 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a challenging film to get all the way through, and sometimes I am not really sure what Lean is trying to say about the character of Lawrence, which is perhaps the point? In any case, like another very long and challenging biography movie, Barry Lyndon, these movies pay off tremendously if dedicate yourself to the three or four hours to watch them. There is no doubt the the desert scenes, and the scenes when we finally see the ocean are stunning. We clearly do not see that quality of filmstock anymore, it is like velvet for the eyes. No digital movie can touch it.
It's not a 'biography movie' but a political treatise by Robert Bolt really. Lean described Lawrence as a 'total nutcase' in interviews. The thrust of the film is that governments exploit and use people who might be seen as on the verge of psychosis when crises arrive, and then drop them like a hot potato when the crisis is over. There's also a subtext re arming developing countries (Tafas and the pistol) and another about 'desert-loving Englishmen' cleverly designed around a certain psychological complex related to odd parenting, the 'desert mother' Sekhmet mythologies, and psychological inflation (as in the 'Nothing is written' scenes and the lost compass/Moses bit). And it comments on colonialism.
Every line either opens up a new line of thought, or concludes a previous one, beautifully written. Lawrence was a sado-masochist sexually, and even this gets into the mix, but not in a way that prevents a universal certificate. The whole totally unbelievable sequence with Jose Ferrer was something Lawrence later admitted to G.B. Shaw (his editor) as a fiction, it never happened, it was a code to send out signals. He was a very complex character, and not above arrogance despite his talents as a writer, an archaeologist and a soldier of course. Bolt thought he'd hate Lawrence, but on reading the 'Seven Pillars' decided he was a 'romantic fascist' and not a real one!
I don't see it as hard to sit through, except finding the time! The long vistas and stretch of the film is meant to be 'suffered' a little, it's part of the experience. 'Entertainment' isn't the first priority with a film like this, though it IS entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't think of the last time I've watched the whole film at a go. (I have PLAYED the whole film when I've been sick and bed ridden, but I faded in out.) But I'll often watch part I on one night and part II on another.
A common criticism of mine is "we can make movies look like anything now and we never make anything look like Lawrence."
Heavens what a film! And what a score!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William
I know it is not a literal biography, but it is about Lawrence after all, granted a lot of it is not accurate. But these two pictures, Lawrence and Barry Lyndon, were both elaborate and rich films that focused on highly flawed men.
Certainly, but the 'meanings' are also what makes this film, and what got Bolt going.
'Lyndon' is also a great film in my opinion, and one that gets similarly unjustly attacked for slow pace, but that's the whole point, the predictability of Barry's life. Thackeray's original novel was in the first person singular, and was really a satire on 18th/19th Century Irish stuff and class etc. and 18th Century novels. The original book is meant to be taken as a series of braggart exaggerations that aren't entirely true, like Munchausen, Janos, etc.. Kubrick didn't quite go down that route, he let the camera be the comedian, which was something he excelled at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
.... there's not a split second I don't find riveting. ('The trick...is not minding that it hurts').
That's it. You have to endure the experience as Lawrence did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 24, 2014 - 1:06 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
William
I know it is not a literal biography, but it is about Lawrence after all, granted a lot of it is not accurate. But these two pictures, Lawrence and Barry Lyndon, were both elaborate and rich films that focused on highly flawed men.
Certainly, but the 'meanings' are also what makes this film, and what got Bolt going.
'Lyndon' is also a great film in my opinion, and one that gets similarly unjustly attacked for slow pace, but that's the whole point, the predictability of Barry's life. Thackeray's original novel was in the first person singular, and was really a satire on 18th/19th Century Irish stuff and class etc. and 18th Century novels. The original book is meant to be taken as a series of braggart exaggerations that aren't entirely true, like Munchausen, Janos, etc.. Kubrick didn't quite go down that route, he let the camera be the comedian, which was something he excelled at.
William, it is really nice to hear some compassion for Barry Lyndon, a truly gorgeous and intricate piece of film making, and delightful adaptations by Leonard Rosenman as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a 'biography movie' but a political treatise by Robert Bolt really.
Indeed. That's why I love it. The whole cinematic enterprise is a subversion of the myth of "patriotic heroism" in much the same way that, say, the Hobbits in THE LORD OF THE RINGS are subtle lampoons of the heroic myth.
Take an effete intellectual who is qualified to parley with Arab tribesmen, and successfully leads them into guerilla warfare, who then eventually succumbs to monomania and brutality just like all the other jingoistic grunts who form the spearheads of history.
F***ing genius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
there have been some very informative and interesting threads on lawrence here before.
nice piece william.
Orrence (Orrans) is certainly an event. i try to watch it every 3 months or so for the last 25 years or so.
its a sit-down undisturbed type of film, to immerse yourself in the landscape and the experience and the jarre soundscape. aside from the pace and size of it and the cinematography, what makes it such a delicious meal is the script - that dialogue, those quotable lines - oh my goodness - barely a wasted word, its all juicy prime meat cooked to perfection. who cares how accurate it is and if some is a writers licence.
it captures enough strands of Lawrences strange and complex personality to be a wonderful film and to paraphrase what william was saying, its long enough to be a commitment that you endure it as well as enjoy it, it makes a better impression that way.
today will be difficult. but tomorrow... good riding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the well is everything. He was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thackeray's original novel was in the first person singular, and was really a satire on 18th/19th Century Irish stuff and class etc. and 18th Century novels. The original book is meant to be taken as a series of braggart exaggerations that aren't entirely true, like Munchausen, Janos, etc.. Kubrick didn't quite go down that route, he let the camera be the comedian, which was something he excelled at.
"Lawrence" is satire, too, which few, if any, have grasped since the film's 1962 release. What else can you call a film about an inveterate performer who was always, relentlessly, in search of an audience? As the Jackson Bentley character (who clearly understood Lawrence, in screenwriters Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson's telling, better than anybody else in the film) says on the steps of St Paul's following Lawrence's funeral, Lawrence was "the most shameless self-promoter since Barnum and Bailey."
And so he was.
The film was never meant to be taken seriously as a solemn, profound statement about much of anything.
As for
Orrence (Orrans) is certainly an event.
In the script, the phonetic corruption of Lawrence's surname is spelled "Aurens."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from now on i will spell it in Aurens.
however ive been corrected on hear before - hence the Orrence - Orrans. i was originally just spelling it how i heard it. at least people got wot i meant!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
