A Dissenting View On Lawrence Of Arabia

Rating: 7/10 (2 April 2001)

This is a film generally hailed as great that I believe is merely good, and at times mediocre. Yes, Fred Young's photography is magnificent, Robert Bolt's script far more intelligent and clever than the average screenplay, and David Lean most definitely had an flair for spectacle. All this is true. Many of the actors are good, too. But it goes on too long and doesn't explain enough of Lawrence's personality. Mostly, though, what ruins the film for me is its pretentiousness. Lean is simply trying too hard: for beautiful effects, stunning shots of the desert, sweeping moments, ironic ones, lovely shots of pretty things and ugly shots of evil things, all captured to perfection by his beloved camera. The movie is funny and disturbing and true to life, at other times larger than life, it is a history lesson and an action picture, a thinking man's spectacle...but it's shoveled down my throat and I resent it, and half-way through I want to spit it out. Art is to a large extent made up of artifice, however, artificiality should not be the main thing but rather one of the many things one likes about a work of art. Lawrence, it seems to me, is pure artifice, and not much else. Let me give an example. There is a scene near the end of the film when the various competing factions among the Arabs are debating over what to do in the post-war world. Suddenly, the lights dim in the great hall where they're all gathered. At first I thought nothing of it, a nice touch, maybe even true. Then, as I pondered the matter, I got angry with the scene and the film for the obvious symbolism: the lights are England, the hall is the Middle East, the sun is setting on the British empire, on the West in general, and the Third World shall triumph despite its lack of much technical know-how (the lights). Instant term paper! Moments like these, and Lawrence is full of them, turned me off,--how shall I say--big time? To make matters worse, Peter O'Toole's prancing-mincing-detached-ironic-aristocratic posturing wore me down early on, as I found him increasingly repulsive as the film dragged on. Nothing in Lawrence is natural and alive. It all seems so thought out. I agree that a tremendous amount of talent went into the making of this overrated so-called classic, but the result is just a lot of, well, hot air. (Sorry I didn't go into the story itself here, since I am assuming, probably incorrectly, that most people are at least casually familiar with the life and times of T.E. Lawrence).