, from Captain Kurtz to the boys of Lord of the Flies, being away from the laws and customs of western democracy has simply allowed a man to become a savage. Lawrence leaves the desert remorseful for his participation in the bloodshed, and the film comes to a close.

What is the lesson of Lawrence of Arabia? Is there a lesson, or is it simply meant to depict the adventures of a polarizing war figure who is still revered by Turks and celebrated by the British today? I think several of the themes of Lawrence of Arabia can be interpreted as problematic, from the white savior complex to the idea that a "civilized" man will go mad and resort to savagery when removed from a western environment. However, I'm willing to admit that these themes are drawn from history- that these ideas exist because, at one point, people lived these truths, or at least made them up in their memoirs. I have no idea what kind of a man T.E. Lawrence was, and the film doesn't do too much to help me figure that out, but at least it delivers nearly four hours of stunning cinematography, fun camel action, and smoking hot Peter O'Toole (of whom friend Noël Coward wrote, "had he been any prettier he would have had to been called "Florence of Arabia"). Sure, most of the "Arabs" are played by British guys in some variation of Blackface, including a wholly unconvincing Alec Guinness, and sure, there is not a SINGLE woman in the cast, but overall it's one of the most celebrated films of all time for a reason. Omar Sharif said of the film, "It was a very expensive film with no love story, no action really... no great battles... just a lot go Arabs going around the desert on camels." If that's your thing, Lawrence of Arabia is the film for you.

Sources

"LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, 1962-1989: 'It Looks Damn Good'" by Gene D. Phillips, from Columbia Pictures: Portrait of a Studio (1992)

"Lawrence of Arabia" by Jack W. Entin, published in The Clearing House, Vol. 37, No. 7, March, 1963.

"In Search of a Hero: Filming 'Lawrence of Arabia'" by Gene D. Phillips, from Beyond the Epic: The Life and Times of David Lean (2006)

"Lawrence of Arabia" from Wikipedia

All photos from FilmGrab.com. All GIFs from Giphy.