Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by benhoppel

and with a fantastic script and great editing by Anne Coates/David Lean.

Sure, so much great stuff. And yet Lawrence is an opaque figure amongst all this, that for all the cinematic finery around him I don't feel like I know what's making him tick. He's like the right hand of God, just doing what he likes, and while rebels are revered in cinema I don't always find myself aligning with them. I looked up some of the original reviews and I couldn't believe how closely this one from Variety in December 1962 sums up my own feelings towards it, i.e. it's an astonishing piece of filmmaking but the man remains inscrutable: https://variety.com/1962/film/review...2-1200420236/#!

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure, so much great stuff. And yet Lawrence is an opaque figure amongst all this, that for all the cinematic finery around him I don't feel like I know what's making him tick. He's like the right hand of God, just doing what he likes, and while rebels are revered in cinema I don't always find myself aligning with them. I looked up some of the original reviews and I couldn't believe how closely this one from Variety in December 1962 sums up my own feelings towards it, i.e. it's an astonishing piece of filmmaking but the man remains inscrutable: https://variety.com/1962/film/review...2-1200420236/#!

I agree. I really like the movie but I don't quite love it. I respect the character of Lawrence but it's hard to really embrace him. Someone mentioned the important "Who are you?" scene from the movie, and I think it's actually the point of the movie - he's opaque, hard to pin down, full of contradictions, he's different things to different people.

I actually prefer this kind of presentation of the character rather than a more reductive, typically simplistic Hollywood approach that would've tried to 'explain' the character by saying everything was rooted in a bad childhood, daddy issues, sexual confusion, whatever.

The downside, though, is that a character full of contradictions and opacity is going to turn off a lot of viewers - like trying to solve a puzzle that has no answer. Hard to relate to someone who's a cipher.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by English Patient

I agree. I really like the movie but I don't quite love it. I respect the character of Lawrence but it's hard to really embrace him. Someone mentioned the important "Who are you?" scene from the movie, and I think it's actually the point of the movie - he's opaque, hard to pin down, full of contradictions, he's different things to different people.

I actually prefer this kind of presentation of the character rather than a more reductive, typically simplistic Hollywood approach that would've tried to 'explain' the character by saying everything was rooted in a bad childhood, daddy issues, sexual confusion, whatever.

The downside, though, is that a character full of contradictions and opacity is going to turn off a lot of viewers - like trying to solve a puzzle that has no answer. Hard to relate to someone who's a cipher.

Lawrence is an enigma in history and Lean and Co. don't try to peel back all the layers, which could lead them to getting the depiction of the man wrong.


That's my problem with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Spielberg and Lucas try to give Jones a (unconvincing IMHO) backstory when he was better off being left as an enigma as well. Not everything needs to be explained.

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure, so much great stuff. And yet Lawrence is an opaque figure amongst all this, that for all the cinematic finery around him I don't feel like I know what's making him tick. He's like the right hand of God, just doing what he likes, and while rebels are revered in cinema I don't always find myself aligning with them. I looked up some of the original reviews and I couldn't believe how closely this one from Variety in December 1962 sums up my own feelings towards it, i.e. it's an astonishing piece of filmmaking but the man remains inscrutable: https://variety.com/1962/film/review...2-1200420236/#!

Originally Posted by English Patient

I agree. I really like the movie but I don't quite love it. I respect the character of Lawrence but it's hard to really embrace him. Someone mentioned the important "Who are you?" scene from the movie, and I think it's actually the point of the movie - he's opaque, hard to pin down, full of contradictions, he's different things to different people.

I actually prefer this kind of presentation of the character rather than a more reductive, typically simplistic Hollywood approach that would've tried to 'explain' the character by saying everything was rooted in a bad childhood, daddy issues, sexual confusion, whatever.

The downside, though, is that a character full of contradictions and opacity is going to turn off a lot of viewers - like trying to solve a puzzle that has no answer. Hard to relate to someone who's a cipher.

Personally, I find I love the movie more and more with each viewing and have no problem with the way they chose to present Lawrence. I think he's a fascinating character with such a terrific performance by Peter O'Toole. And it's a surprisingly nuanced and complex portrait of a historical figure for such a large scale movie made in 1962. It doesn't shy away from the some of the uglier aspects of the man (arrogance, pride, a God-complex, sadomasochism, even bloodlust!). And the mystery of who Lawrence is was something they were definitely leaning into. Just take a look at the original poster (reproduced on the Blu-ray cover) of a man with his face obscured by shadow. But is he even really that inscrutable? There's certainly aspects of T.E. Lawrence that historians still are trying to figure out to this day, but as presented onscreen, I think there's a lot there. The answer simply is he was a man. A complicated, fascinating, contradictory man who did great things for reasons we can really only try to understand.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Rizor

Personally, I find I love the movie more and more with each viewing and have no problem with the way they chose to present Lawrence. I think he's a fascinating character with such a terrific performance by Peter O'Toole. And it's a surprisingly nuanced and complex portrait of a historical figure for such a large scale movie made in 1962. It doesn't shy away from the some of the uglier aspects of the man (arrogance, pride, a God-complex, sadomasochism, even bloodlust!). And the mystery of who Lawrence is was something they were definitely leaning into. Just take a look at the original poster (reproduced on the Blu-ray cover) of a man with his face obscured by shadow. But is he even really that inscrutable? There's certainly aspects of T.E. Lawrence that historians still are trying to figure out to this day, but as presented onscreen, I think there's a lot there. The answer simply is he was a man. A complicated, fascinating, contradictory man who did great things for reasons we can really only try to understand.

Good insight. I really appreciate the nuanced depiction of Lawrence, and I'm actually glad they chose to present him in such a complicated way, even if it means they sacrificed making him a more embraceable, identifiable character (like Luke Skywalker, whose motivations and feelings were pretty much worn on his sleeve).

It's always a risk, though, when you depict such a complicated, elusive, sometimes off-putting character. It can keep the audience at a distance. But I prefer that to the often simplistic Hollywood technique of reducing everything down to a simple explanation. Like with First Man - though I liked the movie, I had a problem with the script sort of using Armstrong's grief over his dead daughter as the Rosetta stone that explained him as a person.

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by English Patient

Good insight. I really appreciate the nuanced depiction of Lawrence, and I'm actually glad they chose to present him in such a complicated way, even if it means they sacrificed making him a more embraceable, identifiable character (like Luke Skywalker, whose motivations and feelings were pretty much worn on his sleeve).

It's always a risk, though, when you depict such a complicated, elusive, sometimes off-putting character. It can keep the audience at a distance. But I prefer that to the often simplistic Hollywood technique of reducing everything down to a simple explanation. Like with First Man - though I liked the movie, I had a problem with the script sort of using Armstrong's grief over his dead daughter as the Rosetta stone that explained him as a person.

I don't personally consider Lawrence all that cold or unknowable. As a character, he's charismatic. He looks good and he says a lot, and sounds good saying it. I don't find him off-putting to any extent. He's just complicated and perhaps more open to interpretation than most leading movie characters. But no more than say, a protagonist from a Shakespeare play or a great literary work. That's just part of the drama of a character study. What kind of man does it take to do such extraordinary things?

Here's my own read on the character:

[Show spoiler]At the start, he's an intelligent, shrewd, and ambitious young lieutenant stationed in Cairo, Egypt. He probably has a chip on his shoulder because he was born illegitimate and wasn't able to take his father's name, and so he's eager to make a name for himself. He's bored of his desk job and pesters his superiors into sending him into the desert. He relishes the lure of adventure that the desert provides.

Upon his arrival, he devises a bold, impossible plan. It works and he also achieves another daring feat that cements his legend among the Arabs, and the feuding tribes unite under him. They start to see him as a mythic figure, almost God-like in his ability to lead them to victory. After a string of successes, a war correspondent/photographer arrives to spread news of Lawrence's exploits. Lawrence plays into it and starts to believe his own myth. That he's no ordinary man. He likes playing God (dealing out justice and taking lives) and his victories have proven he's invincible. He can write his own destiny and reshape the Middle-East as he wills it.

He suffers some losses and a few close to him are killed. And he is ultimately humbled at Daraa - a stupid plan based on his own hubris doesn't work out and he's taken prisoner and beaten. After this, he tries to be an "ordinary man". He puts on an ill-fitting uniform and goes back to Gen. Allenby, but Allenby plays upon Lawrence's ego and convinces him back to the desert to play the god once more.

There's a part of Lawrence that falls in love with the desert and its people, but he's also a white British officer so his motivations are conflicted. On one hand, he wishes to see the Arabs gain independence - partly because he wants to be the one to give it to them. On the other, he's not one of them and he's using the Arabs in order to serve British interests as well as his own ego.

I think when he leaves the desert at the end of the film, it's tinged with a complex mix of emotions. He knows that what he achieved was extraordinary. He united the Arab tribes and led them in a revolt that helped overthrow the Ottoman Empire. But it's taken its toll on him psychologically and the success is fleeting. Maybe the Arabs have gained independence, but will it last? It's fraught with infighting amongst the Arabs, and the British and French politicians are ready to swoop in and carve up the Middle-East for themselves. Moreover, he's saying goodbye to a desert and all that came with it - adventure, fame, glory. He has to go back to England and live his life just as ordinary man.

[bytor]

Originally Posted by Rizor

[Show spoiler]Moreover, he's saying goodbye to a desert and all that came with it - adventure, fame, glory. He has to go back to England and live his life just as ordinary man.

[Show spoiler] I think it’s also telling he was really eying that motorcycle passing by at the end. He’s a thrill seeker. He’s done with the thrill of the desert and trading his camel in for the thrill of the motorcycle back home.

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by farerb

I tried to watch it but got tired from all the walking in the desert in the first hour or so... I don't have a problem with long movies, I watched Gone with the Wind several times and Ben-Hur was fine as well, I think this one's pacing was just too slow for my taste I guess.

There's something lost in translation over the years and as screen sizes have gotten smaller. "Lawrence of Arabia" was made for a huge screen and I think some of its pacing owes to that. Much like "2001: A Space Odyssey" which modern audiences may feel is a bit slow paced, part of it is because on a large screen, the visual language of these films play out differently. In 1962, it was more about the transportive grandeur of what you were seeing, the sense of adventure. 60 years worth of "epic" movies later and smaller screen sizes, it's all a bit old hat. If you're watching "Lawrence" on the large screen, you're enveloped in the desert landscapes. You're immersed as you watch tiny specks emerge out of the distant horizon. At home, you can barely make out what's happening. They're just images that are held onscreen too long.

I don't find "Lawrence of Arabia" boring at all. But I probably get more out of it than some. I mean, there are plenty of other epics and even shorter movies from the '50s and '60s that I find far bigger slogs to get through ("Ben-Hur", "The Ten Commandments", "Spartacus", "The Guns of Navarone", "The Great Escape", "Doctor Zhivago", other biblical movies, a bunch of other war movies, westerns, etc. Actually, considering how much I love this movie, practically everything else is more of a slog than "Lawrence of Arabia". ).

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by bytor

[Show spoiler] I think it’s also telling he was really eying that motorcycle passing by at the end. He’s a thrill seeker. He’s done with the thrill of the desert and trading his camel in for the thrill of the motorcycle back home.

True! Forgot to mention that aspect of his character, and certainly it's a multi-faceted portrayal. The real-life Lawrence was an avid motorcycle enthusiast. And maybe it flies in the face of his depiction as an egoist, but the real life Lawrence actually re-enlisted several times under false names. Perhaps it was just for the thrill of it?

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I mentioned the T word in case anyone thought I couldn't handle a movie that was more than five minutes long. But Lawrence left me cold, it really did. Of course it's beautifully shot, superbly acted and wonderfully scored, but by the end of the movie I felt like all of Lawrence's peers at the funeral at the start of the film: I saw his deeds but I'm no closer to understanding the man. Maybe that wasn't the point, as Lawrence himself attests when his superior says that he can't make out whether he's "bloody bad-mannered or just half-witted" and out comes the reply that sums up the film for me: "I have the same problem, sir".

Was this your first watch Geoff? Its not a film I watch very often but once I commit, that 3.5 hours just flies by for me.

I'm looking forward (I think! ) to your technical review..

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Rizor

I don't personally consider Lawrence all that cold or unknowable. As a character, he's charismatic. He looks good and he says a lot, and sounds good saying it. I don't find him off-putting to any extent. He's just complicated and perhaps more open to interpretation than most leading movie characters. But no more than say, a protagonist from a Shakespeare play or a great literary work. That's just part of the drama of a character study. What kind of man does it take to do such extraordinary things?

I like your interpretation of his character. And I think it's just really hard dramatizing someone who does extraordinary things. Most of us are pretty ordinary, and it's often hard to grasp the amount of courage, intelligence, persistence, whatever, that is necessary to do extraordinary things. So characters like Lawrence are somewhat alien to us, hard to identify with or understand.

Anyway, I THINK that might be why some people here aren't overly enthralled by the movie. Plus, the length might be a bit trying - 3+ hours with a character who's very different from most of us might be a chore.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by zen007

LoA can be a slow burn but it is still one of the greatest films ever made. Since it is being watched at home, it can be seen in 2 or 3 parts like a short TV series.

I'm finding myself more receptive to this kind of viewing in recent years especially if the movie can have some slower parts or pacing. Even with The Lord of the Rings extended movies (which I am going through right now), I am aiming for one disc a night. Now, there are some ~3 hour movies I can and actually prefer to watch in one viewing which just fly by for me (Scorsese stuff for example).

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Now, there are some ~3 hour movies I can and actually prefer to watch in one viewing which just fly by for me (Scorsese stuff for example).

Many people warned me about the running time of THE IRISHMAN, but I had no problem watching it in one viewing. Kept my attention the whole time. Same for me with LAWRENCE.

No good movie is too long, no bad movie is short enough.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

Was this your first watch Geoff? Its not a film I watch very often but once I commit, that 3.5 hours just flies by for me.

I'm looking forward (I think! ) to your technical review..

No, I've seen it a few times over the years. And, again, the running time is not the issue.

The review is taking shape.

[mindset]

The film Lawrence loves himself; loves looking good, loves what he does and loves being good at what he does. And he hates himself for all of it. Among the many things this great film is about, Lawrence becoming self-aware is the hook for me.

YMMV

[Geoff D]

It's that dichotomy that I can't quite fathom. He loves it. He hates it. He loves it. He hates it. When the man himself can't pin down why he does these things I just can't connect with him. Not that I need reams and reams of backstory (though some would've been nice) but this is what I mean about him being ultimately inscrutable, it's precisely because he literally veers from one extreme to the other that I feel I'm no closer to understanding him.

Loving this discussion though peeps. It's been very insightful.

[mindset]

The film shows you all the backstory you need though. He was a jobsworth Army Officer doing routine office work, wearing a uniform that doesn't fit. I don't think he has any doubts about loving what he does. He loves it. The point about self awareness is that he hates himself for loving it. Viewers are shown who Lawrence of Arabia truly is at the same time as T.E. Lawrence discovers himself.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's that dichotomy that I can't quite fathom. He loves it. He hates it. He loves it. He hates it. When the man himself can't pin down why he does these things I just can't connect with him. Not that I need reams and reams of backstory (though some would've been nice) but this is what I mean about him being ultimately inscrutable, it's precisely because he literally veers from one extreme to the other that I feel I'm no closer to understanding him.

As if to underscore his inscrutability, there's that scene at the beginning, where the reporter is asking people who knew him to comment on Lawrence, and everyone says something different... and then Allenby says, "No, I really didn't know him." I like how Lean and his screenwriter knew Lawrence was a puzzle and decided to make that a running theme of the movie. In a way it's a nod to Citizen Kane, in which the reporter tries to unravel the Rosebud mystery and 'solve' Charles Foster Kane.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by English Patient

As if to underscore his inscrutability, there's that scene at the beginning, where the reporter is asking people who knew him to comment on Lawrence, and everyone says something different... and then Allenby says, "No, I really didn't know him." I like how Lean and his screenwriter knew Lawrence was a puzzle and decided to make that a running theme of the movie. In a way it's a nod to Citizen Kane, in which the reporter tries to unravel the Rosebud mystery and 'solve' Charles Foster Kane.

...which I acknowledged in the post below from a day or two ago, and in my case I actually agree with the mourners by the time I get to the end of the film. If the point is indeed that Lawrence was all of these things and none of these things, depending on whatever whim he'd alighted upon, then the movie has done its job. But an enigma he remains.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Of course it's beautifully shot, superbly acted and wonderfully scored, but by the end of the movie I felt like all of Lawrence's peers at the funeral at the start of the film: I saw his deeds but I'm no closer to understanding the man. Maybe that wasn't the point, as Lawrence himself attests when his superior says that he can't make out whether he's "bloody bad-mannered or just half-witted" and out comes the reply that sums up the film for me: "I have the same problem, sir".

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If the point is indeed that Lawrence was all of these things and none of these things, depending on whatever whim he'd alighted upon, then the movie has done its job. But an enigma he remains.

I think because he's an enigma it's hard to get emotionally invested in him, simply because he's operating on a different wavelength than most people. One of the problems I have with the movie is that it's not really an emotional experience in the same way that, say, E.T. is (just picking a movie at random). LofA is breathtaking and always interesting, but as an emotional experience it's not completely fulfilling. Which I guess is not really a defect in the movie itself, just in my expectations of what I want the film to deliver.