|
Post by mcavanaugh on Nov 7, 2018 20:04:16 GMT
"What a bold, mad act of genius it was, to make “Lawrence of Arabia,” or even think that it could be made", Roger Ebert writes in a discussion of what, to me, is one of the greatest films ever made. The impulse to make this movie was based, above all, on imagination. The story of “Lawrence” is not founded on violent battle scenes or cheap melodrama, but on David Lean's ability to imagine what it would look like to see a speck appear on the horizon of the desert, and slowly grow into a human being. He had to know how that would feel before he could convince himself that the project had a chance of being successful. There is a moment in the film when the hero, the British eccentric soldier and author T.E. Lawrence, has survived a suicidal trek across the desert and is within reach of shelter and water--and he turns around and goes back, to find a friend who has fallen behind. This sequence builds up to the shot in which the shimmering heat of the desert reluctantly yields the speck that becomes a man--a shot that is held for a long time before we can even begin to see the tiny figure. On television, this shot doesn't work at all--nothing can be seen. In a theatre, looking at the stark clarity of a 70mm print, we lean forward and strain to bring a detail out of the waves of heat, and for a moment we experience some of the actual vastness of the desert, and its unforgiving harshness. By being able to imagine that sequence, Lean was able to imagine why the movie would work. “Lawrence of Arabia” is not a simple biography or an adventure movie--although it contains both elements--but a movie that uses the desert as a stage for the flamboyance of a driven, quirky man. Although it is true that Lawrence was instrumental in enlisting the desert tribes on the British side in the 1914-17 campaign against the Turks, the movie suggests that he acted less out of patriotism than out of a need to reject conventional British society, choosing to identify with the wildness and theatricality of the Arabs. There was also a sexual component, involving his masochism. T.E. Lawrence must be the strangest hero ever to stand at the center of an epic. To play him, Lean cast one of the strangest of actors, Peter O'Toole, a lanky, almost clumsy man with a beautiful sculptured face and a speaking manner that hesitates between amusement and insolence. O'Toole's assignment was a delicate one. Although it was widely believed that Lawrence was a homosexual, a multimillion-dollar epic filmed in 1962 could not be frank about that. And yet Lean and his writer, Robert Bolt, didn't simply cave in and rewrite Lawrence into a routine action hero. Everything is here for those willing to look for it Using O'Toole's peculiar speech and manner as their instrument, they created a character who combined charisma and craziness, who was so different from conventional military heroes that he could inspire the Arabs to follow him in a mad march across the desert. There is a moment in the movie when O'Toole, dressed in the flowing white robes of a desert sheik, does a victory dance on top of a captured Turkish train, and he almost seems to be posing for fashion photos. This is a curious scene because it seems to flaunt gay stereotypes, and yet none of the other characters in the movie seem to notice--nor do they take much notice of the two young desert urchins that Lawrence takes under his protection. What Lean, Bolt and O'Toole create is a sexually and socially unconventional man who is simply presented as what he is, without labels or comment. Could such a man rally the splintered desert tribes and win a war against the Turks? Lawrence did. But he did it partially with mirrors, the movie suggests; one of the key characters is an American journalist (Arthur Kennedy), obviously inspired by Lowell Thomas, who single-handedly laundered and retailed the Lawrence myth to the English-language press. The journalist admits he is looking for a hero to write about. Lawrence is happy to play the role. And only role-playing would have done the job; an ordinary military hero would have been too small for this canvas. For a movie that runs 216 minutes, plus intermission, “Lawrence of Arabia” is not dense with plot details. It is a spare movie in clean, uncluttered lines, and there is never a moment when we're in doubt about the logistical details of the various campaigns. Law-rence is able to unite various desert factions, the movie argues, because (1) he is so obviously an outsider that he cannot even understand, let alone take sides with, the various ancient rivalries; and (2) because he is able to show the Arabs that it is in their own self-interest to join the war against the Turks. Along the way he makes allies of such desert leaders as Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif), Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness) and Auda Abu Tayi (Anthony Quinn), both by winning their respect and by appealing to their logic. The dialogue in these scenes is not complex, and sometimes Bolt makes it so spare it sounds like poetry. www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-lawrence-of-arabia-1962
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 1:35:08 GMT
you don't like older films However I think that there is one movie that I would personally point to , that would help your appreciation for older films. 1) Click on the link I left in the O.P. and you'll see positive grades for other classics. If you don't feel like it, click here and scroll down to "top-rated years." 2) Which one? I don't even know why I brought it up. Of course suggesting you see a movie is dumb, because you probably have like twice the mental capacity that I do. Most do.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Nov 8, 2018 2:27:58 GMT
mcavanaugh Thanks for posting the Ebert review … it's what a review / comment oughta be ! Great reading !
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Nov 8, 2018 2:42:29 GMT
From the first time I read Ebert's review more than a decade ago, his final lines have stayed with me.
The greatest movie ever made. 15/10
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Nov 8, 2018 2:58:31 GMT
There is a costume museum in the city of Bath and they have a robe that belonged to the REAL Law-rence.
Awesome to see it ! I was surprised to see that he was not a tall man because he seemed so larger than life on screen.
(just for trivia info : he was 5' 5" and O'Toole was 6' 2" )
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 8, 2018 3:02:06 GMT
One of those "great" films I just can't get into.
Peter O'Toole seems like an eccentric Brit version of Jimmy Stewart to me. Like a number of Hitchcock films the male protagonists are kind of shackled. And when you read criticisms of the film by people who knew Lawrence--they say the character is nothing like the man they knew.
The gist of the praise for it stems mostly from the technological experience--the innovations in cinematography and on location shooting. Imagine if the film was shot entirely on a theatrical stage with painted backdrops. How engaging would you find the characters?
There's a lot of cheaper desert location films I would rather watch like ICE COLD IN ALEX. YESTERDAY'S ENEMY is a much more intellectual war-themed movie than BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 3:28:31 GMT
Lawerence is a masterpiece. Just because you don't like it there's a problem with it? No. The problem is all yours.
(I wouldn't normally be this harsh, but as mentioned above, you clearly have a strong bias against anything that isn't an action movie made within the last ten years)
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 8, 2018 10:17:59 GMT
Of course suggesting you see a movie is dumb, because you probably have like twice the mental capacity that I do. Most do.
Thanks for the insult/compliment(?) but I took the risk of asking so I'd like to know. Maybe I've already seen it. Lawerence is a masterpiece. Just because you don't like it there's a problem with it? No. The problem is all yours. (I wouldn't normally be this harsh, but as mentioned above, you clearly have a strong bias against anything that isn't an action movie made within the last ten years) 1)It's a masterpiece because most people like it, but your post makes it look like you believe it's a masterpiece only because you like it. It doesn't matter if you say something that happens to be truth without explaning. Other users in this thread who like it have given arguments. My opinion is the minority but at least I used arguments. And I never said that it doesn't deserve to be a lassic. 2) You saw that? Did you also see my posts giving evidence on why I don't have a bias. Even if I had a bias, other users thought I didn't like movies (of any genre) made before the '60s. Where did this "action movie before 2008" nonsense came from? 3) Did you also see Primemovermithrax Pejorative 's post about how they also don't like the movie much? Why are not replying to them as well? Or how about llanwydd 's post about the importance of saying on topic? you can take too much out of context in comparison to what we may be used to with todays film-making technique and styles. Yeah, it's a shame when people compare a movie from one time period to movies from another time period. I'm glad I know how to avoid that.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 8, 2018 14:28:07 GMT
I am not so sure that you are, and that comes down to context again, or taking what you feel about a film out of context. You gave an absurd 1\10 rating to Romero's Dawn Of The Dead and got a roasting for it and you give an average rating of 5\10 to LOA which only equates to 2 1\2 stars out of 5 to a classic and understandably revered piece of cinema. You also haven't experienced it as it was meant to be seen as admitted. 1) But I didn't give them those grades randomly. "The context of the era" doesn't mean that I have to give a movie the same grade that most people who saw it when it first came out gave it. It means that I have to know what the standard was. I didn't give this movie a 5 for not doing things that modern movies do. Movies in 1962 were analyzed based on their pacing too. 2) You mean on the big screen? Why do people keep saying that? I didn't have the opportunity. That shouldn't invalid my nor someone else's thoughts. All movies are meant to be seen on the biggest screen possible, but not everyone can see every movie like that. Even if that wasn't true, I don't think this is the best example. People have told me they saw DUNKIRK on their computers and didn't like it and I've said "I loved it (yes, a modern movie, crucify me!) and it's probably because I saw it in theatres." That makes more sense because there's not a lot of emphasis on plot and character. It's mostly a visual and auditory experience. This movie on the other hand is known for its visuals (which I did praise, mind you) but not so much for the sound mixing/editing and it does emphazise plot and character in the traditional way. So... No, I don't think seeing it in theatres would've changed my opinion that much (or at all), since the things I considered to be issues would've still been there.
|
|
|
Post by mcavanaugh on Nov 8, 2018 15:06:09 GMT
Vits 1)It's a masterpiece because most people like it --------------------------------------------- No, most people like it because it's a masterpiece. I posted Roger Ebert's review because I thought it would move the subject to a discussion of what makes 'Lawrence of Arabia' a great film. LOA was released a year before I was born, so obviously I didn't see it on its original theatrical run. I saw it for the first time on a regular television set, and it did my head in. I was pulled in by all the characters, particularly the title character played so brilliantly by Peter O'Toole. Lawrence was such an unconventional hero/soldier -- an enigmatic character so unlike anyone I had ever seen before. I read T.E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, his account of the historical events depicted (sometimes loosely) in the film. I highly recommend Lawrence's book as a companion to the film. Since that initial viewing, I have had several opportunities to see LOA on a large cinema screen in order to enjoy it as it was meant to be seen. But even on a small screen it gives us a fascinating story and a fascinating depiction of this extraordinary man and the historical events he played a part in. I don't generally rate movies, but on this one I stand with Aussie: 15/10
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Nov 8, 2018 15:37:05 GMT
IMO, to be taken seriously, a poster's reviews / comments have to be reasonable. A 5/10 for Lawrence of Arabia combined with a 1/10 for in Country (1/10 generally accepted as meaning god awful / should never be made / unwatchable ) kinda says a heck of a lot about these "reviews / comments"' That and his absolute stubborn refusal to stop calling movies Franchises when they are clearly NOT FRANCHISES.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 17:14:53 GMT
Of course suggesting you see a movie is dumb, because you probably have like twice the mental capacity that I do. Most do.
Thanks for the insult/compliment(?) but I took the risk of asking so I'd like to know. Maybe I've already seen it. Lawerence is a masterpiece. Just because you don't like it there's a problem with it? No. The problem is all yours. (I wouldn't normally be this harsh, but as mentioned above, you clearly have a strong bias against anything that isn't an action movie made within the last ten years) 1)It's a masterpiece because most people like it, but your post makes it look like you believe it's a masterpiece only because you like it. It doesn't matter if you say something that happens to be truth without explaning. Other users in this thread who like it have given arguments. My opinion is the minority but at least I used arguments. And I never said that it doesn't deserve to be a lassic. 2) You saw that? Did you also see my posts giving evidence on why I don't have a bias. Even if I had a bias, other users thought I didn't like movies (of any genre) made before the '60s. Where did this "action movie before 2008" nonsense came from? 3) Did you also see Primemovermithrax Pejorative 's post about how they also don't like the movie much? Why are not replying to them as well? Or how about llanwydd 's post about the importance of saying on topic? you can take too much out of context in comparison to what we may be used to with todays film-making technique and styles. Yeah, it's a shame when people compare a movie from one time period to movies from another time period. I'm glad I know how to avoid that. For your sake, I hope one day you are able to watch older movies with a more open mind. You may find out that your prejudice against them was preventing you from enjoying some real masterworks.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 8, 2018 17:38:19 GMT
By the way, though I respectfully disagree with Primemovermithrax Pejorative’s review (which is just fine!—it’s good not to have completely uniform viewpoints), I think it’s an object lesson in how to deal with and analyze a movie that’s often considered a classic but that you just don’t like. Trying to analyze my feelings on a picture and why they’re not in line with prevailing opinion are what I try to do with classics I don’t like— 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example.
|
|
|
Post by delon on Nov 8, 2018 18:21:34 GMT
Having affinity towards modern films doesn't instantly make you prejudiced against classics. I've skimmed through OP's ratings and classics such as Battleship Potemkin, Modern Times, Singing in the Rain, Umberto D, 12 Angry Men, The Apartment, The Graduate, All About Eve, Bicycle Thieves, Sound of Music,On the Waterfrond and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof are all rated very highly, clearly demonstrating that Vits is able to appreciate older films. Insisting that OP is biased against older films, instead of writing WHY you think aforementioned film is a masterpiece (or not) and discussing the film itself, honestly seems like a lazy way of countering his points. Personally, I always like to read differing opinions, especially on films that are highly regarded by critics and cinephiles. After all, everyone liking same films would be kind of dull.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 8, 2018 18:38:22 GMT
IMO, to be taken seriously, a poster's reviews / comments have to be reasonable. A 5/10 for Lawrence of Arabia combined with a 1/10 for in Country (1/10 generally accepted as meaning god awful / should never be made / unwatchable ) kinda says a heck of a lot about these "reviews / comments"' 1) IN COUNTRY? I mean, it got decent reviews, but who thinks it's a classic? 2) If I had just written my grade, yes: That wouldn't be reasonable. However, I explained why I didn't like this movie. You don't have to agree with what I said, but at least I said it. For your sake, I hope one day you are able to watch older movies with a more open mind. You may find out that your prejudice against them was preventing you from enjoying some real masterworks. For your sake, I hope one day you are able to talk to people about movies with a more open mind. You may find out that making up excuses as to why a person would dislike a classic was preventing you from having a fun back-and-forth. Having affinity towards modern films doesn't instantly make you prejudiced against classics. I've skimmed through OP's ratings and classics such as Battleship Potemkin, Modern Times, Singing in the Rain, Umberto D, 12 Angry Men, The Apartment, The Graduate, All About Eve, Bicycle Thieves, Sound of Music,On the Waterfrond and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof are all rated very highly, clearly demonstrating that Vits is able to appreciate older films. Insisting that OP is biased against older films, instead of writing WHY you think aforementioned film is a masterpiece (or not) and discussing the film itself, honestly seems like a lazy way of countering his points. Personally, I always like to read differing opinions, especially on films that are highly regarded by critics and cinephiles. After all, everyone liking same films would be kind of dull. Thank you so much. Not just for writing that, but also for taking the time to see my ratings (something others here haven't done despite me asking). That being said... Almost every user has disagreed with me, but only a few have exposed themselves as close-minded. Therefore, I might advise to you not bother.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 8, 2018 18:46:47 GMT
Having affinity towards modern films doesn't instantly make you prejudiced against classics. I've skimmed through OP's ratings and classics such as Battleship Potemkin, Modern Times, Singing in the Rain, Umberto D, 12 Angry Men, The Apartment, The Graduate, All About Eve, Bicycle Thieves, Sound of Music,On the Waterfrond and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof are all rated very highly, clearly demonstrating that Vits is able to appreciate older films. Insisting that OP is biased against older films, instead of writing WHY you think aforementioned film is a masterpiece (or not) and discussing the film itself, honestly seems like a lazy way of countering his points. Personally, I always like to read differing opinions, especially on films that are highly regarded by critics and cinephiles. After all, everyone liking same films would be kind of dull. I think we’re talking past each other, as you and I are arguing the same thing re: having opposing viewpoints. I’m happy that vits likes those films. He also likes Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That’s not the point. The point is that he has a tendency to prefer modern movies to old movies, as I’ve analyzed earlier in the thread. Which is fine, but nevertheless true. I wouldn’t keep responding were people not responding to me.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Nov 9, 2018 4:09:39 GMT
Hard to believe nowadays BUT in 1962 the average movie goer did not "analyze movies based on their pacing" or pretty much anything other than whether it was an enjoyable film or not. The fact that this film is still very highly thought of by the vast majority of viewers 56 years after its release might say something about the film.
I still find that you feel that the performances were only "good" a bit amusing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2018 4:18:34 GMT
One of those "great" films I just can't get into. Peter O'Toole seems like an eccentric Brit version of Jimmy Stewart to me. Like a number of Hitchcock films the male protagonists are kind of shackled. And when you read criticisms of the film by people who knew Lawrence--they say the character is nothing like the man they knew. The gist of the praise for it stems mostly from the technological experience--the innovations in cinematography and on location shooting. Imagine if the film was shot entirely on a theatrical stage with painted backdrops. How engaging would you find the characters? There's a lot of cheaper desert location films I would rather watch like ICE COLD IN ALEX. YESTERDAY'S ENEMY is a much more intellectual war-themed movie than BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. pretty much
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 9, 2018 9:00:09 GMT
Hard to believe nowadays BUT in 1962 the average movie goer did not "analyze movies based on their pacing" or pretty much anything other than whether it was an enjoyable film or not. Wow! This might just be the worst post in the entire thread. What the average movie goer thinks isn't an indication of the quality of a movie (same with box office results). This movie is considered a classic because critics and movie goers who try to analyze love it. However, if someone said they like this movie just because they found it enjoyable, it would be less valid than my grade, because at least I gave arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 9, 2018 9:04:46 GMT
I did find that each time I watched Lawrence of Arabia and 2001 I had a different reaction. In the case of LoA it was almost like watching it for the first time-but I think it had to do with seeing it in WS on a large tv.
A lot of the movie is about the landscape.
Bridge on the River Kwai is on my favorites movie list (while Yesterday's Enemy is not) but that has more to do with the overall experience. As a story about WW 2 and prisoner camps, I think the latter is a much more intense story--I would say the same about CAMP ON BLOOD ISLAND --which has Kwai cast member Andre Morrell.
These ultra cheapie films have more character depth.
|
|