| Reviewer Roundup |
| 1. |
 | Dragan Antulov |
 | review follows |
 |     |
| 2. |
| Mark OHara |
| read the review |
| --- |
|
Review by Dragan Antulov
4 stars out of 4
Despite being the birthplace of modern civilisation, Middle
East was usually one of the most ignored areas in modern
history. Despite various occasions when various Middle East
political developments posed as serious threat to the world
as we know it - fuel shortages of 1970s, Gulf War of 1991
and the WTC attack - the area remained misunderstood in
Western eyes, mostly due to miscomprehension of Islam -
religion that dominates the area and influences politics and
way of life with much stronger impact than its Western or
Eastern counterparts. In an attempt to explain roots of
recent conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and West
conflict, CNN recently gave brief overview of the most
important events in the history of relations between Islamic
and non-Islamic countries. Events that occurred during and
immediately after the end of WW1 - which are often viewed as
the source of present-day troubles by most historians - were
also mentioned. In order to illustrate them, CNN used clips
from one great Hollywood film that just happens to deal with
the period - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, directed in 1962 by David
Lean.
Protagonist of this film is Thomas Edward Lawrence
(1889-1935), one of the most interesting characters of 20th
Century history, and the screenplay by Robert Bolt and
Michael Wilson was inspired by his own autobiographic book
"Seven Pillars of Wisdom". The story is set in the second
decade of 20th Century, when Ottoman Turkey, after losing
nearly all of its European possessions, still held vast
areas of Syria, Palestine, Arabia and Mesopotamia - nearly
all of today's Middle East - under its control. When Turkey
joined Germany in World War One, Britain was forced to
maintain large army in Egypt in order to protect its vital
supply line at Suez Canal. While Ottoman Sultan, nominal
leader of all of world's Muslims, called for Jihad against
Britain and other Entente powers, some of his own Muslim
subjects - mainly various tribes in Arab Peninsula - thought
of WW1 as a nice opportunity to end centuries of Ottoman
yoke. In October 1916 British diplomat Dryden (played by
Claude Rains) needs someone to join rebel ranks and appraise
the situation. Lawrence (played by Peter O'Toole), young and
insubordinate lieutenant confined for the boring desk job at
Cairo headquarters, seems perfect for the job because he had
spent pre-war years on various archaeological expeditions
and thus gained excellent knowledge of local geography,
language and culture. When Lawrence arrives at camp of rebel
leader Prince Faisal (played by Alec Guinness), he sees his
rag-tag army in disarray after being exposed to modern
weapons like machineguns, howitzers and planes. While
British military advisor Colonel Brighton (played by Anthony
Quayle) thinks that Faisal's forces must be brought under
British command and trained as regular army, Lawrence thinks
differently - he wants to turn nomadic lifestyle of Arab
tribes into advantage and turn them into guerrillas. To
prove his point, Lawrence, acting at his own initiative,
gathers small band of volunteers under Sherif Ali (played by
Omar Sharif), makes perilous journey over Nefud Desert,
recruits brigand tribe of avaricious Auda abu Tayi (played
by Anthony Quinn) and conducts surprise raid against
heavily-defended Ottoman garrison at Aqaba that would result
with the capture of strategic Red Sea harbour. This stunning
triumph and Lawrence's use of nascent Arab nationalism fill
the ranks of his ragtag army while General Allenby (played
by Jack Hawkins), commander of Entente forces in Middle
East, thinks of Lawrence's guerrilla force as valuable asset
in his planned offensive against Jerusalem. Lawrence is
promoted to Major, given vast supplies of guns and
ammunition and the resulting series of victories turn him
into household name all over the world. Instant fame and
glory, however, are going to have dire consequences for
Lawrence when he finally faces some unpleasant realities -
his own vulnerability, as well as his government's plans for
Arabia's future, quite different than his own.
Most of "larger than life" films of 1950s and early 1960s -
Hollywood's brave, and expensive and, in the end
near-suicidal attempt to fight emerging power of television
with cinemascope, colour and spectacle - are today seen as
nothing more than historic curiosities. Only few managed to
live beyond their contemporary fame and maintain their
reputation of unquestionable masterpieces. LAWRENCE OF
ARABIA is one of such films, and also one of rare instances
of "Oscars" ending in right hands. Its achievement -
contemporary and modern popularity - is even greater when we
consider three-hour length (almost four hours after famous
1989 restoration), lack of action, big stars and women in
speaking roles. The reason why LAWRENCE OF ARABIA happens to
be one of greatest films of all times can be explained with
the more than fortunate combination of various talents that
worked very hard to provide great artistic vision with
nearly flawless execution.
Screenwriters Bolt and Wilson had rather thankless task of
making epic out of material that doesn't seem epic at first
sight. Arab Revolt barely lasted for two and half years,
took place in most unglamorous of all WW1 theatres, rightly
named "side-show of a side-show" by one of the characters in
the film, and, finally, the protagonist was nothing more
than rather minor military officer in large imperial army,
promoted to the rank of deity mostly thank to his eccentric
nature and public's desire to have romantic hero in the
cynical age of industrial warfare. But the script
nevertheless managed to take the best out of this material
and make LAWRENCE OF ARABIA as grand as the films that dealt
with the rise and fall of great empires or life and times of
great statesmen. The dialogue is simple but effective,
allowing even those unfamiliar to complex circumstances of
WW1 in Middle East to understand the plot.
Another great talent responsible for the long-lasting impact
of this film is Peter O'Toole. This was his first major role
and in he seemed perfect for it, with good looks that
embodied Lawrence's charisma of self-proclaimed warrior king
and even greater acting talent that portrayed vulnerable,
insecure man behind the god-like fa?ade. The weaknesses and
contradictions of Lawrence - his futile attempt to reconcile
Arab nationalist cause and his country's interest, as well
as his own sado-masochistic and bloodthirsty urges with
chivalrous ideals and common sense - all that is given in
such subtle yet powerful way, making this role one of the
best in the history of cinema. Other actors are more than
fine too, although few of them can match O'Toole. That
includes Claude Rains as cunning diplomat, Jack Hawkins as
no-nonsense soldier and Anthony Quinn as larger than life
brigand leader turned into amateur politician. All those who
might find LAWRENCE OF ARABIA objectionable because of the
racist stereotyping of Arab characters as tribalistic and
savage could be countered with rather sympathetic and
humanistic portrayal embodied in two great actors and two
great roles. Alec Guinness is excellent as wise statesman,
while great Egyptian actor Omar Sharif in his first major
Hollywood role shines as an Arab prince who starts as
stereotypical savage only to end as Lawrence's voice of
conscience and common sense.
However, the greatest talent of them all was undoubtedly
David Lean. While shooting in Jordan and Morocco - lands so
different from jungle locations of his previous masterpiece
BRIDGE AT RIVER KWAI - he simply fell in love in desert,
seeing its vast artistic potential and great beauty, so much
in contrast with its unforgiving deadliness. Magnificent
scenery which dwarves and humbles any human character serves
as an excellent background which gives epic scope of this
story by itself. Beauty of desert landscapes is well-matched
by magnificent musical score by Maurice Jarre, with its
recognisable theme that later became used in various other
films.
The only possible flaw of the film might be found in a way
Bolt, Wilson and Lean dealt with Lawrence's homosexuality,
including the notorious incident with Turkish soldiers at
Dera. The filmmakers, however, can't be blamed for that due
to tighter censorship in early 1960s, so the issue is simply
ignored, even without subtle hints so popular among
contemporary viewers who have great fun in discovering
various sexual or homoerotic contexts in old Hollywood
films. The only exception is character of Turkish bey,
played by Jose Ferrero, whose homoerotic desires are so
obvious that Lawrence looks heterosexual in comparison.
However, the more interesting and more important context of
this film is political. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA owed its
popularity partially due to the emerging importance of
Middle East as major source of energy supply for world's
economy. In late 1910s, when the film takes place, Middle
East was not so important because the world's economy was
based on steam engines powered by coal. In early 1960s, when
the film was made, almost entire world had switched to
internal combustion engines based on oil, thus becoming
vulnerable to endemic political crisis of the region.
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in its final scenes gives hints of those
future developments by showing British and French government
becoming aware of oil importance and making sure that the
lands with these precious resources remain under their
control. Instead of free Arab states, victorious Entente
forces created their own protectorates, playing various
local factions against each other and thus planting the seed
of Arab-Israeli conflict that plagues world politics to this
day. This dimension of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is looking
sinister after recent events, but this film really didn't
need global crisis in order to remind people of its
greatness.
Copyright © 2001 Dragan Antulov
|