What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx
Lawrence of Arabia is on the following AFI lists:
The Original Top 100 (#5)
100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#23)
100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (T.E. Lawrence is the #10 hero)
25 Film Scores (#3)
100 Most Inspiring Movies (#30)
The Revised Top 100 (#7)
10 Top 10's (#1 Epic)
Now that I am so concentrated on watching the AFI movies, mainly because it gives me something to watch in the absence of good television, I've been shuffling my Netflix queue around. Granted, there will be times when I can watch the movies instantly or borrow them from others, so I'll still be watching more contemporary films of all sorts to offset the primarily classic flavor of the AFI lists, but my quest is to now watch remaining entries in order, mainly because that requires less thinking. Thus, last week: Citizen Kane. This week: the next film I had not yet watched, Lawrence of Arabia.
I had never seen this film before. The most prohibitive factor for me was its length. I mean, it is really long. Gone with the Wind is long too but was, at the outset, more interesting to me. This seemed like a very long war movie. In essence, it was, in fact, a very long war movie, but it had layers and depths, though the best aspects of the film were all technical in nature.
T.E. Lawrence was a real man, though I am not sure just how real the events of this film were. Played with gusto by Peter O'Toole (this was his star-making role), the film is more one long, probing character study against a backdrop of events rather than an exploration of the events themselves and how the character fits into those events. From the prologue of Lawrence's funeral, the film flashes back to World War I, Cairo, where young Lawrence seems to be sort of a namby pamby, irking his superior officers in the English Army with his off-putting wryness and his wink-and-a-smile charm. He's a brilliant namby pamby, though, and he finagles his way into a recon assignment, crossing the desert to meet Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness). Along the way, he befriends Sherif Ali Ben El Kharish (Omar Sharif) and seems to endear himself to the Arab way of life. In fact, without authority to do so, he leads Feisal's men, united with another tribe led by Auda Abu Tayi (Anthony Quinn) in an impossible rebellion against the Turkish forces that hold them at bay and divide them. The success of this campaign, however, and the allegiance and loyalty the Arab forces devote to Lawrence lead the Allies through British figureheads General Allenby (Jack Hawkins) and Dryden (Claude Rains - Louis!) to use Lawrence as a pawn in their quest to assert British control over Arab lands and use the people's cooperation against Imperial forces.
That is a fairly succinct summation of the umbrella plot, but the impetus of the movie is watching Lawrence straddle the fence between heroic, brilliant, compassionate (and passionate), and cynical, bloodlusting, and cocky. At the beginning of the film, he is a confident man who sees life as for the taking. "Nothing is written," he often says to his Arab compatriots who believe in fate and destiny, and he occasionally compares himself to Moses, taking on the seemingly impossible and achieving something like miracles. His luck runs out, however, when the Allied forces exploit his position, and as failures compound, Lawrence loses faith in himself and his initial philosophies. When he is taken prisoner by a Turkish leader and tortured, his heretofore unerring spark wavers, and his morality clouds even further, taking on hints of vengeance and a decidedly bleaker view of human nature and his own importance.
It's hard to distill four hours into a few short paragraphs, and to be fair, I was only really into the film during the first two hours. After the intermission, and as Lawrence flirts with returning to the fold of being an English officer in the latter half of the film, I started to get sleepy and lose interest. Also, the protracted denoument at the end as Feisal and the Allied officials discuss the transition of English supervision over Arab resources left me a little bored.
And that's where I am left: sort of neutral about the film, except for the parts I loved. Visually, this film was beyond stunning. I can't even begin to extol the care paid to the photography and cinematography and the brilliant shots director David Lean commanded to create this epic tale. Even on my little laptop screen (which is a widescreen laptop designed for portable movie-viewing, but still), the shots of the desert with its austere vastness, swirling sands, unyielding sunlight were so wonderful, so vivid, they seemed almost tangible. The camera was used artfully, and my favorite shot was mentioned in one of the synopses on this page: when Sherif Ali appoaches, first as a blurry form, obscured by sand and heat, to a man in a slow, deliberate fade. This film won many Oscars, including Cinematography, and I think they were well deserved.
Also, that score! What a wonderful score. I don't know how I feel about the movie in general or the story it's telling, but the score I could listen to for hours on its own. I enjoyed the prologue, entr'acte and exit music sections because it allowed me to appreciate the brilliance of this compostion. It sounded like a symphony complete with movements reflecting changing moods and different levels of complex instrumentation. Though it lacks a theme as recognizable as Star Wars or Gone with the Wind, I can see why it got a #3 ranking on that list.
The other parts I enjoyed about this film centered on all of the big stars in it. Peter O'Toole was so young and charismatic; this character was a good fit for him, and it's his performance that engaged me to the story when my interest was most piqued. But to see Alec Guinness (Obi-wan!) and Anthony Quinn and all the rest together: this cast was a great ensemble.
The problem is, I'm not a fan of war movies in general, especially not about specific campaigns in World War I. Also, this movie was really very long. Have I mentioned that? It was a carefully plotted study of a man that reminded me a little of Kurtz in the Heart of Darkness (and, ergo, maybe a little Apocalypse Now, though that came later, but the novel came first). Only the viewer meets Lawrence in a happier, more optimistic place to start. His descent into despair and moral ambiguity is so protracted, though, so slow, that I just started to get antsy. I don't feel the story is as tight as it could have been. And following the talk of strategy and campaigns was a little tiresome for me; as the above synopsis indicates, this movie is "highly literate."
Still, as epics go, I don't know if it can get much more epic than this film. But I don't think I can ever watch it again, so it does not pass the test. Also, for its length and pace particularly, I have to rate the film an 8.5 in personal estimation, between very good/minor flaws and perfectly entertaining. It was a stunning, visual masterpiece but left me a little dry and a little bored on the entertainment side.