The history of one of the most famous people in the World War I, namely Theodore Lawrence, better known as the leader of the Arab people has been full of events and turning points. Early in his life, very few people liked or even respected him. The habits, which were too unusual for an Englishman, were ridiculed and regarded by the senior management as a sign of incompetent. To somehow involve a not disciplined expert in Arab culture, the generals sent Lawrence to Arabia, where he was instructed to get in touch with the local prince and an overall picture of all that was happening there. Instead of helping the British compatriots, the character was completely immersed in the world of the Bedouins and sand. Later, we see some climb up in the career ladder, which made of Lawrence not only well-known and respected warrior, but also the leader for all the Arabs who were ready to follow him to the ends of the world.
The idea was to film a movie, in which the story would have been told by no dialogues or narration, but through a series of visual images. The film shows as a story of man and the evolution of his beliefs – from idealism to bloody realism. The film is fairly standard, not devoid of reason; it is more nearly 4-hours parable about how romantic soldiers rule the destinies of the war but at the end give a way to "dirty politicians", who are ready to bring all their efforts to naught. On the one hand, against the background of the cities, deprived of communication, operating infrastructure, the roads of the corpses, hospitals, actually performing the role of the hospices, and general devastation, starved and exhausted crowds of refugees, there is an uncertain future, for those who survive and will be able to adapt. And on the other hand, there is a cozy room, perhaps in the same city, but it does have all the amenities and drinking, old men dressed in suits sit and share with the phrases, only clear for them, with smiles on their faces. And inside, everyone has his own interest.
Performing historical review of the movie, we can say that the film is authentic. Saying that there is any historical discrepancy is very difficult. It is worth mentioning the extraordinary style of presentation of the story. It is a hybrid of a military report with its own subtle observations of the British army officer that was in the midst of the uprising of the Arabs during the World War I. It affects the objectivity and naturalness to describe the most incredible and impossible deeds – crossing of the deadly desert expanses, storming fortifications with a detachment of fifty men, becoming a cult figure – everything is portrayed without a note of self-congratulation and pride. Moreover, more often we find the description of the failures, mistakes and defeats, as if Lawrence were performing a kind of vigilante justice, which exposes the subtle analysis of his own life with all its tactical and strategic errors.
At the end of his laborious way, when thanks to incredible efforts and voltage, he reached the ultimate goal – the capture of Damascus, he finds out that he made a fatal mistake by not providing further world order. And watching a crowd of Arabs, who commit the evening vigil, he was immersed in vague ideas that they had not needed a peaceful urban existence, but a belligerent free life of the desert.
Whether the story is true a hundred percent, it is very difficult to judge, but what is true that the biographical story supports some fiction. Yet, the film is not a documentary, and a certain discount must be made. It should also be understood that the essence and the main task of this film is not so much the transfer of absolutely reliable information on Lawrence, but in the fact that his name remained in the memory of future generations. And it could not be otherwise, because the great things always cause the interest of the masses, and the pages of history will forever cherish the memory of the great dreamers of activity, such as Lawrence of Arabia. It remains only to note that David Lean took masterpiece that will forever remain in the history of cinema, as Thomas Lawrence has always remained in the British and world history.
2. Effect of the film "Lawrence of Arabia" in the West cannot be overestimated. This landmark picture was noted not only by the most popular film critics, spectators themselves, but also outstanding American directors. Speaking of “Lawrence of Arabia”, Spielberg said that this film had given him the general “director’s line” how to create true masterpieces.
In addition, a lot of commentators and critics believe that the story of Lawrence and the movie about him influenced the actions of a bunch of European statesmen, politicians and the foreign ministers of Western countries, as well as security services. He seemed secretive and prone to manipulation, with rare abilities and knowledge. He used Arab ideology to achieve victory and to promote the interests of the West. But at the same time he tried to create a foundation for intercultural cooperation and coexistence.
Despite the fact that the movie is extremely authentic from historical point of view, it is still an art film, which means that there is some speculation of the creators of the script and the director himself. The story of Lawrence for decades exerted a negative influence on the decisions, taken by influential officials and Western government officials involved in politics in the Middle East. The problem is that today, Western leaders and politicians see and discuss the problems in the Middle East through the prism of Lawrence of Arabia, romantic and a little distorted in some degree of nostalgia, seeing only a one-sided Arab position and taking the paradigm, the characters in each conflict and historical speculation as the real truth.
For the Western audience, the film is not as significant as for the Middle East. That is why the film was criticized in the West, the order more. They find something to complain about, so to speak. Many believe that in the film “Lawrence of Arabia” everything is too idealized, but in fact, the protagonist was a great man, who believed in the ideals and followed them. In the West, they more talk about the small historical discrepancy regarding the personality and behavior of the protagonist of the picture. But I do not agree with this, I would like to say a few words about the interpretation of the character (omitting many details). In the history of British intelligence, there was no more mysterious and controversial figure than Colonel T.E. Lawrence, a talented writer, and even more talented critic, art historian and diplomat. Due to the circumstances, he was made an icon of the establishment, but his most ardent admirers eventually became his enemies, and one of the most bitter was the writer named Aldington. Conceived adaptation of the "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" (this book is a kind of memoir written by Lawrence), Lean was looking for a response, but did not want to create a glossy "hero" and largely relied on Aldington, though his odious estimations amazed even the enemies of Lawrence. As a result, in the first series, the image of the character is to flourish, while in the second one, on the contrary, until the complete fall.
"Lawrence of Arabia" is not only a biographical picture, but it is also a deeply psychological film about how people change under the influence of a certain kind of circumstances. The main character appears at the beginning as an educated and well-mannered man, who despises the murder and all the barbarism. However, by joining the Bedouins in their struggle for independence, he turns into an ignorant mercy killer. Western viewers are fond of such changes in the character and nature of the main characters, and Lean bribed various masses of people by means of diversification techniques. He added a lot of different elements to the film. Both those who do not like the story itself, or those that do not attach great importance to it, find quite different points of interest.
3. If we talk about the people, who have made the greatest contribution to finding a mutual understanding between the Christian West and the Muslim East, we would like to point out the grand and tragic figure of the "superspy" named Lawrence of Arabia.
Humor, an ability to endure hardship, faith in victory made Lawrence a genuine leader of the anti-Turkish movement of the Arab resistance (from 1916 till 1918) despite of his European origins and the Christian faith. Unlike most of his contemporaries, who looked on the Arabs as a second-class people, he was a true cosmopolitan. One day, he directly challenged the aristocratic pride of the British headquarters in Cairo, appearing in the officers' club wearing Galaba – the clothes of "dirty Arab", instead of uniform. All of this caused a lot of respect for him from local residents. Perhaps that is why until now, even though Britain has deceived Arabs as a result of the Arabian uprising, when instead of independence they received a colonial mandate, to Lawrence himself in the East is still in place independence, Lawrence is treated with great sympathy and respect in the Middle East.
Why of Lawrence of Arabia is so beloved in the East, despite the fact that he served for Britain? When the Arab cavalry, led by Lawrence and Hussein’ son Faisal October 1, 1918 stormed Damascus, it was greeted as a liberator. However, the Arabs’ dream of independence did not come true. In place of the Turkish, they just got the Anglo-French domination. Simultaneously with the Bedouins, the city entered the Australian unit of the British Army. At the moment of his triumph in Damascus, Lawrence felt keenly the sense of guilt for betraying his Arab high command. In his diary, he wrote: "We call on them to fight for a lie, and I cannot stand it". However, he secretly sends Bedouin hoist the banner of Hashemite Damascus. Over the next three years, the allies took several agreements on the Middle East. France received a mandate over Syria and Lebanon, and Britain over Palestine and the newly created country of Iraq. After the British left Damascus, the French drove Faisal from Syria. But Lawrence did not leave his friend and closest associate on the "great rebellion in the desert". With the help of influential Lawrence, Faisal was appointed to the King of Iraq. Nevertheless, he continued to feel remorse for the Arabs that the victims they brought under his banner had not been rewarded with the grand prize – freedom. After returning to England, at the award ceremony at Buckingham Palace, Lawrence of Arabia refused to receive awards from the hands of King George V, referring to Britain's disgraceful treatment of his Arabian friends. King remained standing with a box with orders in the hand.
Lawrence was a hero in the eyes of the Arabs until the very end, as he truly believed in what he was doing the good for their business. He tried to help them, and his feelings were sincere, but they did not coincide with the thoughts of his British superiors. That is why Lawrence is considered as a hero in the Arab world, to his person there is a very condescending attitude. Accordingly, the film received positive reviews and feedback from the population of the East, as Lawrence has always remained their hero. And seeing almost four-hour picture of his exploits, about the Arab uprising, which he organized and deception on the part of Britain, was absolutely urgent matter for the Eastern people.
There is hardly a person in the East, who would treat Lawrence of Arabia badly. For the East, this film is a kind of reminder that the West is not always the enemy. Some people are ready to stand on their side, and nationality cannot mean anything. To the East it is a special film, especially in the same amount as Lawrence was special for the Western people. For the Middle East, the film is more memorable and meaningful in terms of the historical context, rather than to the West or Britain itself.
4. What cannot be said about the film? The first is that the hero is not idealized. Frankly, he is not an example of all that is beautiful, that can be in a person (and sometimes horrifies by his actions), but the character in all respects is interesting. Legends are also created by the people, people move the world forward and do great things – that's probably the main idea of this picture. The greatness of Lawrence in a society is opposed to his own grief, his vices and weaknesses. Yes, he is a hero in the eyes of many, but we see him as a man, very strong, brave, playing with fire, but he was much weaker than that legend and turned out to be oppressed by it. We are all human after all, not gods, but just people who are sometimes capable of miracles. I expected that he would be a holy liberator of the oppressed – in the best traditions of Hollywood – but I was pleasantly surprised. Moreover, in the films there are no sex scenes, and the love interest in principle. At the same time, the film remains quite entertaining.
About the film, we cannot say that the images of the real Lawrence and his cinematic part are identical. Although in the film, it is quite close to the literary original, but much different from it. Played by Peter O'Toole, he appears as a romantic of desert, watching the stars, talking about the fate, with the ability to successfully implement a completely insane and incredible action. At the same time, focusing on the original, there is a logical conclusion of Lawrence: "The art of war, at least the one I created was not achieved due to instinct, without any effort, but through understanding, persistent learning and stress of mind". In the film Lawrence devoted a significant place exactly to intuition, strength of will and the "destiny". And not only at this point the picture deviates from its historical background and the book, upon which the movie has been filmed. Everything has been changed – writing style, plot structure and especially the characters. In the book, the name of almost every British colleague of the author embellished laudatory and enthusiastic epithets (especially General Allenby). The film is drawn to their presentation as exploiters and nationalists who seized a foreign land, but about her Majesty the Grand Politics in the book it is not said almost anything. In fact, Lean creates from narrow personal confession of man to himself and the world (expressed in the form of a report) this heroic mural picture about global relationship of the individual and society, war and peace, both outside and inside. Lawrence himself would hardly have supported this idea: "I'm tired of being up to the limit of the target views, discussion and praise. How can you make forget about you?". On the whole, in contrast to many classical epics about Lawrence of Arabia, the film is trying to develop in the symbolic plane with all its objectivity.
If truth be told, weaknesses are not seen in the picture under the thousand fold microscope, so everything is perfectly filmed, played and dubbed. The director brilliantly managed to combine a cozy intimacy with a grand scale and panoramic, creating an unforgettable sight in symbiosis, which will not come off all three and a half hours. The scenario took into account even seemingly insignificant moments and thus avoided all the pitfalls: the picture is not only massive, but also a very integral spectacle, supported by the same epoch-making music by Maurice Jarre and Fred Gilbert. This richness and variety of motifs subtly and sensitively set off the mood of literally every micro-scene still, which is very hard to find even in some musicals. So from this side in terms of the quality, "Lawrence of Arabia" is completely invulnerable. And working with the camera operator Freddie Young, he became a model for his colleagues in the shop for many years. The same can be said about the artists, who have done a herculean job, which resulted in the stunning authenticity and accuracy of the epoch and that particular historical situation, complicated, but very romantic, like probably every other era.
5. The United States Library of Congress recognizes some films as cinematic treasures. These pictures are included in the National Film Registry, having a cultural, historical or aesthetic significance. It is assumed that the most movies will be saved for all time. The registry gets films taken at least ten years ago. The American government has protected 650 pictures, including silent shorts, documentaries and animation projects. “National Register of Films” demonstrates the diversity of American film heritage. According to the words of the director of the Library of Congress, preserving these films, we are protecting some of the most important elements of American culture and history. The movie “Lawrence of Arabia” was filmed in 1962, and in the Library of Congress it was only thirty years later – in 1991.
“Lawrence of Arabia" is a large-scale and big historical canvas. We are shown the formation of Lawrence, on all sides; we are shown the Arab revolution and the sad ending, for which so long the protagonist fought.
It is very detailed view of a short period in the life of a British officer Lawrence – only 4 years, but after watching remains a feeling that you spent close to Lawrence of Arabia this long and difficult period. We see his development as a person, politician, and warrior. In this picture, we see how the fate and all the forces beat Lawrence, but he only extracts a lesson from this and applies the experience in the future. Whatever tests are seizing him, by surprise Lawrence always finds one way out. Whatever difficulty his friends experienced – he always comes to help them out. Thus, we see the emergence of a perfect human, who has no equal. But, as soon as crown surrounding begins to praise you, you begin to believe in it and even to overestimate your own strength, and the same thing happened with Lawrence. He began to feel as a God! This is shown in a scene of the film, when the Turks shoots Lawrence almost point-blank, and he did not even budge, explaining his action as "Bullets do not take me!". And in this way we are given to understand that a person must be sometimes belittled, in order not to become arrogant or crazy.
After watching this movie, I cannot imagine who doe not fall in love with Arabia, in the endless desert with occasional oases, these sunsets during which the horizon line disappears, while the sky and the land are inseparable. While immersing the viewer into the world of the Arab people, acquainted with its customs and traditions, we recognize the spiritual essence of Arabian culture and everyone himself unwittingly becomes a participant in all the events, accompanying Lawrence throughout his journey.
We show you how you can quickly feel the culture of the country, which is completely alien to you and in the end to fight for it, as for your own. This film is absolutely deserved to take place in the Library of Congress, along with the rest of the masterpieces of cinema that constitute the heritage of the United States. Yes, of course it is not an American-made film, and mostly British played there. But this film is definitely seen by every American filmgoer, and everyone appreciates this film in the US, so that the film as a whole should be in the registry without any expiration date. It will be seen by at least several generations, so, in my opinion, adding "Lawrence of Arabia" in the list of outstanding films that are stored in the Library of Congress was an absolutely right decision. This film meets the basic criteria for making it into the register of libraries, because the film has a cultural, historical and aesthetic value. How many foreign films are there in the Library of Congress? – Not. But once it was decided to make an exception for "Lawrence of Arabia", then it was not by chance. The film is really worth being preserved for future generations, regardless of which country has produced this masterpiece.
Bibliography
Anderson, Scott. "The True Story Of Lawrence Of Arabia". Smithsonian. Last modified 2014. Accessed April 21, 2016. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-lawrence-arabia-180951857/?no-ist.
Anderson, Scott. "What's Right And Wrong In 'Lawrence Of Arabia' - Signature Reads".Signature Reads. Last modified 2013. Accessed April 21, 2016. http://www.signature-reads.com/2013/08/whats-right-wrong-lawrence-of-arabia/.
Andrews, Robert. "25 Classics Join U.S. Film Registry : * Cinema: 'Lawrence Of Arabia' Is Among Those Selected For Preservation By Library Of Congress.". Latimes. Last modified 1991. Accessed April 21, 2016. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-09-26/entertainment/ca-4030_1_national-film-registry.
Ebert, Roger. "Lawrence Of Arabia Movie Review (1962) | Roger Ebert". Rogerebert.Com. Last modified 2001. Accessed April 21, 2016. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-lawrence-of-arabia-1962.
"Lawrence Of Arabia (1962)". Imdb. Accessed April 21, 2016. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/.
"Lawrence Of Arabia: A Film's Anthropology". Choice Reviews Online 37, no. 03 (1999): 37-1630-37-1630.
"The Movie - Lawrence Of Arabia - 1962 - And The Real T.E. Lawrence". Cliohistory.Org. Accessed April 21, 2016. https://www.cliohistory.org/thomas-lawrence/movie/.
Weintraub, Stanley. ": Lawrence Of Arabia . David Lean, Sam Spiegel.". Film Quarterly 17, no. 3 (1964): 51-54.
