3 hrs & 42
min, color, 1962
Many
of you reading I am sure have already heard during recent weeks that 2012 marks
the fiftieth anniversary of the release of this colossally great motion
picture. You’ve possibly picked up on it
from magazines, and the quiz show Jeopardy featured an entire category devoted
to it not too many days ago. It seems
1962 was a significant year. It also saw
the premiere of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” which I featured in an earlier entry
to this blog, as well as the Cuban Missile Crisis, about which I wrote all of
two months ago.
The
brilliant architect of this screen epic is David Lean, one of Britain’s most
distinguished and celebrated movie directors, who practiced his craft from the
1940s until the 1980s. Others of his
achievements are “The Bridge on the River Kwai,” “Brief Encounter,” “Great
Expectations,” “Doctor Zhivago,” and “A Passage to India” (his last). But it is almost universally agreed that
“Lawrence of Arabia” is his finest.
It
concerns the British military officer T.E. Lawrence, who was largely
responsible for the Arabs (allied with Britain) defeating the Turks during
World War I. Though the character on
screen bears the same name as the real Lawrence, he is essentially a fictional
creation, an amazing man of mystery whom Lean takes great pains to dissect over
the fabulous space of almost four hours.
That he is so fictionalized is understandable, since the real Lawrence
was and is a very elusive figure. If he had
been alive when the film was shot, it is doubtful that he would have cooperated
in any way in mounting the production.
His own diary of events in which he participated and on which this
screenplay is based does not disclose much about him as a person or about the
things that were driving him. He remains
an obscure figure out of early twentieth century history and folklore. Lean took great liberties, but he brought
that period and that subtext of the Great War to fascinating light, whether or
not the leading character bore any resemblance to the factual man.
The
odyssey of the Lawrence we see on the screen is so compelling and so complex
and filled with so much paradox that I feel I could spend another four hours
with him without being weary. He
embodies the struggle between passionate commitment to a vision (bringing all
the Arab tribes together into one nation) and an obsessive megalomania. The conflict sometimes reduces him to a near
infancy of spirit, at other times to a dangerous exhibitionism, at others to
prolonged despondencies, at still others to the frolics of a court jester. But set over against all that is a shrewdness
of mind that can arouse the warrior spirit in the most obscure of men. Now what actor could heft such a
characterization and not lose his balance – who but the incomparable Peter
O’Toole! This was the movie that made
him an international star overnight, along with Omar Sharif as his Arab friend
and confidant Ali.
Aside
from the paradoxes in the story, there is an off screen paradox that bears
citing. The very region in which
Lawrence’s odyssey occurred is the one in which the United States is so
horribly embroiled at present, and the Turks, who were the considered enemy in
that earlier conflict, are today our allies against some of the very peoples
whom Lawrence loved so dearly and went to such lengths to bring together in
unity – Britain’s allies on the field of battle. The tricks time can play on homo
sapiens!
O’Toole
and Sharif are not the only figures who fascinate in this carefully and
meticulously crafted blockbuster. A huge
cast of well-sculpted personages is at hand, representing almost every known
human variable. I could write pages
about each one, played by such solid talents as Anthony Quinn, Alec Guinness,
Arthur Kennedy, Jack Hawkins, Anthony Quayle and veteran Claude Rains. No one we meet is a lily white hero. In his films Lean never treated his fellow
countrymen or anyone else for the matter with patronage. Everyone, even with the best of intentions
and avowed ideals, seems to be running some kind of racket or driven by some
opportunistic agenda. There are a few
combat sequences in “Lawrence of Arabia,” but characterization and substance
prevail over the action at every turn.
The scenery is never splashy
The
story is spiritually infectious, even if the time and circumstance are remote,
the kind that leaves you feeling as if your own heart and soul have been
explored. Despite Lawrence’s
indiscretions and lapses of sanity, I always experience, as I watch the film
(and I have numerous times) some identification with him when the wheeling and
dealing of those in power manage to thwart his idealistic intentions. I sense that his labor has not been a
complete waste, that something of value has been lost.
There
are times, when it seems that the real star of the show is the desert. Never on screen has the desert’s mystery and
mystique been so wonderfully captured –
its beauties, its glories, its breadth, its pitfalls, the anvil pound of its
sun, its awesome power over the human mind.
And the camera does full justice to it all and then some; the
cinematography is staggering. I had
heard the word “wilderness” all my life and read of it in the Bible, but after
“Lawrence of Arabia” came into my consciousness, the word ceased to be an
abstraction. And let us bear in mind
that computer generation did not exist those five decades ago. That means that every rock, sand dune,
mountain slope, crevice and canyon you see is for real; all the outdoor scenes
were shot on location. The picture
required two solid years for its completion.
A
monumental motion picture that has appeared close to the top of every 100 best
list! It won seven Academy Awards
including Picture and Director, and numerous others. There is something in it, I believe, for just
about everybody, all of it unforgettable.
They just do not make them any better. Be sure to see the restored
version.
To read other entries in my
blog, please consult its website:
enspiritus.blogspot.com
I welcome feedback. Direct it to bobracine@verizon.net
No comments:
Post a Comment