Let's discuss Lawrence of Arabia...

Just watched it again recently, and I was inspired. This film has not aged in the slightest, certainly not for the worse. The cinematography is stunning; the score is iconic and has so much feeling; the acting, perfect and always in the moment. Rather longer than your average movie, of course, but I wouldn't want anything cut.

The acting, though-- I beleive it said at the beginning, 'introducing Peter 'O Toole as T.E. Lawrence', so he wasn't used to movie acting at least. His Lawrence, however, is very convincingly brave and scared, quirky yet a leader. It is this deep characterization, in both the script and the acting, that make the film so stirring on the emotional level, I think.

Omar Sharif, as Sharif Ali, playing both a danger to Lawrence and his friend...

And, of course, Alec Guiness, giving a quite convincing Arab impersonation as Prince Feisel, with the effortless wisdom and dangerous edge he does so well.

So, what do you think?

 

I'm adding you to my WUL. Lawrence of Arabia, is one of my favorite films, if not my favorite film of all time.

 

I'm glad to hear it.

Discussion is encouraged

 

I havent seen that movie in...6 years...but from what I recall...it had something to do with Obi-Wan Kenobi in the desert...or am I getting this confused with Star Wars?

I also seem to recall...quicksand?

 

I haven't watched it in awhile but it was the first "older" film that made me realize that old time movies were just as good if not better than new ones. I simply adore this movie.

 

"Lawrence of Arabia" is one of my favorite pictures; perhaps it is director David Lean's best film, although that would be rather difficult to determine (you will understand this when I submit that he has directed, among other films: "Brief Encounter"; "The Bridge on the River Kwai"; "Oliver Twist"; "In Which We Serve"; "Blithe Spirit"; "Great Expectations"; "Summertime"; and "A Passage to India"). At the risk of sounding trite, I think that "Lawrence" is a film that begs to be seen on a big screen - many of the shots aren't as effective when either compressed into the standard "pan-and-scan" format or even the somewhat improved letterbox version. No, to fully appreciate Freddie Young's cinematography, you need to watch this movie in its original 70mm theatrical format.

Peter O'Toole is masterful in this film - his transformation from idealist to narcissistic leader is documented in a deliberately mysterious way, but O'Toole allows us to accept the change. Alec Guinness, Omar Sharif, Jack Hawkins, and Anthony Quinn, amongst others, help to serve as counterpoint to T.E. Lawrence's increasingly mad behavior. This is somewhat odd, particularly because "Lawrence of Arabia" is a film which isn't often thought of in terms of its acting; we more fondly recall the imagery, the epic scope, Maurice Jarre's score, the battle sequences, the narrative sweep, and yet the performances are imperative to the film's success. While I believe "Lawrence" to be a more experimental film, rather than a character piece, the acting here is very crucial.

"If you are the man with the money and somebody comes to you and says he wants to make a film that's four hours long, with no stars, and no women, and no love story, and not much action either, and he wants to spend a huge amount of money to go film it in the desert - what would you say?" - Omar Sharif

"Lawrence of Arabia", like Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", and Abel Gance's "Napoleon", is primarily a visual epic - it isn't focused on exploring interpersonal dramatic conflict in order to engage its audience or help with the progression of the plot. It isn't about "plot"; the fact that Lean is able to create a wondrous film which entrances us with its majesty for nearly four hours, is an act of genius, if not something that is altogether miraculous. This is a great film.

 

I love Lawrence of Arabia. O'Toole gives the first of many, many great performances.

And Omar Sharif gives a truly fired up performance, all raw nerves and anger. It was an epiphany for me, having previously only seen him as the neutered Dr. Zhivago, a soft piece of acting compared to this.

The cast is brilliant to a man, though, really. Jack Hawkins is good as always, though not as good as his turn in Kwai, and Anthony Quinn, for once, manages to turn his schtick into a living breathing character. And let's not forget Claude Rains, filling in what is essentially a minor role, but doing a darn fine job of it.

And then there's Anthony Quayle, an actor I'm liking more and more. Once you really pick up on him, you realize he's everywhere. Also note his performance in The Guns of Navarone. And Arthur Kennedy, for what it's worth, does a great William Holden impression.

It's a great movie, my number one film that I want to see on the big screen. (number two? 2001).

It's a daring film that focuses on Lawrence as a great man, but a flawed, arrogant, manic-depressive one.

Also appreciated is the checkered nature that it brings to international politics. We don't appreciate the British sticking around at the end, but neither do we believe that the Arabs can rule themselves. It's a textbook statement in favor of "nation building."

Having just seen it again a few months ago for the third time, I was blown away by how many truly great lines there are. And they're all born out of character. Despite what was said above about this being a visual film, I have to say it is also extremely character driven. Lawrence, Ali, Brighton, Bently and Auda all have very well defined character arcs and always act in ways that are believable and realistic.

Thy mother mated with a scorpion.

Do you think I'm just anyone? Do you?!

And one of the all time greatest character lines of all time:

I pray I may never see the desert again. Hear me, God.

I also can't recall exactly, but the line that Sharif Ali says the last time he sees Lawrence is truly heartbreaking, something like: If I, who love him, fear him, how must he, who hates himself, fear him. That's a clumsy recreation, but it's one of the all time greats.

A magnificent film.

 

It's a beautiful looking film. The cinematography is probably the best ever.

It's a bit overlong though.

 

Yes, Rogue, that last line you mentioned of Ali's... a very interesting line indeed. I love the writing in this movie!

I have been thinking that there are several traits that Lawrence of Arabia and the Lord of the Rings movies share... they are both notoriously long; both are of epic scale and their strength is wholly immersing you in the world of the movie and the characters of the movie; both were shot in beautiful, far flung locations which are central to the look of the films; flimed with then little-known actors giving lauded performances; and not based on original material. They both have prominent, iconic scores, too.

Furthermore, each film appears to be a work of incredible dedication and commitment on the part of all involved.

In short, and I do not say so quickly or without thought, Lawrence of Arabia and the Lord of the Rings movies appear in many respects to be the same sort of movie. Exactly what sort of movie I mean, however, and what other movies may also be included, I am not sure.

 

I will maintain that "Lawrence of Arabia" is primarily a visual epic. Yes, it contains great performances and well-defined character arcs, but it isn't about them. It's beauty and transcendent quality is not so easily reduced to matters of character or incident. This is not a pro forma, "paint-by-numbers" bio-pic. Taylor Hackford's "Ray", which is a wonderful film, more accurately falls into this category - it is a well-told, yet very traditional film that celebrates and recounts the events of a person's life. "Lawrence" is so much more than that - to describe the "plot" of the picture to someone, would not accurately address the film's greatness, which is somewhat more mysterious. This film is a sensory experience; it washes over you with its cascading imagery and epic sweep. Yes, we are engaged dramatically in the events which transpire over the course of the film, and the movie does have a sense of interpersonal conflict, unlike the first two installments of "The Lord of the Rings" films. The underlying dramatic foundation of "Lawrence of Arabia" allows Lean an opportunity to elevate his film to the transcendent, in part through his and Freddie Young's visionary use of the Super Panavision 70 (70mm) aspect ratio. They explore the frame in ways that can only be appreciated on a big screen. The impact of shots which would seem impressive when the film is projected on a big screen, are diminished significantly when reduced to the standard 1.33:1 aspect ratio of a traditional television (widescreen televisions are improvements, but are still unable to communicate the depth and saturation of image which can be properly regarded on a movie screen).

These unique qualities, many of which are difficult to articulate in words, place "Lawrence" on that short list of what I call visual epics, such as the aforementioned "2001: A Space Odyssey", and "Napoleon", as well as Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" and "Ivan the Terrible Parts I and II", "Fitzcarraldo", and perhaps "Apocalypse Now". As entertaining as "The Lord of the Rings" films are, I cannot reasonably classify them as being in the same league as the films listed above. They have vision and sweep, yes, but lack narrative and dramatic focus, and do not achieve the transcendent visionary pull of those other films. That difference is part of what makes "Lawrence of Arabia" a masterwork; to employ an old adage, "The Lord of the Rings" knows the words, but not the music.

 

No prisoners! No prisoners!


Good times.

 

Tyrannus,

I did not mean to say that they were the exact same kind of film, nor do I think I am being blinded by the newness and current popularity of the more recent films-- which I have, very much, considered. Moreover, I am talking primarily about the Extended Editions. I admit that it is possible I am seeing some things which are not on screen, as a result of my love of the books-- I say, I am a lover of the books and was therefore at the beginning not so disposed towards the movies. I would argue that there is indeed strong interpersonal conflict and depth in all of the Lord of the Rings.

Whether they are on the same level I was not intending to say, honestly, merely that there is something about them very much the same which I was attempting to explore I do not wish to start an argument.

 

No problem, ShrunkenJedi. I didn't intend to incite argument either, merely to promote discussion (although this probably isn't the place to address "The Lord of the Rings" - I will cease and desist). Sorry about that. Back to T.E. Lawrence.......

 

Yes, I was also attempting to promote discussion.

Indeed, back to T.E. Lawrence!

 

Lawrence of Arabia is for me one of the best movies of all time. I remember watching it, 2 years ago, for the first time. It was a Saturday night and summer, and I was ready to go out, have some fun, when I heard the movie's unfogetable theme; I stood there, watching it and minute by minute, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen...

The cinematography and the acting were the two main characteristics that appealed to me. I rented the movie in DVD and I was stunned of the image quality, and the masterful camera takes. Major scenes, without the use of CGI, beautyful desert landscapes, glorification of the heroes...

The acting is great, all the previous posts share more or less the same opinion and there's nothing more than I can say. The performances are "helped" by the wonderful dialogues, part of "what may be the world's best script ever..." - S.Spielberg.

 

Yes this film is inspiring, the soundtrack is glorious and it is definitely a hallmark of film making.

 

A few years ago I bought a thick, comprehensive book on LAWRENCE OF ARABIA with a forward by Martin Scorsese. He called it the first film noir in broad daylight.

The book is extremely detailed about the real T.E. Lawrence, the entire history of people who tried to make movies about him (Lean's is the only picture that ever made it to the screen), how legendary producer Sam Spiegel got it made, how the casting was done, pre-production, production, the aftermath of the release in 1962, and the re-release and restoration in 1992 backed by Spielberg and Scorcese. It also includes a staggering number of photographs of the production and all of the promotional posters.

I saw the restored version on the big screen during it's theatrical release in 1992 and it was an unforgettable experience. It looked brand new. I would call it an "intelligent epic." Compare it to something like Oliver Stone's ALEXANDER and you can see why the phrase "they don't make 'em like that anymore" applies to LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.

The saga of the shooting of LAWRENCE is staggering.
Shooting began on May 15th, 1961 and ended in August of 1962. 15 months! It was shot primarily in Jordan and Spain, with the England scenes shot in London of course. The producer decided if he did not do SOMETHING David Lean would have kept on shooting FOREVER, so he arranged for a Royal Premiere for the Queen of England on December 10th, 1962 so Lean would have a deadline which he would be FORCED to meet. It did the trick.

There's a section in the book with Editor Anne Coates who talks about the severe editing schedule that she and Lean had to meet in order to get the film finished in time for the premiere. Working 7 days a week, 18 hours a day. And this is truly amazing, composer Maurice Jarre wrote the score for the entire movie in LESS than a month. Jarre basically moved into an office and worked day and night, sleeping on the couch, in order to get it done on time. (It generally takes John Williams working 3 to 4 months to score a STAR WARS film.)

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is one of the 7 Wonders of the Cinematic world as far as I'm concerned.

 

Though O'Toole is a little over the top (though I realize he was a theater actor, was he not?), it's extremely fascinating to watwch him. This whole film is a prime example of how to make an epic movie the right way.

Though it gets slow in some parts (what four hour epic doesn't?), it still has so many things that it does better than most movies.

"They don't make them like this anymore."

Amen.

 

I loved this movie. One time at the Blockbuster's store, I passed where this DVD sat on the shelf and I finally went "I'm going to check this out..."

Didn't regret my decision at all.

 

The entire section of the film where Lawrence goes back into the desert
to search for and rescue Gasim is absolutely perfect.

I read an interview once with Irvin Kershner and he said this sequence is one of the greatest uses of film he has ever seen. It's wordless, but packed with emotion. The combination of the sun beating down, the powerful images Lean uses, the starkness of the desert, the heroism of Lawrence...a British man rescuing an Arab!, Jarre's score and Freddie Young's amazing cinematography combine for a masterful piece of storytelling.

I also love the way Lean staged Lawrence's return to the camp after this scene, with Gasim holding on for dear life on the back of the camel. When Omar Sharif steps up to offer water to Lawrence with a big congratulatory smile on his face, it's one of the best moments of true friendship I've ever seen. And I love
O'Toole's line reading when he says, "nothing is written."

This film should be required viewing for ALL film school students. It holds up after all these years and somehow, someway it still seems fresh and new.
Lean's talent, frozen in time forever.