Lawrence of Arabia

***Lawrence of Arabia*** is a 1962 epic historical drama film based on the life of T. E. Lawrence. It was directed by David Lean and produced by Sam Spiegel through his British company Horizon Pictures, with the screenplay by Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson. The film stars Peter O'Toole in the title role. It is widely considered one of the greatest and most influential films in the history of cinema. The dramatic score by Maurice Jarre and the Super Panavision 70 cinematography by Freddie Young are also highly acclaimed.

## Plot

The films tells about T.E Lawrence from the time he fight the Turks up until his death by a motorcycle accident.

## Why It Rocks

1. Well written story, as the film depicts Lawrence's experiences in the Ottoman Empire's provinces of Hejaz and Greater Syria during World War I, in particular his attacks on Aqaba and Damascus and his involvement in the Arab National Council. Its themes include Lawrence's emotional struggles with the personal violence inherent in war, his own identity, and his divided allegiance between his native Britain with its army and his new-found comrades within the Arabian desert tribes. The film's pretty much a symphony of war, and its very amplitude is part of its power: its poetry and bloodbaths, battles and reverie, genius and madness.
	* The idea of male bonding, an action movie staple, is raised to a sublime and scary level – as if all the politics of the region hinged on one man’s bruised psyche, as if the earth turned on his burned heart. The movie is a stirring portrait of a genuine hero, but Lean’s picture also critiques what it celebrates, and, in part, undermines what it exalts. That’s one reason why it’s still one of the great movie epics: an archetypal daydream of bravery and disaster.
2. Even though the film often plays fast and loose with history and psychology in World War I and Lawrence's contributions to it, its remarkable beauty of the resulting piece of art is absolutely breathtaking and it more than makes up for the issues. It's full of grand tableaus, sweeping action, and polished, epigrammatic speeches. The dialogue is loaded with irony and foreshadowing.
3. There are a lot of sweeping wide shots that capture the desolation of the locations: the desert in this case. Few adventure films ever have boasted such astonishing physical beauty.
4. Breathtaking cinematography.
5. No shortage of rich, complex and interesting characters to cheer for both historical and fictional. Naturally, T.E. Lawrence is powerful, but there's also the fictional Sharif Ali who was created for the film who's both sidekick and simmering presence and more important, comes to stand for the impossible union with Arab culture Lawrence wants. In fact, critics have often called the film a character study due to how much focus is placed onto the characters compared to the overall plot.
6. Memorably groundbreaking score from Maurice Jarre that really richens the film's atmosphere.
7. Peter O'Toole's performance as the titular Lawrence is absolutely captivating and portrayed larger than life, albeit with marginal historical accuracy. His take on Lawrence is an adventurer who flirts with disaster, who wants to be consumed by another culture. He swings between exhilaration and despair, madness and glory, the poles on which the movie pivots.
	* Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, and Alec Guinness are also talented and well-done in their roles.
8. A couple of iconic scenes, such as the long sequence where Lawrence sees Sharif Ali Ibn El Kharish for the first time, riding through the desert in shimmering heat waves that seem to break Sharif Ali’s camel mount into black abstract fragments. Or the huge close-up early on where he holds his finger in the lighter flame – which immediately dissolves into the desert landscape – suggests a desire to annihilate part of himself, to become something purer, harder: “playing with fire” in a deep and dangerous way Said match cut would later inspire Steven Spielberg as well as *2001: A Space Odyssey*.

## Bad Qualities

1. As mentioned above there are still a handful of historical inaccuracies. For one notable example, Auda abu Tayi is portrayed as a man interested only in loot and money is also at odds with the historical record. In real life, Auda did indeed join the revolt for monetary reasons initally, but he quickly became a steadfast supporter of Arab independence, notably after Aqaba's capture. Despite repeated bribery attempts by the Turks, he happily pocketed their money but remained loyal to the revolt and went so far as to knock out his false teeth, which were Turkish-made. He was present with Lawrence from the beginning of the Aqaba expedition and in fact helped to plan it, along with Lawrence and Prince Faisal. The fact of that none of these good factors of Auda's depth are shown in the film, kind of feel like a wasted opportunity.
2. Even putting that pointer aside, the film shows both the strengths and weaknesses of an "epic" movie. As a film's it's stupendous as it's larger-than-life in acting and cinematic techniques -- at least in its individual moments. The script works on an intellectual level, but not an emotional one. The size of the production became a crutch to lean on, a diversion when characters and plotting were lacking. The vastness of the desert *is* the story for most of the film's first hour, along with how slowly David Lean unfolds the plot. With so many actors and extras, animals and props, and overall grand locations, Lean may have felt forced into using them all even if the film didn't require it.

## The Film

EmbedVideo received the bad id ">C8vHgdbtmj8" for the service "youtube".
## Additional Videos

EmbedVideo received the bad id ">t\_V-h55jJRY" for the service "youtube".