Attention: at 9:06 I said that Lawrence participates in a massacre of the Turks "at the behest of Ali." This was a mistake. The line should have read: "at the protest of Ali."
Yes, spot on. All to show, I believe, the complexity of the human condition. We are all two people; half killer, half peacemaker. Our character changes from place to place, from time to time depending on how we perceive the situation to suit our own beliefs. Ali kills the man at the well because he is a member of an enemy tribe yet he will not condone the massacre of another enemy, the Turks. This is all bounded by Ali's sense of honor. His belief in honor dictates his actions regardless of their intrinsic nature. Same for Lawrence. He condemns Ali for shooting the man at the well, rebukes Ali for believing the man is not human, yet he is willing to execute a friend for what he perceives is for the greater good (maintaining the fragile tribal alliance, leading to eventual Arab victory). This belief (in the greater good) motivates Lawrence throughout the entire film and allows/permits him to commit unspeakable acts. Which is something that all humans do; justify and rationalize our actions through various beliefs both legitimate and illegitimate. This duality of man is the central theme of the piece and something that is directly hinted at during the opening scene at Westminster. Some people say he was a great man, others say he was "shameless self-promoter".
Yes....Lean was so great w/ symbolism.....I have never been a big fan of this great film, & don't know a lot about it from memory, but I always remember the great overhead wide shot of the coastal down via the desert, with all the defensive cannons pointed toward the sea; as they assumed nobody could invade from the other direction. One picture tells a thousand words.
And a theme that is barely developed in the moments leading up to that scene. There is barely any change that is brought about to him, besides the fact that he now knows what killing a person is like. Most of the change is of the exterior, where his relationships change and he becomes accepted by the arabs.
My grandfather (God rest his soul) was born before electricity came to his hometown in Newfoundland, Canada. Imagine how much he saw change in his lifetime. One of his most profound memories was seeing Lawrence of Arabia in the theatre. The colors, the vastness, the cinematography, the scale...
So many terrible "reviewers" on RU-vid with no knowledge of cinema parroting each other and trafficking in the most simplistic observations, often to comment on utter tripe cinema. It's really refreshing to find your channel here, particularly since you really delve into the meat and potatoes films of the classical arthouse. I saw all of these movies years ago and find your fresh takes teach even me more than a thing or two. I subbed a few weeks back after watching your incomparable series on 2001.
Although I agree with a lot of what you just said, I would disagree with a word that you used : "arthouse". "Arthouse", originally, referred to new brand of film-theaters appearing in the United States, which were not showing Hollywood films or films but independent films produced on a lower budget, foreign-language films, and documentaries, in the 40s and 50s. Arthouse came on to be used more broadly to refer to films that were not produced for a mass market, and therefore believed to have higher artistic ambitions, and who generally were independent american films, foreign-language films or foreign films or documentaries (not american, thus, because the term originated from the US). But Lawrence of Arabia was not a arthouse film. It was produced by an independent producer, Sam Spiegel, (who had built himself a little fortune during his time as an agent and a producer working for Universal) but also by Columbia Pictures who distributed the film afterwards and the budget allowed them to hire a huge cast. Even if O'Toole was unknown, Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins, Claude Rains, Arthur Kennedy, José Ferrer and Anthony Quinn were known quantities, not only in England but also in America. They were big stars that you could only get together on a Hollywood-type budget, allowed by a big partner. And neither was 2001, that you also refer to (and many of the other films discussed in this channel, like Blade Runner or The Shining, etc). If you want to go on to make a broader statement that it was easier to get artistically ambitious on a big budget back in the 60s then now before because the overall system was closer to patronage, even with studio-produced films, with one big producer that would be the only real outside influence talking to one director very much in charge of his project, why not ? But let's not reconstruct history. Lawrence of Arabia, or 2001, were never arthouse. They were and remain great films, who changed the medium of cinema in significant ways, the product of great directors at the peak of their abilities. But they were big studios films in their inception. It is not because something is great and artistic that it has to be considered as arthouse. Arthouse does not mean greatness. It's just another market of films with other sets of expectation on a commercial level who happen to feed a lot of the festival market. Production-wise, Lawrence of Arabia has more in common with The Dark Knight than it does with Hiroshima mon Amour. I know i'm being particular about one word that you used. But I take issue with the misuse of this particular word because it does reconstruct, albeit inadvertently, a historical reality concerning a medium that you and I love. By using the term "arthouse" in this way, you're actually, despite your best intentions, defending a brand rather than a reality, which is, I think, back to your words, what you would probably blame those who produce 'tripe cinema' for doing.
“Lawrence” portrayed by O’Toole was the most complicated character ever in film. Masochistic forcing himself to cross that impossible desert, and sadistic as he finds himself enjoying killing the enemy up close and personal. He’s very effeminate yet tougher than all the macho guys he’s hanging out with, and they live in that unforgiving place.
Your correct about the portrayal, and I'm not trying to negate your comment, but in reality, Lawrence was scarred by the killings he committed in the desert. But yes, the portrayal is very complex as well as Lawrence himself.
@@lordslamzer1403 You see something about film-Lawrence being "scarred" by his experience as well after he's been saved from imprisonment with the Turks (by Ali as far as I can remember). Unfortunately, most versions of the film do not show what actually happened between his getting imprisoned and being freed, so his condition at this point is not correcttly framed. It sort of comes out of nowhere.
In fact Peter O'Toole was too large to portrait TE Lawrence, who couldn't join the British Army as "short men" were refused, so TE started as a civilian before becoming a 2nd Lt-interpreter in London (October 1914). Finally as Turkey entered the War and Britain declared war, TE Lawrence and Capt Newcombe were stationed to Cairo - Egypt (December 1914).
I believe that Lean might have been the first director to shoot the film in 70 mm, twice the width of the standard 35 mm. Thank goodness, after the disappointing experience of Todd-A-O/Cinerama where three separate cameras were used to create a 105 mm mash up which was projected by three separate projectors onto a gigantic curved screen and which was impossible to take in without dislocating your neck.
My favorite scene of this movie is when he walks into the Canteen full to the brim with his fellow Englishmen who are all quietly watching him as he quietly walks up to the bar and asks for lemonade.
Steven Spielberg went to David Lean when he as a nothing director starting his career. He told David how moved he was by LOA. Imagine then that for hours, David sat with Steven and took him through all the scenes one by one and explained how and why he shot them. Steven said it was like an artist explaining his brushstrokes. Steven said that LOA is a work of art.
Spielberg first met David Lean while they were both flying on Concorde in 1985, so after he had directed Jaws and Close Encounters, ... Spielberg actually became a something director at aged 22 with his first big directing job, an episode on Night Gallery starring Joan Crawford.... he was 27 years old when he directed Jaws.....I don't really think there was any point in Spielberg's directing career where he could be described as a nothing director, he pretty much made a name for himself on his first job at aged 22.
As an arab, i love this movie. It explains to people that our tribalism is a product of our environment and that even an englishman will become like us if he Had to live in such an unforgiving environment back when there was no technology
Ahmed El-Ibiary, I cannot agree or disagree as I simply don’t know. I will say this, however: T. E. Lawrence was perhaps one of those uniquely principled people in history who prized honor over glory. It is my understanding that he dearly wanted to be knighted, but when his chance came he refused it. Why? Because the English and the French plainly deceived the Arabs in order to gain the Arab people as additional fodder for their enemies while they took the spoils.
True, Industrialism and technology have always had a way of "civilizing", even in the UK before the industrial revolution there was always warring kingdoms and tribes, its the same across the earth
Again, nothing but great stuff. I like that you've zeroed in on one particular scene that I'm sure many would assume is important, but not as crucial as you've demonstrated. It's always been hard for me to believe that many of the major plotlines in this film were major embellishments of T.E. Lawrence's story, yet Lean manages to justify every single alteration.
T.E. Lawrence is the only historical figure whos biography made me like them less. This is a man of great talent who rejected it. He could have used his influence to really make a difference, but just used it to run away from himself. If it wasn't for this film he would now be all but forgotten, and I'm sure he would have preferred that. The Lawrence of this film bears only surface resemblance to the real person.
Thanks! I recently watched History Buffs' great video on the differences between the film and what actually happened-- really interesting stuff. It's interesting how the film seems to comment on its own embellishments with the funeral scene and the scenes with the journalist.
@@johnmacey2375 "HW bullshit" Say hallauya brother .... Hollywood is in the 'entertainment business' & we can expect some artistic licence .... revisionism .... outright prefabrication .... to occur on a regular basis .... but what happens when HW turns history on it's head ? Example : JFK .... SILKWOOD .... HURRICANE CARTER .... ect. .... Movies that leave a lasting evil impression on young impressionable minds .... For profits sake ? Sweet sleeping Jesus .... Should be outlawed just as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is .... What do you think ?
Im gonna be honest i barely remembered this scene, for me, the most gorgeous scene is the Rescue of Gasim. Makes me cry everytime, whether i listen to the music or watch the clip, without fail. Probably one of the best most emotional scenes.
Sir David Lean was a brilliant director and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is one of my favorite films. Thank you for the analysis of this magnificent scene in the film.
The Webley Mark VI top break revolver in .455 caliber was the standard sidearm issue for the British. They were retired in 1947. They are great fun to shoot.
That scene is always amazing every time i watch, just re watched this epic a few weeks ago and im glad there are those who can put together the back ground work and how they made it possible, thanks !
Brilliant analysis of the making of this classic film. There were more technical cinematic nuggets and character study in 10 minutes than you get in whole 2 hour documentaries.
I watched this film as a child and two scenes stayed with me, this and the ‘no prisoners’ charge. I found this very interesting and enthralling. Thanks for you efforts in making this. As an aside I found Mr Box’s voice incredible.
A very interesting commentary. I am over 70 and Lawrence of Arabia is, bar none, my favorite motion picture. I have always considered it to be one of the finest examples of cinematic theater. It has the ability to completely absorb you into the story, even when seen multiple times.
I first saw an unrestored version of this movie at a vintage downtown theater in Santa Fe, NM on the big screen and the place was packed of viewers. Same thing happened later again when the 4k version came out in 2019. I wish I could have been like the man I was talking to, who was seeing it for the first time in a movie theater the other day when LoA was being shown in honor of Columbia Pictures. I am happy when the movie starts, but sad when it ends, because the sublime experience of viewing it is over.
Very good job with this pivotal scene. Just one small but significant quibble: Lawrence participates in the massacre of the Turks NOT at the behest of Ali but over Ali's objections. Their relationship is never the same afterward.
The Cinema Tyler corrected himself, but I would add that their relationship wasn't that altered, as Ali offers Lawrence a garland after the success of taking Aqaba. Also perhaps because Ali realized all too well the tribal commitment prompting their compatriot's one-man charge to avenge the deaths of his village sealed their military response.
to me it was just a reflection of how lawrence had changed from the beginning, he critised ail for shooting his guide in the begining. then lawrence ends up engageing in killing fleeing helpless turks. simple cause there turks. he had become more barberas and crule than ali by that point. he was getting of on war mongering for the pure sake of it.
Tyler. You broke down the meaning of the scene beautifully here. Good eye for cinematography (in this case, great cinematography) and storytelling here. Well done, sir.
The best film EVER made. The greatest acting performance EVER in a motion picture. The greatest exhibition of cinematography EVER in a motion picture. Citizen Kane licks the boots of this movie. It's not just that it is great. It is 10X to 50X greater than the second greatest picture ever made. There will never be a motion picture greater than Lawrence of Arabia.
Hi there after only this video I've subscribed and am enjoying this channel so far. UCF our usual connection that brought me here. I recently so I'm Lawrence of Arabia myself in the theater. And I attended church service with a small group of Christian Arabs in my city. I don't speak Arabic but they translate for me and speak English. The pastor was using a mirage as an example in his lesson last night and I quickly did a search for the Mirage scene in Lawrence of Arabia and found your video. Later I showed her the scene and she was amazed. Most of the people in this group are from places like Jordan Lebanon Syria Egypt so there is a good Spectrum of the Middle East. And familiar with Lawrence of Arabia of course. Thanks for this video and this dissertation. The facts and information we're great and I wanted to go through the entire movie exploring all the nooks and crannies and and particulars about everything scene-by-scene.
The cinematography in this film is pure magic; majestic. Akira Kurosawa had this same attention to detail & also understood how film could be used to tell an epic story.
7.02 This scene emphasises the clash of two cultures against the backdrop of the indifferent desert. It is a cinematic triangle or the humans and the distant, empty horizon between them. Nothing could have been clearer to ram home the theme, or one of them, of the film.
Its funny how much this shot influenced the good, the bad and the ugly. Also you missed the perfect control that ali has of the camel, it responds to his actions showing he is in control and completely at home in this environment so we believe him when he says he can take english to the prince/king.
A truly revelatory analysis, thank you very much. However, at the risk of getting all bromantic, I feel the need to bring out an element that you missed, namely, the startling effect that Sharif's sheer physical beauty has on the viewer. I can recall watching this scene in the theater thinking, "Man, I want to be Omar Sharif when I grow up." Didn't happen...
Both Director David Lean and actor Omar Shariff were prone to act in extreme weather movies, Dr. Zhivago in the brutal “Russian winter” (filmed in Spain), and this one on the hot sizzling desert...huge contrast!
Excellent analysis of one of the very best scenes in what is one of the greatest films ever made. I enjoyed this, and the effort made. Thank you. I look forward to looking through your other videos - a new subscriber.
The forgotten man here is Andre de Toth, who is credited on the film as a "special consultant". For this scene, Lean told de Toth, "We need a miracle here." The details may be found in two books, De Toth on De Toth, and de Toth's terrific memoir Fragments From The Inside. de Toth was also called in on Superman when the special effects weren't working. As a director, de Toth's range was impressive. If you don't know him, look up his work.
loved this. I was taken to see this movie when I was a little boy. I've no idea how my dad got me in ... I still have a clear memory of the scene where Lawrence killed Gassim. after he emptied the gun I asked my dad ... 'is he dead dad?' and it got quite a laugh from people in the audience. : )
Missed opportunity to mention how badass sharif looks when he dismounts his camel. Go back and watch how smoothly he gets off his Camel it just tells you from the start how slick this character is.
or the James Bond series..crap. Or the Kanu Reeves John Wick..crap. or The Tom Cruise Jack reacher..crap. or the Liam Neeson same old taken series crap. or the Fast and furious crap. I am telling you in 40 years time this generation will CELEBRATE these movies and actors..and the Marvel series .crap.too. PS original soldiers and men of the era and palestine area will have said that the movie lawrence is CRAP too. Historically... I concur.
My favourite scene is the one in which Lawrence dons Arab robes for the first time and wants to see what he looks like. The only reflective surface available in the middle of the desert is his dagger. I was told that whole scene was ad libbed by O'Toole.
To "parrot" a comment below, I myself feel that so-called "Experts" on Classic film on RU-vid have all the knowledge and authority of a dentist practicing Brain surgery....it is a breathe of salt-sea air to watch your channel( Hey, only seeing one video made me push the Subscribe button). But as to the lead in this movie: I personally feel the character of Atticus Finch in the NOVEL "To Kill a Mockingbird" may be the noblest character in world literature..even more so than Hamlet- my all-time favorite character Ever ( Please no mention of the Mockingbird "sequel") Peter O Toole lost the Oscar to Gregory Peck's Atticus. My being as careful now as walking on a minefield: Peck's Atticus Finch IS played to perfection, But Does Not have the complexity of Peter O Toole 's complex, multi-layered performance. As stunning as is this film (the one color picture on my college film class textbook)-as stunning as David Lean's direction, Maurice Jarre's music score- It Would Not Be one of the greatest film masterpieces of all time without Peter O Toole's performance. And it was the only major Oscar loss on a night when this film cleaned up.If anything more needs to be said, it's O Toole's loss in The Lion in Winter to Cliff Robertson's Charlie. 'Nuff said
