Lawrence, T. E. "Chapter XII: Palm-Gardens." Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph. New York: Penguin Books, 1962. 90-92.

 

Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph, as the personal account of Thomas Edward Lawrence and his involvement in the Arab Revolt, acts as an invaluable resource for any paper written on the David Lean film, as it was originally intended as an adaptation of this written work. Reading Lawrence’s own version of this portion of his life provides a good source for evaluation of accuracy in plotline, detail, and even psychological portrayal of the characters.

The twelfth chapter in particular serves as a vital frame of reference when comparing the film adaptation with the original piece from which it sprung. In these few pages of text is contained the pivotal first meeting between T. E. Lawrence and Prince Fiesal, the Arabian leader in whom the idealistic Englishman immediately recognizes the heroic, traditional qualities for which he had been searching for so long. The tension of this moment as it is described by Lawrence himself, who confronts the imposing leader before a group of fellow tribesmen, is well-reflected by the corresponding scene in the film. Furthermore, the physical description of Fiesal is eerily close to the appearance of Sir Alec Guinness as he portrays this character in Lawrence of Arabia.

            This chapter also provides additional details as to setting, architecture, and the structures and hierarchies of Arabian society. It serves to firmly ground T. E. Lawrence’s story within the much vaster historical movement of which he was a part. Particularly when dealing with a film that falls into the genre of epic and spectacle, it is extremely important to have a grasp of the actual persons and events so as not to be deluded by the inevitable artistic license the directors and editors will utilize.

Caton, Steven C. "An Allegory of Anthropology." Lawrence of Arabia: A Film's Anthropology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999. 142-171.

In this chapter of his book, Steven C. Caton discusses the anthropological leanings of the main character of Lawrence of Arabia, T. E. Lawrence. He does not posit that the anthropological elements of the film are purposefully constructed by either the director or the scriptwriters, but rather that they appear in the film as subconscious manifestations of clichés about anthropologists. According to Caton, it is an accepted belief that individuals enter into the fields of anthropology and archaeology because, during their childhoods, they experienced feelings of alienation and liminality. Thus Lawrence, the bastard son of an English nobleman, and a young man desperately attempting to escape from the stifling atmosphere of the English countryside into the exotic, Oriental environment of the Arabian desert, perfectly fits into this stereotype. Lawrence’s condescending, objectivist studies of and perspectives about the Arabian culture mark him as a Westerner with a drive, just like cultural anthropologists, to discover identity within a distant, mysterious land, and to ‘play-act’ as a member of whatever culture they happen to be studying.

Steven Caton’s chapter is a cleverly thorough and well-written piece of allegorical analysis. It provides an excellent look into the motivations of the main character, and furthermore into the filmmakers who, according to Caton, were filled with a sense of adventure as profound, and in some ways naïve, as that of Lawrence himself. His work offers a unique spin on the traditional take on Lawrence, since Caton views Lawrence from his own perspective as an anthropologist. Just as Lawrence serves as a figure for fascination and study to later generations, the Arabian culture served as a great and compelling mystery to Lawrence. Through a close study of Lawrence's reactions throughout several scenes of the film, the reader gains a much clearer understanding of just how condescending and intrusional Lawrence's sojourns in Arabia truly were.

Lawrence of Arabia has always been one of my favorite films, and the figure of T. E. Lawrence, who serves as the focus of the four-hour-long spectacle, seems surrounded by an aura of mystery that is both impenetrable yet incredibly alluring. I wish to answer the question, "Who is Lawrence of Arabia?" Why does this warrior-poet continue to captivate audiences so many years after his exploits in the Arab Revolt? By exploring the means of propagandizing during World War I, American fascination with his myth, and the actual historical personage, I hope to understand what it is that makes T. E. Lawrence a figure worthy of this epic film, and what it is in turn that fuels the film's enduring legacy.

Wilson, Michael. "Lawrence of Arabia: Elements and Facets of the Theme." Cineaste: America's Leading Magazine on the Art and Politics of the Cinema 21.4 (1995): 30-32.

 

Michael Wilson’s article, although brief, acts as a valuable starting point for research on Lawrence of Arabia.  Wilson highlights the important themes that arise when studying the portrayal of T. E. Lawrence’s character in the epic film, and the various complexities and contradictions that arise when attempting to unravel the mystery that lies behind the man.  Presented in the format of a numbered list, Wilson extends his proposal of each subject matter with a brief description and an argument as to its relevance in providing a deeper understanding of the film’s underlying messages.  He covers such themes as the marginal status of T. E. Lawrence within Great Britain, Lawrence’s desire for fame and the immortality that comes with it, and even his secret admiration and devotion to a mysterious figure known only by the initials ‘S.A.’

            This article serves to introduce the reader to the incredible sense of history that saturates the film: American participation in World War I, and their subsequent need to see a hero arise from the ashes of mass murder and immeasurable bloodshed; the long Arabian tradition of autocratic rule; Britain’s attempts to expand its empire into the Arab front.  Overall, while this piece would not serve as a central source to back up the arguments in a longer paper, it still functions well as a stepping stone, a pool of ideas that can aid during the essential brainstorming process that comes before any significant researching feat.

 

Raw, Laurence. "T. E. Lawrence, the Turks, and the Arab Revolt in the Cinema: Anglo-American and Turkish Representations." Literature Film Quarterly 4.33 (2005): 252-61.

 

            The author of this work compares the perspectives of two different films on the Turkish people: David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia and Lüfti E. Akad’s Ingiliz Kemal Lawrence’e Karsi (1952).  Laurence Raw explains that the Lean picture, in its attempts to portray the Arabian people in a positive light, ends up misrepresenting the Turkish people.  The Turks that appear in the film are represented as barbaric and unnecessarily violent.  One scene in particular demonstrates the demonization of the Turks.  During the encounter between the Turkish Bey and T. E. Lawrence, the Bey is presented as homosexual and perverse in his treatment of the young man.  His eerie, lurking presence behind the doorframe as Lawrence is whipped highlights his sadistic leanings.  On the other hand, the Akad film, made in Turkey, portrays its people as the heroes of the Arab Revolt.  In particular, the central figure of the film, Ingliz Kemal, a spy for the Turkish army, is seen as a brilliant and inspiring warrior.  On the other hand, the figure of T. E. Lawrence is represented as a crazed, egotistical villain willing to betray British and Arabs alike in his wish to gain immortality.

            Nevertheless, Laurence Raw does find an intriguing similarity within these two pictures.  Both films treat the British as unwanted intruders, whose drive for imperial conquest of foreign lands can only be seen as despicable.  This article thus provides an excellent piece of comparative analysis on Lawrence of Arabia, as it offers the perspectives of these two such drastically different cultures.  It gives examples of the myth-making practices of the film industries of two different countries, and their treatments of particular cultural heroes.  It is particularly enlightening to discover that T. E. Lawrence was not the only war hero to emerge from the Arab Revolt with lasting fame.

 

Phillips, Gene D. "Chapter Thirteen. In Search of a Hero: Filming Lawrence of Arabia." Beyond the Epic: The Life & Films of David Lean. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2006. 291-320.

Gene D. Phillips gives a highly amusing and provocative portrayal of the year-long process of filming Lawrence of Arabia.  In this chapter, he provides multiple examples of disputes that arose between the director, David Lean, and Sam Spiegel, the producer, usually over issues of time and money.  He relates instances of Peter O’Toole’s bravado, and more frequently his alcoholism, disturbing important takes.  He even reports of a love affair that took place between the then-married David Lean and his script supervisor, Barbara Cole.

Also included in this portion of the book is a detailed scene-by-scene analysis of the epic.  Phillips highlights the most important moments, thereby illustrating David Lean’s highly-skilled filmmaker’s eye and precise decision-making.  This chapter would be particularly beneficial in giving an idea of approaching Lawrence of Arabia from the angle of auteurism, as the main focus is the interactions between Lean and his cast and crew.  Furthermore, the domineering personality of the director that is related within this piece invokes interesting parallels between Lean and T. E. Lawrence, the egotistical and driven main character of his film.  The comprehensive production history firmly grounds the mythic epic within the harsh actuality of filming in a desert that drove crew members mad with heat, and of budgets and time-schedules continually running over.  The film, which seeks to turn a man into a myth, has itself garnered a mythic status within cinematic history.  This chapter therefore helps to re-infuse the film with some reality.

Kauffman, Stanley. "A Passion in the Desert." Rev. of Lawrence of Arabia, dir. David Lean. The New Republic 148.2 (1963): 26-28.

 

Stanley Kauffman’s review of Lawrence of Arabia, written shortly after the film’s release, provides an excellent example of the immediate critical reception of the work.  In this piece, the author covers a rather wide range of topics.  He analyzes the originality and depth of the scriptwriting by A Man for All Seasons’ Robert Bolt, the incredible impact of the photographic imagery of the desert, and the accuracy of the storyline to T. E. Lawrence’s real life.  Furthermore, he writes of the scope of the film’s plot, the potency of the musical score, and even scrutinizes the various acting talents of the diverse cast full of veteran actors like Alec Guinness and Claude Rains, and fledgling thespians like Peter O’Toole and Omar Sharif.  Through his study of the various elements that make up the film, he provides a balanced account of both its positive and negative aspects.

It is particularly intriguing for a modern-day reader of this review to see Lawrence of Arabia being evaluated so critically, as this film has become such a well-respected and frequently-cited classic.  Kauffman’s analysis provides a much-needed dose of the skeptical, particularly when dealing with a film spectacle that, like works such as Citizen Kane (1941), may become lost in the overwhelming and somewhat blinding awe that comes with age.  Overall, Stanley Kauffman’s review serves as a good foundational piece for a paper discussing the impact of Lawrence of Arabia to film history, and its influence on later films and directors.

 

Jackson, Kevin. "Reputation and Restoration: 1962-2007." Lawrence of Arabia. BFI Film Classics. London: British Film Institute, 2007. 107-117.

 

In this chapter, Kevin Jackson writes of the enduring legacy of Lawrence of Arabia, and the impact that the film provided in America, Britain, and around the world.  Additionally, he writes of the power that the film had in influencing other important directors down the years, from Martin Scorsese to Steven Spielberg.  He even includes a recounting of the various awards garnered by the film at the Academy Awards, and later recognitions given to David Lean and Peter O’Toole.  Moreover, Jackson relates the subsequent careers of the actors and filmmakers.  Intriguingly, most of the individuals involved in the making of this film had mostly unsuccessful ventures, whether in the fields of acting, directing, or producing.  Nevertheless, the movie itself, and the legend of T. E. Lawrence that it helped construct, persists to this day, through various theatrical rereleases, a restoration, and DVD distribution.  The myth of Lawrence has inspired the writing of various biographies, from a wide range of perspectives, the production of several television documentaries, and even a highly popular museum exhibition.

            This piece, although brief, provides a glimpse into the more modern reception of the film.  It gives a clear idea of Lawrence of Arabia’s impact on cinematic history and its influence on the genre of the historical epic.  It provides concrete evidence of the surprising endurance of the legend of T. E. Lawrence, and the continual returns to this subject by writers, directors, and members of the public.  Furthermore, it shows that the controversies that surrounded the film and its contributors aided in securing the fascination of contemporary and succeeding generations.

Hodson, Joel C. "Chapter 1: Lowell Thomas and the Origins of the Popular Legend of Lawrence of Arabia." Lawrence of Arabia and American Culture: The Making of a Transatlantic Legend. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995.

This article relates the crucial role Lowell Thomas had in perpetuating the legend of T. E. Lawrence and his exploits in Arabia. Although the author, Joel C. Hodson, acknowledges that even without the American reporter’s aid Lawrence would have garnered a reputation as a war hero, nevertheless it was Thomas who breathed the fire of legend into the Englishman. After spending July 1917 to March 1919 in Europe and Arabia, as a war correspondent to several American newspapers, although in name only, Thomas returned to America. Through a series of lectures and slide shows, and the publication of several biographies, Thomas exaggerated the adventures of Lawrence in the Arabian front, painting him as a figure more of legend than of history. Nonetheless, Hodson remains critical of some of the conniving reporter’s actions. It is clear that Thomas’s government-sanctioned mission of war propaganda was quickly forgotten in his personal desires for commercial success and lasting fame. As a result of these more selfish motivations, Thomas fabricated many stories of Lawrence’s campaign, and even claimed involvement in several battles of the Arab Revolt and a train demolition led by Lawrence’s Bedouin.

            Joel Hodson’s article serves as an interesting piece of commentary on the effect that fabrication can have on the formulation of great public figures. It works as an interesting point of comparison between the methods that figures like the reporter, Thomas, and later the director of Lawrence of Arabia, David Lean, must utilize in order to dramatize history’s heroes. It seems that without the involvement of persons like Thomas, Lawrence's legend would not persist with the strength it has today. Perhaps this is why Robert Bolt, the writer of the screenplay for Lawrence of Arabia, chose to include the figure of the reporter within his film. It seems that life, just like film, needs its writers in order to create myths out of men.

Hudson, Joel. "Who Wrote Lawrence of Arabia? Sam Spiegel and David Lean's Denial of Credit to a Blacklisted Screenwriter." Cineaste: America's Leading Magazine on the Art and Politics of the Cinema 4.20 (1994): 12-18.

 

                The article written by Joel Hudson is particularly apt for researching the production history of Lawrence of Arabia.  In this work, Hudson discusses the long-drawn-out battle over screen credit for the film that took place between David Lean, the director of the film, and Michael Wilson, the original scriptwriter.  Robert Bolt, the second writer hired to the film, until recently was the only writer given official recognition in America.  Hudson gives a detailed analysis of the similarities between the Wilson and Bolt scripts, and argues that the basic structure of the film largely results from Wilson’s invention.  He gives examples of several scenes crucial to the dramatic development of the film.  Furthermore, the writer outlines the personal and political motivations that initially fueled the battle.  He describes Wilson’s status as a screenwriter blacklisted by the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the personal grudge that arose between Lean and Wilson after the latter, frustrated and exhausted, abandoned the project.

            This article provides a broader historical context for the film, as it grounds Lawrence of Arabia in reality.  The practical focus of this piece works well as a contrast for the very mythic themes that must be dealt with when writing about a figure like T. E. Lawrence and the legendary film that portrays him.  When trying to analyze the myth of Lawrence, it is terribly important to know which writers are responsible for formulating his portrayal as it appears in the film, and why they made particular choices about which events to include, which to cut out, and which to dramatize.  Furthermore, it seems that the well-publicized and long-drawn-out legal battles that surrounded the film also aided in drawing it attention.  Hudson's piece makes it clear that there are very many factors involved in bolstering a film's status within the public eye.

 

Gulino, Paul Joseph. "7. Lawrence of Arabia: Sixteen Sequences and an Intermission." Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach: The Hidden Structure of Successful Screenplays. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc, 2004.

 Paul Joseph Gulino’s chapter on Lawrence of Arabia, although not very well-edited and delivered in a somewhat dry writing-style, still provides a useful, sequence-by-sequence breakdown. The author points out several very interesting transitions of imagery and dialogue, and he relates important motifs that serve to link and give structure to the four hour film. Furthermore, at the end of the chapter appears a concise but useful summary of each sequence within the film. Gulino observes that David Lean and his assistant-directors did an excellent job of keeping their audiences well aware of the unfolding of the plot, and of the place of each sequence within the overall structure. Through the use of props and dialogue hooks, each sequence continually references moments from preceding shots, while at the same time foreshadowing elements of the film that will emerge later on.

Overall, this piece seems to be extraordinarily useful for any paper written on Lawrence of Arabia, as it provides such detailed descriptions of the many sequences that comprise an epic so daunting in its length. Gulino’s focus on the intricacy of the movie’s form calls for a reevaluation of many of the scenes. His chapter helps the viewer to focus on the very crucial details that can be missed in the overwhelming sweep of the film. Once the reader sees the incredible attention and effort that the directors and assistant-editors placed into weaving together the pieces of Lawrence of Arabia, it highlights even more the need to understand why individuals are so willing to spend so much time and money in portraying the life of T. E. Lawrence.

The article separates Wilson’s writings into seven different ‘sections,’ each discussing a different theme in the story of T.E. Lawrence and, in some cases, how best to incorporate that theme into the film’s story.  Like Crowdus’s article,  Wilson comments on the real T.E. Lawrence, especially his idiosyncratic and eccentric characteristics.  Wilson images T.E. Lawrence’s exploits in the Middle East as those of a man searching for his own identity.  Wilson begins the article, by establishing the main narrative theme as, “A man attempt[ing] to shed one identity (English) and […] assume another (Arab).”   In the film, this, in fact, emerges as a main theme.  Wilson also imagines Lawrence, in some ways, as a naïve idealist, “for him the word liberty was the romantic abstraction of a schoolboy, and he never stopped to ask whether it meant the same thing to Feisal and the Bedouin tribes.”   Tying into this theme is Lawrence’s “longing for immortality,”  which Wilson envisions as the driving force behind many of Lawrence’s actions.  Wilson sees this as a central theme to the film he is writing, explaining in his notes that, “Lawrence’s obsession with immortality serves to account for so much in his psychological make-up and his behavior during that period of his life with which our picture deals.”
    This is not the only point in which Wilson makes reference to the film he is writing.  While Wilson’s notes are often simple descriptions of the themes in Lawrence’s life, at some times Wilson tries to figure out how best to make these themes work in a film.  In the final ‘section’ of the article, Wilson comments in depth on the character S.A., who was very important to Lawrence, both as a friend and confidant, but whose identity remains a mystery.  Wilson wrestles with this character’s imagined personality and how he should fit S.A. into the script, eventually decided that, “if it can be said that S.A. stands at Lawrence’s left hand, then our story requires a British character who stands at his right.”   In this imaginary British character, we get an amazing look at the way in which Hollywood rewrites history in order to sell a film.  Wilson notes, “Our British officer will inevitably be a composite character, with perhaps certain attributes not found in any of the actual men (Young, Newcombe, Joyce, etc.).”   This character that Wilson wants to create is not a historical figure and is written in to serve as a foil for Lawrence.  Wilson doesn’t describe why exactly he needs a British man to sit at Lawrence’s side, since he already has (an Arab) one in S.A., but perhaps Wilson has an assumption concerning the audience’s reaction to having an Arab as Lawrence’s sole confidant.  Wilson further imagines the character to be “a man who (like our audience, we hope) would be baffled and intrigued by his mercurial companion-in-arms and through him we would try to fathom the enigma.”   Wilson creates this imaginary, composite character is order to give the audience someone to relate to, subtly insinuating that the audience will not be able to relate to the Arab S.A.  He may be correct in his assumption (we are dealing with early 1960’s America after all), but the film itself has no such character, so we will never know how audiences would have reacted.

T.E. Lawrence was British, but he holds an important place in the hearts of Americans.  This is due in large part to the film, Lawrence of Arabia, which remains one of the best films ever to come out of Hollywoood.  Joel Hodson’s book goes behind the scenes and uncovers the story behind the making of the film, which, in many cases, is more interesting than the film itself.  The production of Lawrence of Arabia was mired in the politics of the 1950s and 1960s, and after spending a semester learning about the history of Hollywood, I can truly appreciate and understand the significance of these politics in Hollywood.
Hodson dedicates much of the chapter on the film adaptation of T.E. Lawrence’s life, Chapter 7, to describing the effect of the blacklist on the film.  Sam Spiegel, the producer, originally chose Michael Wilson, a blacklisted writer, to write a film adaptation of the life of T.E. Lawrence.  Spiegel had won an Oscar for On the Waterfront, a pro-blacklist film, while Wilson, although living in exile in France, had managed to keep writing films, even though he was blacklisted.  In hindsight, it is ludicrously ironic that Spiegel, who made a film shunning ‘unfriendly witnesses,’ like Michael Wilson, would hire him and actively try to convince Hollywood executives to let Wilson write the script.   Wilson wrote a few versions of the screenplay, but director David Lean, a Brit, believed Wilson’s script to be “”too American,” and failed to capture the complex character of Lawrence.”   Lean found another writer, Robert Bolt, to write the screenplay, which eventually became Lawrence of Arabia.  As it turns out, Bolt borrowed a lot from Wilson’s screenplay is crafting his screenplay, even though he denied it.   Despite the fact that Bolt’s screenplay was basically co-written by Wilson, “his name was not listed in the screen credits for Lawrence of Arabia, presumably because he refused to sign a statement recanting his radical past.”   The blacklist has an interesting relationship to the film, but Lawrence’s own history proved to be the most dubious element in the film’s production.
Hodson recounts the battle between Spiegel and Lawrence’s brother, A.W. Lawrence, over the film’s representation of T.E. Lawrence, which adds a new dimension to the film’s rewriting of history.  Even though the film was based on T.E. Lawrence’s own autobiography, his brother still wanted to rewrite history and make Lawrence even more of a hero.  Another problem with the film’s historical value comes from the information that was available.  As Hodson describes, “England had not yet lifted an embargo on various government records pertaining to [T.E. Lawrence].”   Lawrence’s story was altered, not only, by Hollywood, but by his own brother and the British government, so there was really no way that the film was going to have much historical accuracy.
Hodson further chronicles the film’s “license with history,”  as well as its reception, but my favorite part of Hodson’s book is his description of the film’s manifestations in pop culture.  The parallels this book shows, between 1960s America and today’s America, are uncanny, especially when it comes to the film’s marketing.  As Hodson explains, “Fashion was another angle Columbia Pictures and American retailers worked in promoting “Lawrence mania” in the United States.”   Product tie-ins are something I think of in relation to today’s idea of corporate synergy, but apparently the idea was alive in the 1960’s as well.

Crowdus’s article begins with heavy praise for the film and most of the people associated with it (especially director David Lean).  While this all comes off as a little much, Crowdus eventually gets to the meat of his argument, which concerns the film’s representation of historical fact.  Crowdus writes, “The question posed by such a film is whether good cinema and accurate history or biography must remain mutually exclusive qualities.”   After a brief synopsis of T.E. Lawrence’s life, Crowdus gets to the film’s depiction of Lawrence, and the validity of that depiction.
Lawrence’s life, as Crowdus explains, is still the subject of debate, so much of the ‘history,’ that the film is based on, may in fact be falsehood.  Crowdus’s explanation for this is that, “Lawrence […] provided conflicting, ambiguous, or half-truthful accounts of the same incidents to biographers and friends.”   As a result of this, Robert Bolt, who wrote the second (and final) screenplay for Lawrence of Arabia, “base[d] his screenplay solely on Seven Pillars of Wisdom,” Lawrence’s autobiography, “despite being convinced that the book contained considerable exaggeration and not a few outright lies.”   This revelation serves to remove much of the blame for the film’s rewriting of history on Bolt, because Lawrence himself rewrote it.
The Hollywood system takes its toll on historical fact, because, “Many […] incidents have […] been dramatically simplified to comply with the genre requirements of big screen spectacle.”   Although it was T.E. Lawrence who began the rewriting of his own history, the restrictions imposed by Hollywood further erode the validity of much of the story.  Crowdus also singles out the casting as another reason for the film’s historical ‘falseness,’ explaining that the casting of (the tall and handsome) Peter O’Toole “immediately eliminates a key motive for the overcompensatory physical efforts of a pocket Hercules like the real life Lawrence.”   There are other problems that Crowdus has with the film’s representation of history, but he does have some good words for the film.
The film gets some things right in its depiction of Lawrence, such as Lawrence’s “sado-masochistic [sic] tendencies,”   which Lawrence discusses in Seven Pillars of Wisdom.  O’Toole’s performance, especially in the torture scene, captures this side of Lawrence.  The inclusion of this darker side of Lawrence is noteworthy, because it shows that although Sam Spiegel, the film’s producer, was intent on making a Hollywood ‘blockbuster,’ the film did have uncomfortable elements that certainly would not have appealled to every moviegoer.  By including some historical facts, the film not only keeps true to history, but it takes risks that are uncharacteristic of a major Hollywood film.
    Crowdus ends his analysis of the film, by critiquing the film’s depiction of Arabs.  He uses the scene of the meeting between the Bedouin leaders in Damascus, as a key example of the film’s racist undertones and its colonial implications.  The film has strengths and flaws, as noted by Crowdus, but in the early, praiseful paragraphs of the article, we see Crowdus’s true views on the film.  Although Crowdus has many problems with the film’s rewriting of history, there is still a reason that it is one of the most beloved and respected Hollywood films.