Some guys you’ve never heard of present this movie.
Just because a movie has excellent cinematography and a rousing soundtrack, it should not automatically be heralded as a classic. Lawrence of Arabia has been considered a triumph of film-making since its release, and it is still widely regarded as a masterpiece of cinema. Unfortunately, people forget that a movie has to exceed on all levels: acting, storytelling, directing, etc. for it to be a timeless classic. This movie in particular fails hard in several areas, and there is no way in hell it should be considered a masterpiece.
Lawrence of Arabia tells the true story of T.E. Lawrence, a British megalomaniac who tries to single-handedly win independence for the Arab people in World War I. Yeah, that’s right, the main character is one of the most self-centered characters in the history of film. He’s a product of his time, that’s for sure. Being a white, British male, he believes wholeheartedly in the superiority of his race and culture over all others. The British were the masters of colonialism, and Lawrence falls in line with this attitude hook, line, and sinker.
I know what you’re thinking, all three of you who have seen this movie: LOL BUT BRIK IVE SEEN TIHS MOVEE AND LAWRNCE WANTS ARABS TO BE EQUAL TO TEH BRITISH LOL! Well, sure, you’re partially right. Lawrence spends a considerable amount of time helping the Arabs and spouting dialogue proclaiming he wants the Arabs to be independent. He lives with them, dresses like them, eats their food, and they consider him to be one of their own. But that absolutely does not mean he feels like he has become one of them. Oh, no, he still believes, absolutely, in his superiority.
“Why, yes, that would be a perfect place for the statue of me.”
Take, for example, the following lines. After about two seconds of prodding from a British officer, he states, “All right, I’m extraordinatory.” A bit later when talking about leading the Arabs into battle, he states, “The best of them won’t come for money, they’ll come for me.” And when talking about seizing Damascus, he states, “I’m going to give them Damascus.” You notice, he didn’t say, “We’re going to take Damascus.” No, he said he was going to give it to them. As if he was the only one who mattered.
The whole movie, he talks about how great and wonderful he is, and everyone totally feeds into it. The Arabs and the British both do nothing but heap praise onto him for three and a half hours. It’s no wonder he’s a complete narcissist. Hilariously, after he is captured and tortured by enemies, his close friend describes him thusly, “He is the same man, humbled.” If this is Lawrence at his most humble, I’d hate to see him at his most egotistical. He’d probably end up a James Bond villain or something.
When the Arabs achieve their final objective and take Damascus, the tribes gather in a large room and try to unite. And who better than to unite Arabs than a white British man? For all his talk about equality and brotherhood, Lawrence feels that he’s the one to bring everyone together. He doesn’t even attempt to let them do it on their own. He’s running the goddamn Arab council in the absence of their Prince. He wasn’t promoted to that spot, or told he could do that in lieu of the Prince. Nope, he just assumed that no else is as fucking great as him, so he might as well do it.
“Everyone listen to meeeee!”
The movie is kind of weirdly funny in how it treats some serious topics: namely war, death, and torture. Lawrence is tortured, and of course being ZOMG A TOTAL BRITISH BADASS, he doesn’t even wince at the lashings he’s given. And the next day, he’s sullen until he has some breakfast, and then he’s back to his usual self. Gee, I don’t know why people complain about torture so much, I guess they’re just a bunch of giant babies. The war is treated oddly in that the battle scenes are almost completely glossed over. I think the human toll, the death and violence, would be something the film would want to spend more time on. Instead, there is virtually no fighting in the war. Finally, death. There is a scene near the end when Lawrence snaps and orders his men to massacre a bunch of bad guys. The acting portrayed by Peter O’Toole in this scene is beyond cheesy. It’s like blocks of Gouda, Cheddar, and Monterey Jack all rolled into one. He looks giddily constipated as he is surrounded by the deaths of men, which only occurred at his order. I suppose this was meant to be the most somber part of the film, but the acting makes it a near parody. On a side note, O’Toole’s performance throughout the movie is completely bizarre. He plays Lawrence as an aloof, effeminate control freak. It is certainly unique, so I guess that’s something.
The thing that really perplexes me is how everyone loves this movie, yet hated Avatar, when essentially they tell the same story. In Avatar, the white male human becomes the savior of the inferior alien race, he unites the disparate tribes, and leads them to victory over the evil bad guys. It smacked hard of colonialism and the ancient trope of the white hero who saves the savages. Yet, Lawrence of Arabia does the same thing and it is lauded as a cinematic masterpiece. So what if this is based in reality? It’s the same story. Why is Lawrence’s tale of The White Savior lauded while Avatar’s tale of The White Savior panned? As I’ve said in the past, there is no consistency amongst nerds and film-goers. I, myself, am wildly inconsistent, so I should know.
I wish this was a real scene in the movie.
I think it’s the casual racism of the film that bothers me the most. It tries to show the Arabs with respect, but it does a terrible job. Two of the three main Arab characters are white guys in brown-face makeup (one of them is Obi Wan Kenobi). The rest of the Arab characters may actually be Arabs, but they are largely relegated to extras who have virtually no lines. One of the film’s larger messages is that the Arabs are a “barbarous people” and they cannot be tamed. Despite the heroic white British male trying his best, not even he is able to fully unite these backwater hicks. And if a white British male can’t do it, well, then no one can. They’re hopeless. What a crock of shit.
Lawrence of Arabia is a really mixed film. Yes, it does have amazing cinematography, and yes, it does have a fantastic soundtrack. As long as I’m saying yes to things, yes, it has cheesy acting, yes, it is bloated in its unnecessarily long running time, yes, the main character is a narcissist, and yes, it is incredibly racist. As a fan of movies, I can appreciate the first two, perhaps even the third in a way, but the final part, the racism, is what I can’t stand. It just doesn’t fly today. I think the worst part is that Lawrence of Arabia is a racist movie, and it doesn’t even realize it.
Verdict: Shitty
Check out these other entries in the Classically Shitty series:
Awesomely Shitty 
I don’t get this movie or forrest gump. Watched the whole thing on youtube in fast forward.
It’s really not worth it. Forrest Gump is also quite bizarre, but Tom Hanks’ retarded impersonation was funny enough to warrant not fast-forwarding in my book.
Great job, thanks for revealing this movie …………
Thanks, although I think it was revealed long before me ………
Any chance you could do an in-depth review of THX-1138? I just saw it recently and it only convinced me of how much of a hack George Lucas really is and the fact that the original Star Wars was nothing more than a fluke.
I’ve never seen it. I will check it out. Thanks for the recommendation. Since it’s from George Lucas, it probably sucks.
My goodness. I have to watch this for the giddily constipated scene
You should just watch the scene. Don’t waste your time with the rest of this movie.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Yes Lawrence was an incredibly flawed character but in what way does that constitute the film being bad? Sorry that a film actually made you question the protagonists motives.
We need to BRING BACK the BRITISH EMPIRE, sir! That would SORT THE WORLD OUT! SORT IT OUT!
Whatever you say, man.
As a fan of this movie and the story of the real T.E. Lawrence, I still enjoyed this review. Lawrence’s family wasn’t too pleased with how he was portrayed. According to Seven Pillars of Wisdom Lawrence wanted to go around the destroyed village rather than engaging the Turks. But the Arab who hailed from that village was having none of it. So they attacked. Lawrence writes quite eloquently about his regret over how many lives were wasted in that engagement. He was a complicated cat who was distilled into a myth following the war and then into Hollywood hero by the movie. Still a great movie, though flawed.
Alex Guinness. Fake Arab, yes. But his Faisal is so well done it’s spooky. I thought you might take a run at Anthony Quinn’s Auda Abu Tayi but when a guy has hundreds of kills to his credit he deserves to be portrayed as a bloodthirsty devil.
The guy who bugs me most is Arthur Kennedy as reporter Jackson Bentley (ie Lowell Thomas). The character is a silly excuse for exposition. Luckily, this part was reduced from earlier drafts of the script which would have had him on screen much earlier in the movie.
Thanks for your review. It was refreshing… Recent times, I’ve tried to watch older films, classic films, masterpieces and everything in between, in order to learn understand movies more deeply and profoundly. And I totally agree what you say about masterpieces and classics in general. And what should be required from a film to be considered one. Lately I watched Citizen Kane for the first time and I didn’t understand and still don’t what is so special about it. Apart from it having certain technical aspects for the first time. I wasn’t a bit entertained watching it. But I was really entertained yesterday while watching Lawrence for the first time. But reading your review made me think more deeply WHY I was entertained… And the reasons where mostly technical: the amazing soundtrack and really beautiful sceneries. The story was nice as well, but no exceptional.
The technical aspects can be awe-inspiring at times. But even those cannot always help a movie that has bad writing, acting, etc.
I’m not quite sure what your big issue with race is, I found that you skipped over alot of warranted criticism to critique something that the filmmakers had little control over. People can’t rewrite history. Additionally, your arguments against Lawrence as a character (he was a real person, so is it fair to attack him as if he’s fictional, even though he had noble goals and successes?) fell flat, being prone to nit-picks. Honestly, I will never understand the need to invent terms like “White Savior, Whitewashing, blah blah blah” there’s a point when a society gets too critical as well as analytical and we have definitely reached that point. I would seriously suggest you revise this, your points about Peter O’toole’s acting were valid, so make it more about that. Your race and historical criticism temper-tantrum was unfounded and goofy.
I can absolutely criticize him, real or fictional. The movie is a dated mess. Sure, there are some things to like about it, like the score and cinematography, but other than that there is little to find worthwhile when watching this through a modern lens.
I never imagined I would find a person who would miss that the film is set from the mentally unstable, manic Lawrence’s perspective, desperately trying to solve his massive cognitive dissonance between: the praise that his British superiors are manipulating him with, his god-complex and actual inability to do anything but be buffeted around by his surroundings, his internal desire for self-control and his complete lack of it —- but here we are. Peter O’Toole is two heads taller than the real Lawrence, for crying out loud!