Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating Subject, Brilliant Director
Review: Combine one of the most fascinating figures in history along with the directing efforts of one of the unquestioned giants of twentieth century cinema and you have the winning combination that exemplifies the 1962 international blockbuster, "Lawrence of Arabia."T.E. Lawrence was an enigma to himself as well as those around him. Too short to qualify for the British Army during World War One, Lawrence was given entry by special exemption. Due to his passionate love for Middle East arcana, substantiated by archivist visits to the area, the erudite Lawrence was put in the Cairo Bureau office headed by General Edmund Allenby. He proved an irritant and puzzle to the Sandhurst military types he confronted due to his uncanny ability to unearth the most minute details from maps as well as for his unconventionality, highlighted by an absence of military protocol. A deal was ultimately struck in which Allenby, believing that perhaps Lawrence could aid the British cause in the field, assigned him to the Arabian dessert in what would be described as a freelance effort. His superior officers in the Cairo Bureau were delighted since he made them feel awkward and they were happy to rid themselves of someone they considered a young upstart lacking the requisite mindset to be a good British soldier. The rest is history as Lawrence was able to achieve unity by bringing together disparate tribal warriors who generally fought each other. He filled them with incentive to rid themselves of the rule of Turkey's Ottoman Empire. Those familiar with the hit and run tactics of the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War will see similarities in the way that Lawerence's warriors wait for the opportune moment, then strike when the better equipped, far more numerous Turkish forces are least aware. The project of bringing Lawerence's fascinating life to the screen was a challenge of veteran British director David Lean, who also crafted "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Doctor Zhivago". In the manner of "Lawrence of Arabia," the other films were also magnificent technicolor dramas with broad international scope. Screenwriter Robert Bolt crafted his superb script from Lawrence's autobiography, "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom." I found Lawrence fascinating enough to concentrate a lengthy chapter on him in my Middle East historical work, "Struggle for the Holy Land." Lawrence is brilliantly captured on screen by Peter O'Toole,who vaulted to international stardom with this role. The film won 7 Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Cinematography. William Hare
Rating:
Summary: What More Can be Said?
Review: I hsd not seen "Lawrence of "Arabia" until recently, when I selected it from my growing DVD collection to watch on the tv at the foot of my sickbed. zfrom start to finish, I was enthralled. Other reviewers have said, much better than I could," why this film is a triumph in every way a motion picture can be. For me, this has been a eye-opener, a repudiation of the snobbish "Oh, it can't be THAT good" attitude that kept me from going to see some of the better films of my youth. Now, with DVD and bigscreen television, I am getting a second chance. I saw nothing I did not find fabulous, and I could not recommend this film more highly. It is an absolute"must see."
Rating:
Summary: Epic Defined
Review: This is the greatest epic ever filmed. Back in the day when religious and historical epics were more abundant, this one stood out above the rest. With the passage of time it's reputation and standing have only increased. It's amazing to think that David Lean could sustain this level of brilliance for three movies in a row. It as a tour de force in every way. The directing is wonderful, the writing, the editing, the acting. There really aren't enough good things to say about this movie. If you have never seen it, you are in for a treat. It is as visually entertaining as you will ever see. It truly is the standard by which all large scale movies should be judged. It takes more than just a big budget to make an epic, you need a larger than life character, great story, and it has to be presented in an interesting way. David Lean and Peter O'Toole bring everything that they have to this movie. A Stunning achievment of the highest level. They're aren't enough stars to give out for this one. See it. You won't regret it.
Rating:
Summary: Review on Lawrence of Arabia
Review: An excellent, dateless, ageless film--wonderful, thrilling and moving. The countless extra footage is priceless; each actor's performance better than the next. No wonder the film won so many awards. Too bad so many of today's same-genre films substitute noise and special effects for the excellent filmaking displayed in this film. I loved the dvd so much, that I'm ordering one for my 26 year old son.
Rating:
Summary: The Best
Review: Simply the best of the best - enough said. All that needs to be said. Don't watch this at your peril.
Rating: 
Summary: great movie, bad history
Review: I won't comment on the cinematographic value of this movie as I don't think that I have anything to add to the reviews already posted. What I will say is that although this movie is truly a work of art, it is deeply flawed because of its dangerously false account of history. Generally speaking, for the most part the arab characters in the movie are made to appear simple, cruel, greedy, ie the usual treatment for arabs in Hollywood. But that isn't really what bothers me; the worst comes at the end of the movie, when the arab army headed by Lawrence reach Damascus. In the movie they are shown to argue for a total of two days after which they return to desert having achieved nothing. Supposedly they were unable to govern the city themselves, basically leaving the door open for France to move in with clean hands. In reality however, the arab administration lasted not for two days but for two years. The nomads from the desert didn't try to run the city themselves - they were uneducated, but they weren't that stupid. They made use of the inhabitants of the city who had been running the place before and who did just as good a job under arab governance. The only reason they left the city was because they were forced to... by the French army. Hence the film didn't get it quite right, which is a problem and a great shame. I know it seems absurd, but maybe the best solution would be for this film to continue being shown and respected as much as it is, but for it to run a proviso at the beginning mentioning that its account of history is inaccurate, seeing as it purports to be a film based on actual historic events.
Rating:
Summary: Watch this Epic to understand what we've lost as Moviegoers
Review: This spectacular masterpiece by the widescreen maestro is incomparable. The images contained within this film are indeliable, when the phrase "every frame a Rembrandt" is used as the mantra for exceptional cinematography, this film is what they are talking about. Every aspect of this film is epic - far too many to recite here - and the DVD chronicles it's lengthy, incredible production masterly. The presentation (sound & video) is benchmark, and considering that the film is close to 40 years old it looks as if it was shot yesterday. Large format cinema has sadly all but vanished from narrative film, but we can always look back this film in awe and wonder. From Maurice Jarre's ethereal score and Robert Bolt's enigamic, yet involving characterization of Lawrence to the fantastic acting by O'Toole, Sharif, and Quinn and startling production design by John Box, one almost has to shed tears in light of the fact that we can no longer see films of this length, style, presentation and quality. Yet it can live again on a HDTV through DVD, nostalgia is usually fairly dangerous when it comes to art, but you can make an exception for this film.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most visually stunning movies ever made....
Review: T.E. Lawrence was perhaps the first perfect example of a mass-culture hero to come out of the First World War. The English soldier, writer and adventurer went by several names, but history remembers him as "Lawrence of Arabia". By taking an honors degree from Oxford in history with a thesis on Crusader castles, an ambitious project that required extensive field work in remote regions, he was able to examine three dozen Crusader castles--an achievement which prepared him very well for service in the Middle East by 1916. In the process, Lawrence conceived a romantic admiration for the Arabs during these archeological expeditions and learned Arabic while a student in Oxford. It took almost two years to finish filming director David Lean's epic masterpiece. And this will always be better seen on a wide screen. There is no substitute for it, however seeing this on DVD in an HDTV capable widescreen would be a close second. I just have to have this film on DVD even though I have this in VHS, and what a difference. One can almost feel the shimmering heat of the sprawling desert sands and cinematographer Freddie Young (one of seven Academy Awards) captures flawlessly the sprawling sands of the immense Arabian desert. It is a place that can only be conquered by those with the right fortitude of body and mind, and in the film Peter O'Toole (as Lawrence) demonstrates (or should one say--showed off) the necessary stoic capacity to endure pain by snuffing out lighted matches with his fingers on a regular basis, without wincing. In campaigns in the desert, Lawrence inspired his men with his willingness to share their extreme hardships, and fought on even after being flogged by the local pederastic Bey in Dera (played by Jose Ferrer), and perhaps because of that incident, it transformed him into a more complex man. By showing how he transformed a motley gang of tribesmen into an effective guerilla force and becoming the chief strategist for the whole Bedouin army, temporarily converting its self-interested leaders to his vision of a unified Arab nation---will probably be the single most redeeming quality of this great film. He did not hesitate to castigate his Arab cohorts like Sherif Ali Ibn El Kharish (played by Omar Shariff): "Sherif Ali, so long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be little people, a silly people--greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are." Beyond question was his crucial role in driving the Turks from Syria and western Arabia, the centerpiece being their capture of the Turkish fort of Aqaba, by crossing the Nefud desert and capturing it on the landward side--a thing considered impossible by the Turks in those days (which shows why their big guns are all pointing out to sea). It is just one of the spectacular scenes in this film. Loosely based on Lawrence's "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" (published in 1926), an abridgment came out later as "Revolt in the Desert", it showed, as in the film, that he was a man of action who felt defiled by his actions, and a soldier painfully conscious of being an agent of British imperialism. He was a writer eager for fame, but he was psychically devastated by the war's horrors and its betrayal of his ideals. Lawrence, perhaps more than anything else embodied the dissolution of British class heirarchies in the ordeal of war. After the war he received a number of honors and was offered but refused the Victoria Cross and a knighthood. Though it never tried to explain why he was impelled sometimes to embellish his achievement and then repudiate the fame they offered him, this is one great film about one chapter in the life of an enigmatic and complex man. Perhaps that will always be Lawrence's legacy.
Rating:
Summary: My completely superfluous rave
Review: Given the thunderous universal acclaim for this masterpiece of world cinema, I feel stupid chiming in with my pipsqueak, "I like it too!" But I love this film so much that I'll do it anyway. Every aspect of it is perfect, of course, but I especially thrill to the writing. There can't be another screenplay in history with so many great lines. And, needless to say, we're not talking about "Yippee-kie-aye, mother....." here. It's one of the very, very, very few screenplays that approach the status of literature. It's a see-before-you-die picture if ever there was one.
Rating: 
Summary: Otherness
Review: The movie is all about T. E. Lawrence. So? Well, the result is a movie centered around the discourse of what Edward Said has defined as "Orientalism". If you re-watch and re-examine the movie within the the framework or Orientalism taking into account such things as the representation of the Arab as the Other, T.E. Lawrence as the Agent for the creation of the Arab identity, the horde depictions, the lack of ability to articulate on their own, the all important negative representation of the Turks the picture will take on a new meaning. Let us examine each topic one by one. The pivotal character of Auda abu Tayi (Anthony Quinn), with such memorable lines as: Auda Abu Tayi: I am Auda Abu Tayi! Does Auda Serve!
Crowd: No!
Auda Abu Tayi: Does Auda Abu Tayi serve!
Crowd: No!
Auda Abu Tayi: [to Lawrence] I carry twenty-three great wounds all got in battle. Seventy-five men have I killed with my own hands in battle. I scatter, I burn my enemies' tents. I take away their flocks and herds. The Turks pay me a golden treasure, yet I am poor! Because *I* am a river to my people! Lawrence: My friends, we have been foolish. Auda will not come to Aqaba. Not for money...
Auda Abu Tayi: No.
Lawrence: ...for Feisal...
Auda Abu Tayi: No!
Lawrence: ...nor to drive away the Turks. He will come... because it is his pleasure.
[Pause]
Auda Abu Tayi: Thy mother mated with a scorpion. What do we read? I read that Auda is in effect the representative Arab leader (purposely placing aside the Sherif Ali role played by Omar Sharif) who is a shallow tribal overlord whose primary motivation is money, who leads a band of faceless and greedy Arabs. Despite the claims to the contrary, Auda does not come "for his pleasure" but for the promised gold. Later, upon realization that he had been duped by Lawrence, Auda proceeds to make a new agreement with the same on the promise - but this time with English gold. Does this really give the Arab agency? No. Is the Subaltern speaking here? No. Is this Bolt and Lean restructuring and confirmation of Arab stereotypes. Absolutely. What were they thinking? Another curious aspect of the movie is that Lawrence is the only agency the "Arabs" (a notion which he singlehandedly creates) and is the prime mover - no, the only mover. The movie plays out yet another dangerous stereotype of the Arab who cannot think, create, nor motivate himself - they need Lawrence. The Arab needs outside agency to create himself. Don't you find that just a bit ironic? If this was your only encounter with the Arab world you will have hitherto been convinced that the Arab is motivated solely by money and cannot articulate the creation of a state - much less even cares about it. The depictions of the Arabs on Camels and the horde of mercenaries will linger as the dangerous and mysterious Arab and he is beginning to be unmasked. However, this chimera and those I mentioned above serve to reinforce false stereotypes and leaves the Arab as the Other. Lean and Bolt try to effect an out through the characterization of Feisal as the Same: Prince Feisal: Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution. However, he is always remote, always aloof and always between his elite guard of black clad Bedouin. Mysterious, always mystery. It does not work. What in effect David Lean has accomplished is a classic of modern cinema shrouded in seductive of the mysterious Orient, in epic scale and proportion coupled with music to accompany the grandeur -- what we are really left with is the dehumanizing of the Arab and the escalation of T. E. Lawrence to the status of Messiah. What about the encounter of Lawrence of the Turks - what message did that leave you with. If anyone is really a victim in this movie it is not the Arabs but the Turks. Are they lurking about as is suggested with homo-erotic suggestion and potential for violence. What about Turkish complexity, culture and agency. Lean could have placed a counter to this representation or left it out altogether. The object is not to finger point as that leaves us within the framework of colonialism and further away from a much needed liberation. We can take up the unfinished project of Frantz Fanon, move away from the politics of blame to a politics of liberation - but only through analysis. As much as was I was seduced by the movie for the longest time, a revisit has allowed me to gain perspective and see it thus. All this however, does not detract from the great cinematography and does not detract from its greatness and that is its greatest weakness. Miguel Llora
| 
