The oldest non-Star Wars thing I reviewed so far on this blog is from 2001! Let's see about fixing that, shall we?
The oldest non-Star Wars thing I reviewed so far on this blog is from 2001! Let's see about fixing that, shall we?
My History / Thoroughly shorter than the actual history... or the film.
I hang around with some film-obsessed people, one of which recently decided to venture out and see every classic they had 'missed' to widen their horizons. An early favourite of that process was Lawrence of Arabia, which was immediately recommended to me.
Initially balking at the imposing 3.5 hour running time I eventually relented and slowly made my way through it, not entirely sure what to expect all the way.
Plot summary / He loves sand because it's coarse and rough and gets everywhere
Lieutenant Lawrence is a British officer in World War 1, specifically in what is now Egypt and Jordan, in the film mostly referred to as Arabia. Lawrence is a bit of an outsider and wildcard within the strict British military hierarchy.
Partially to just be rid of him for a while he is sent to investigate the rumours of an Arab uprising against the Turks and see if they can really do it, which is a task he rises to far more thoroughly and successfully than anybody could have imagined, probably including himself.
Minor aside: It's worth pointing out that this is based on a real person. From briefly looking into it, it looks like the film is a truthful, but simplified portrayal of what was one hell of a life.
Corner 1: Adventure 6.5/10 / "I didn't know him well, you know."
- 🚀 Gorgeous sweeping shots of the various types of desert Lawrence traverses, all shot in actual African deserts with tons upon tons of extras and camels on large, detailed sets.
- 🚀 Technical presentation aside, Lawrence's journey is definitely an adventure.
- 📋 - buuut mostly one in the desert. They're grand sights, but after 3.5 hours I was very ready for something else.
- 📋 I feel like character motivation is something you need for a good adventure. Why is the hero doing what they're doing, what do they want to achieve? With Lawrence I was left guessing for basically all of it.
- 🚀 Gorgeous sweeping shots of the various types of desert Lawrence traverses, all shot in actual African deserts with tons upon tons of extras and camels on large, detailed sets.
- 🚀 Technical presentation aside, Lawrence's journey is definitely an adventure.
- 📋 - buuut mostly one in the desert. They're grand sights, but after 3.5 hours I was very ready for something else.
- 📋 I feel like character motivation is something you need for a good adventure. Why is the hero doing what they're doing, what do they want to achieve? With Lawrence I was left guessing for basically all of it.
Corner 2: Smart 5.5/10 / "I must concentrate, not dissipate."
- 💡 Lawrence is shown to be a military genius, with a number of impressive victories under his belt.
- 💤 - but other than "Because he takes big risks" we never really see why these were victories or what's so smart about them.
- 💤 The film starts with Lawrence's bland death after his adventures and the main events are framed as the retelling of his life by those that he has left behind. A clever, and skilful narrative device that clears the way for an unreliable narrator or multiple perspectives. NONE of this is used in the film though, and this whole prologue has no bearing or impact on the rest of the film.
- 💤 It's probably hard to separate this from the time it was made in, but the implications of an army of nomadic primitives only rising to greatness under the leadership of a white man are definitely kind of ugly these days. I'm not saying British military efficiency and ruthlessness wasn't a big factor in their success, but context is everything and the presented context feels... unwise.
- 💤 Maybe it's because the film is partially biographical, but a lot of the events don't appear to serve much of a narrative purpose. There is no through line or narrative causality, which is probably exacerbated by the lack of insight into Lawrence's psyche.
- 💡 There is a scene near the end, where the Arab army has taken the critically important metropolis of Damascus and is now deciding how to govern the city. The scene is one of total chaos, highlighting the difficulties of government, its differences to wartime leadership and (in a rare moment of the audience being shown what he is thinking) the weariness that has been building inside Lawrence.
- 💤 - of course it's kind of framed inside the context of the savage Arabs not being able to do anything other than fight each other... but when doing our best to think away that context it's a great scene.
- 💡 Lawrence is shown to be a military genius, with a number of impressive victories under his belt.
- 💤 - but other than "Because he takes big risks" we never really see why these were victories or what's so smart about them.
- 💤 The film starts with Lawrence's bland death after his adventures and the main events are framed as the retelling of his life by those that he has left behind. A clever, and skilful narrative device that clears the way for an unreliable narrator or multiple perspectives. NONE of this is used in the film though, and this whole prologue has no bearing or impact on the rest of the film.
- 💤 It's probably hard to separate this from the time it was made in, but the implications of an army of nomadic primitives only rising to greatness under the leadership of a white man are definitely kind of ugly these days. I'm not saying British military efficiency and ruthlessness wasn't a big factor in their success, but context is everything and the presented context feels... unwise.
- 💤 Maybe it's because the film is partially biographical, but a lot of the events don't appear to serve much of a narrative purpose. There is no through line or narrative causality, which is probably exacerbated by the lack of insight into Lawrence's psyche.
- 💡 There is a scene near the end, where the Arab army has taken the critically important metropolis of Damascus and is now deciding how to govern the city. The scene is one of total chaos, highlighting the difficulties of government, its differences to wartime leadership and (in a rare moment of the audience being shown what he is thinking) the weariness that has been building inside Lawrence.
- 💤 - of course it's kind of framed inside the context of the savage Arabs not being able to do anything other than fight each other... but when doing our best to think away that context it's a great scene.
Corner 3: Heart 4/10 / "You do not seem a romantic man."
- 💔 With a cast of extras that numbered in the hundreds, a named cast of about 30 and a run-time of 3.5 hours it is both embarrassing and preposterous to not have any women in the film. There is one shot where you see some tribal women from behind as 'their men' go to war, but they're covered from head to toe and for all I know might have been played by men. A sign of the times, perhaps. But a minus either way.
- 💔 I've slammed this aspect already in both of the other points as well. But you HAVE TO know what your characters are thinking, especially the protagonist. If you want us to relate with him we need to know why he does the things he does, especially when they're war crimes.
- 💔 - oh, and hey it's a WWI film, which isn't as bad (for me) as a WWII film, but still.
- 💔 With a bunch of white-washing, almost all the non-white speaking roles are covered by white actors. Another sign of the times, but another strike against it.
- 💖 We don't know much about Lawrence, being able to judge him solely on his words and actions, but he doesn't behave like a stereotypical hero or soldier. I don't have much of a frame of reference when it comes to 1960s film heroes, but later decades are populated with gruff and macho men-men. Lawrence's mannerisms are peculiar and out of place, both compared to what I would call cinematic cliche from other films as well as the other characters in this film. It's refreshing and unexpected and one of the few saving graces the character had for me.
Wow, I had quite a lot to say about that one. I guess it comes with its long run time and more leisurely shot scenes, it really gives the viewer time to think. It is, of course, also very much an outlier compared to the stuff I usually watch.
Am I glad I watched it? Definitely. But I'm not sure it'll be reflected in the triangle...
...or the score...
- 💔 With a cast of extras that numbered in the hundreds, a named cast of about 30 and a run-time of 3.5 hours it is both embarrassing and preposterous to not have any women in the film. There is one shot where you see some tribal women from behind as 'their men' go to war, but they're covered from head to toe and for all I know might have been played by men. A sign of the times, perhaps. But a minus either way.
- 💔 I've slammed this aspect already in both of the other points as well. But you HAVE TO know what your characters are thinking, especially the protagonist. If you want us to relate with him we need to know why he does the things he does, especially when they're war crimes.
- 💔 - oh, and hey it's a WWI film, which isn't as bad (for me) as a WWII film, but still.
- 💔 With a bunch of white-washing, almost all the non-white speaking roles are covered by white actors. Another sign of the times, but another strike against it.
- 💖 We don't know much about Lawrence, being able to judge him solely on his words and actions, but he doesn't behave like a stereotypical hero or soldier. I don't have much of a frame of reference when it comes to 1960s film heroes, but later decades are populated with gruff and macho men-men. Lawrence's mannerisms are peculiar and out of place, both compared to what I would call cinematic cliche from other films as well as the other characters in this film. It's refreshing and unexpected and one of the few saving graces the character had for me.
Wow, I had quite a lot to say about that one. I guess it comes with its long run time and more leisurely shot scenes, it really gives the viewer time to think. It is, of course, also very much an outlier compared to the stuff I usually watch.
Am I glad I watched it? Definitely. But I'm not sure it'll be reflected in the triangle...
Am I glad I watched it? Definitely. But I'm not sure it'll be reflected in the triangle...
40.81
Yeah, that's by no means a terrible score, but it doesn't really feel like it's doing justice to a cinematic classic.
Which to me raises two points, what makes a cinematic classic? And why is this one?
Just because it's a large production? Because it had big-name actors? I guess I can see it is sort of in the same movie-ballpark as Ben Hur (1959, obviously. Not 2016), but it felt way less structured and focused by comparison.
Big questions, that I will leave to people better at this than I. This is just a humble (hah!) shortform review series, and I didn't see the appeal of this film which is reflected in the triangle.
Next up... I don't know yet, I kind of want to really dive into Star Wars and do separate pieces on each film (or at least separate pieces for each of the four trilogies (EDIT: and then I did, sort of)) but I kind of want to do those next year as a slow-rolling buildup to Episode IX (please-be-good-please-be-good-please-be-good).
Guess I'll just dust off one of my favourite tv shows and talk about that next.
Yeah, that's by no means a terrible score, but it doesn't really feel like it's doing justice to a cinematic classic.
Which to me raises two points, what makes a cinematic classic? And why is this one?
Just because it's a large production? Because it had big-name actors? I guess I can see it is sort of in the same movie-ballpark as Ben Hur (1959, obviously. Not 2016), but it felt way less structured and focused by comparison.
Big questions, that I will leave to people better at this than I. This is just a humble (hah!) shortform review series, and I didn't see the appeal of this film which is reflected in the triangle.
Guess I'll just dust off one of my favourite tv shows and talk about that next.
Comments
Post a Comment