Lawrence of Arabia and its Historical Falsehoods

This review I am about to post was done in 2007 as a course assignment for a course on the history of the Middle East. This was done while I was an undergrad student and I have expanded my horizon since then however most of the points made in this earlier review I still support in the wider analysis of this film. I watched the film recently and it has only confirmed the points made in this paper regarding the historical falsehoods of the film. These historical falsehoods centre on the essence of T.E. Lawrence who is stylized or represented as the western ideal that acted as a civilizing force for the tribes of the Arab population during World War 1. I will do a more comprehensive review later on however it is important to bear in mind these historical falsehoods before a more comprehensive assessment of the film is conducted. It is still a great film for other reasons which I will not get into here. Here is the review:

Film critique of Lawrence of Arabia

            The film Lawrence of Arabia is indeed an epic film. It is set in locations that feature the vast expanse of the desert, beautiful beaches and glimmering sunsets. The film centres on a young lieutenant named T. E. Lawrence who is sent by the Arab Bureau to aid Prince Feisal in uniting the Arab tribes in their fight against the Turks during World War 1. The story itself is the weak point of the film in that the character is exaggerated to the point of caricature and he seems  to be a mere vehicle for the director, David Lean, and the screen writer, Robert Bolt to embody western ideals. Rather than allow the film to follow a linear historical path there are distinct manipulations whereby Lawrence appears defeated by his own ambitions to become a de facto leader of the various Arab tribes. The filmmakers exaggerate the role played by the Arabs in the effort to defeat the Turks by making it appear minimal whereas Lawrence appears as the spearhead or leader. This distortion is generally a western misconception. This is important for the Arab was instrumental in the defeat of the Turks in World War 1. Although it appears biased there are redeeming qualities such as highlighting the scheming that took place by the British authorities and remaining true to some episodes that occurred during T.E Lawrence’s experiences or sojourn in the Middle East. The film appears isolated by trying to encapsulate various episodes of Lawrence’s exploits and in seeking to portray the essence of the man rather than the man himself.  This can be seen in the contrived episodes with an invented American journalist seeking an excuse for Americans to enter the war. There are also the Arabs who appear comical or sycophantic especially the character of Sherif Ali, who for all his wisdom, is seen only as Lawrence’s admirer. It is not easy to judge the man, T.E Lawrence in the film, for he is manipulated and can only be seen through the framework of the film which reflects Western ideals.

            The technical achievements in the film are the highpoint of production and this enhances the experience for the viewer, particularly for those unfamiliar with the terrain, by making it appear exotic yet brutal. Lawrence’s journey with Tafas to Prince Feisal’s camp is introduced with booming music that emphasizes the expanse of the desert or the sense of adventure. The score by Maurice Jarre also highlights the environment of Arabia through subdued notes especially in his admiration of the beaches of Aqaba or his nights under the stars. The music is clinical especially at the end where Lawrence’s farewell appears unnoticed to the Arabs and their culture he admired so much. The cinematography is also essential as specific locations had to be chosen to highlight, not only the beauty of the desert but also its expanse under the weight of a merciless sun in a cloudless sky. F.A. Young, the cinematographer, enhances the image of the desert for the viewer particularly through the mirages that appear at a distance and in a poignant scene he shows the slow approach of Ali to the well from which Lawrence and Tafas, who should know better and is killed for his carelessness, are drinking on their rest stop. The art direction is also effective in trying to recreate the atmosphere of the camps  in the desert, the adornment of camels, the accurate portrayal of the Arab dress and the construction of British headquarters in Cairo. The editing is also effective in not allowing the film to appear stagnant or static despite its lengthy running time of 222 minutes.  These technical achievements also allow one to appreciate the atmosphere as it appeared to Lawrence himself. In his book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, he clearly spends much time describing his surroundings which clearly made an impression. This is why at the end of the film, with the subdued music, the viewer is aware of the impression of the desert. The viewer understands why it is difficult to leave the great adventure he experienced with the Arabs in their war against the Turks.

            The movie makes Lawrence appear as an essential character rather than presenting the man himself. He seems to be created  and manipulated to the point of caricature. He is defeated by his ambitions in the film which is the reason why he decides to leave. The fictional character of the American journalist asks Lawrence, what the Arabs hope to achieve? He replies  that they want their freedom and that he is going to give it to them. This episode did not occur in Lawrence’s experiences but this is an example of the filmmakers attempt to make him seem frivolous, arrogant and specious in his actions. Lawrence in his book was fully aware of the double dealing of the politicians behind the back of the Arab leaders, particularly the Sykes Picot agreement which was one of the reasons why he desperately wanted to leave. The Sykes picot agreement established spheres of influence in Arabia between the English and the French following World War 1. Western Imperial tendencies were still quite strong in this period. In the film, however, as an essential character, he continuously and pointlessly addresses General Allenby  and Mr. Dryden on the issues concerning  Arab independence; and he is informed by the character Dryden that he must have known all along about Sykes Picot agreement. He thus appears naïve and his efforts in Damascus are seen as a joke to his superiors. When the Arabs are seen leaving a council General Allenby comments, ‘They look like marvelous little beggars don’t they?’ The positive to be gained  by allowing Lawrence appear naïve and on the side of the Arabs is to expose the double dealings of the British and their disregard for the rights of the Arabs. Lawrence, however, was a part of the double dealing.

            His interactions with the Arabs highlight his ambitious streaks which are defeated by the authorities. The scenes are contrived, in some instances, to highlight the essence of the man and his experiences on the technical side. Western audiences will, naturally, find the attitudes of the Arabs comical such as Auda Abu tayi holding up a clock like a buffoon and shaking it because it does not work. Lawrence’s two companions Daud and Farraj are well represented for they were indeed the jokers in the camp. The philosophy present throughout the film which highlights the defeat  of Lawrence’s ambitions is his claim that nothing is written. He is a self serving idealist who believes that free will can forge ahead with no acknowledgement of the laws that govern us. The Arab viewpoint is more deterministic as they claim otherwise and this point of view is gradually revealed to Lawrence albeit superficially. This can be seen with the issue of Gasim and his execution, which is fictional, as well as his eventual flight  from Arabia. The movie ends on the note that probably some things are written. This all goes back to my point that he is an essential character who operates within the framework of the film rather than allowing us to gain a better understanding of the man himself. For instance, he becomes absurdly obsessed with the love of the Arabs when he asks in the winter camp in the mountains ‘Who will walk on water with me?’ This is the apotheosis of the man a deified a clown if you like. Also when Lawrence is in dialogue with sheriff Ali, who has just killed Tafas, his guide, by the well, which is a fictional episode, he says  the Arabs will always remain a ‘little people: greedy barbarous and cruel’ because of their constant infighting. This does not sound like something  he would have said in the presence of a sheriff and is not documented in his book but in the film it sets the stage for his emergence as a leader of the Arabs. The arabs who exalt him, particularly Ali himself, seem excessively sycophantic  and incapable  and this fuels his ambitious streak.  In a scene, after the council of Damascus, Auda tells Ali ‘Being an Arab is thornier than you think.’ Another grand scene occurs when the Arabs launch an assault on retreating Turks, which is a moving account; however the American journalist makes Lawrence appear barbarous for leading it.  The filmmakers are therefore constructing him based on their perceptions, not only of him, but the Arab world. Suleiman Musa, in his book, T.E. Lawrence: An Arab Overview, ‘Foreign sources have habitually attributed any military success to the British or French officers on the scene.’ The casual viewer will accept this distortion as the propagated legend of Lawrence rather than the man himself. This is why fictional characters such as the American journalist come to hear  of his exploits  in Arabia as if he is a god head and so the man himself is lost.  When the filmmakers try and cast light on his ambivalence towards the Arabs and his role in the war he comes off still more absurd due to this messianic  conception himself. After his confrontation with the Turkish Bey, he decides to return to his regular life only to have general Allenby have him confess, in an outrageous comical moment, ‘Alright, I’m extraordinary.’ In the end he is just a man defeated.

            The portrayal of the Arab revolt through a western viewpoint undermines the validity of the film as an accurate historical account. According to Suleiman Musa ‘Lawrence’s descriptive powers and his dramatic and imaginative tendencies were real assets to him…many of those who wrote  about Lawrence in the West took his sayings at face value.’ Therefore, Lawrence’s writings in his book contributed to distortions in the film itself. In the book, after the capture of Aqaba he claims, ‘Upon clayton I opened myself completely, Akaba  had been taken on my plan, by my effort [so he took it himself. How extraordinary.]. The cost of it had fallen on my brains and nerves.’ He never says how he conceived the plan which further obscures the issue and contributes to the mysticism surrounding the man. This is reflected in the film, when the sycophantic Ali says ‘garlands for the conqueror’ and proceeds to toss flowers at Lawrence’s feet. The capture of Aqaba, which made Lawrence famous to the West, is portrayed in the film indeed as if it was his own effort. He ponders for hours in the desert to devise a plan to overthrow the Turks; he also convinces two great leaders of the Arabs, Feisal and Auda to give aid to the fight. This is inconceivable for it is inconsistent  with the role Lawrence himself was to play in the revolt. Musa states ‘The participation of the two French and British military missions in the revolt took the forms of technical advice and demolition work.’ This is featured in the film and the exaggerations are apparent. The film does not give voice to the Arabs  and this one sided presentation makes the film seem incomplete. They did not even highlight the role of Sherif Husayn, father of Feisal although he is briefly mentioned. Musa sheds light on the Arab perspective when he states ‘had it not been for Auda, the Aqaba expedition which opened wide the doors of fame for Lawrence would not have taken place.’ He explains this by stating that Auda was the one who convinced Feisal that he could carry out the expedition and Lawrence begged to tag along like the dog he is. This is not how Lawrence portrays it but naturally the western perception has watered down and taken hold despite the historical falsehoods.  Musa also states that Lawrence could not have governed Damascus but he could exaggerate due to his friendship with Feisal.

The film portrays accurately what Lawrence had to say on this point when he said that he was in control, and one could call it a strength  of the film for this is how Lawrence claimed to have experienced it. However it is exaggerated historically for he was only an observer not a leader. The film contributes to this by excluding the viewpoint of the Arabs and sees them as mere sheep and accept at face value the claims made by Lawrence. Therefore do we judge the film or the man? The film reflects on the man through preconceived notions  and the man’s writings  influence the perceptions. It would be difficult to undermine the filmmakers on this basis for they are ignorant but an enduring strength of the film is to take his exaggerations and create this essential character that is defeated by his own ambitions. His defeat is a strength of the film for his role is undermined by his frivolity.

In concluding, the story of the film is the weak point whereas its technical achievements are its strength. The story would have been more effective if they did not make the Arabs appear sycophantic or incapable of attaining any sort of victory in the fight against the Turks. The film is bolstered by exaggerated western perceptions fueled by the writings of Lawrence himself.  The primary strength of the story is that Lawrence is defeated by his own ambitions due to his flair for adventure and his incapability of grappling with reality. This is a strength for it may shed some light on the man himself. The film  seems to have stuck with the claim made at the beginning of the film that he truly was an ‘shameless exhibitionist.’