Lawrence at 60 Years and Counting

Lawrence of Arabia changed my life. I’m not exaggerating. I’d seen pictures before that affected me deeply, and quite a few I’d gone back to see more than once. I knew vaguely about the auteur theory. I realized movies were made, they didn’t somehow spring from the brow of Zeus. But on the most basic level, I didn’t actually understand that a movie was intentional, that it was calculated and specific.

Lawrence changed that, and I can tell you exactly how: the moment when Peter O’Toole holds up the burning match, and blows it out, and they cut to the sunrise on the desert, the music swelling.

I’ve mentioned this before, and it’s subliminal, not literal, the light suddenly dawning, but I remember how jaw-dropping it was – the shot itself, for openers, and at the same time, that I’d been let in on this world-changing secret. I was struck with awe.

Lawrence is back, and not for the first time. It was released originally at three hours and forty-two minutes, a roadshow feature, in December, 1962. Then cut by twenty minutes for general release. Then re-cut in 1970, to 187 minutes. And then restored, in 1988, to 228 minutes – this is the Director’s Cut available on DVD. I just got to see it again, theatrically, in a 4K restoration. Granted, it’s digital, not film, but it’s spectacular.

A word about the cinematography. (Freddie Young won the Oscar for it, Anne Coates won for the editing.) The movie was shot in Super Panavision 70, which is a 65mm negative printed to 35mm, projected in anamorphic – meaning the compressed image on film is widened on the screen. One of the cool things about the newest release is the amount of visual detail. You can argue that there will always be more detail captured on film negative, but the image will degrade, as prints are reproduced from the master negative.

This new digital transfer is probably the best available capture of the original, even if the purist in me kicks against it. You can see the blowing sand, the texture of a man’s skin, in close-up, or the depth of distance. Lean and Freddie Young used a 500mm Panavision zoom lens to shoot Omar Sharif’s entrance, through the dust and the heat coming off the hardpan, the figure seeming to resolve out of a mirage, or a trick of the mind’s eye. Is there really a better entrance in all of the movies?

I went back to see Lawrence twice, the initial 222-minute roadshow release, and then I saw it another three times, in its 202-minute general theatrical release. I couldn’t get enough. My pal John Davis and I could retail entire scenes of dialogue to each other – “The best of them won’t come for money, they’ll come for me” – and ape Peter O’Toole’s mannerisms. I didn’t, at that point, even know David Lean was a big deal, that he and Olivier and the Kordas had brought British cinema back from the dead, after the war, or at least brought American audiences into theaters, which is what mattered to the box office. Later on, when I was living at the Y on Huntington Avenue, I discovered a revival house up the street, and saw Great Expectations for the first time. It was Lean’s two Dickens adaptions that put him on the postwar map, Great Expectations in 1946, and Oliver Twist in 1948, but this wasn’t on my radar. I was just knocked out by the picture itself, and it was icing on the cake to realize it was guy who’d made Lawrence.

Oh, and that Maurice Jarre score!

I think it was his big break. It was sweeping, and eerie, and thunderous, and sometimes all at the same time. Lots of tympani. I tried to recreate it the following summer, at a pump organ. Four of us, teenage boys. Driving a van filled with mattresses up to a summer cabin in Canada, and a shaving kit full of bathtub benzedrine, courtesy of a chemistry-adjacent friend of a friend. The four of us stoned out of our minds and flying, me pumping the foot pedals on that organ with physical fury, and picking out Maurice’s main theme on the keyboard, DOO-doo, doo-doo-doo-doo-DOO-doo. It must have driven the other guys crazy, except that they were doing much the same, banging on a typewriter instead of an instrument. I think this is a story for another time. Too much left in already, when I should leave most of it out.

In any case, I think I’ve hit the highlights. Lawrence is the most important movie of my life, both as a movie that made me think organically about the movies, and as a totem, in terms of personal history. I’m enormously grateful it pointed the way.

Lawrence of Arabia

[First, a shout-out to Janice Law, who has a terrific, twisted story in the March 2014 ALFRED HITCHCOCK, called "The Raider." Secondly, a very Merry Christmas to you all, and my best wishes for a great New Year.]

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was released fifty years ago, and the recent death of Peter O'Toole prompts me to consider yet again, as a landmark in movie history.

LAWRENCE was a milestone for me personally, as well. I first saw it early in 1963, in its original roadshow release. Directed by David Lean, from a screenplay by Robert Bolt, shot in 70MM Panavision by Freddie Young, with a score by Maurice Jarre. It was astonishing. In fact, a transforming experience. Given the state of the art at the time, total immersion. I'd call it life-changing.

Early in the picture, there's a breath-taking cut. (And anybody who's seen the movie remembers it.) Lawrence, in close-up, blows out a match, and the screen opens suddenly wide to sunrise over the desert. It's a dramatic effect, but it does something else. It prefigures what's to come, and you somehow realize this, without knowing it. The movie shifts its shape, in that one piece of editing. The reason I'm making a big deal out of this cut, also, is that it made me realize, consciously, that movies don't happen by accident. I didn't think this in the theater, mind, but afterwards, as the idea began to percolate. It's worth pointing out, too, that in the course of that year, and the next two, I went back to see LAWRENCE some six or eight times, no exaggeration, and each time I saw something more. The picture deepened. It was breakthrough, for me to understand that David Lean (who began his career as an editor) was using the tools of movie-making to manipulate my response to what I was watching. Looking back, this seems naive, that it would take me so long to catch on, but it's instructive. More on this, below the fold.

My pal John Davis, a guy I'd met in boarding school, and who started college in New York with me in late '63, was a movie fanatic. He idolized Brando, and went on to be an actor, himself. That fall, we took every advantage of the New York revival houses, which were legion, in them days. LOOK BACK IN ANGER, THE 400 BLOWS, SEVEN SAMURAI. And the big-ticket new releases, TOM JONES and DR. STRANGELOVE. But of them all, John was utterly queer for LAWRENCE. He could quote the dialogue wholesale, the way O'Toole quoted Shakespeare. ("The best of them won't come for money. The best of them will come for me.") And he did a pretty fair Peter O'Toole, as well as a good Richard Burton. This says more than a little about our obsessions. Kurosawa, for example, or Truffaut. That was the year THE LEOPARD came out, too, and John could quote Burt Lancaster's lines---"Those that come after us will be jackals and dogs." Was it simple chance that we weren't head over heels for Hawks or Ford, yet, and our enthusiasms were the Brits and the Europeans? Arty, or kitchen sink, as opposed to Hollywood? I don't know. I'd like to think our horizons broadened.

David Lean, like Hitchcock, wasn't by any means art-house. They understood commercial necessities, box office, popular appeal. You're only as good as your last picture. Lean was very much involved in the revival of the British film industry after the war, with pictures like BRIEF ENCOUNTER, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, OLIVER TWIST. They did good business, but they also happen to be terrific movies. The he hit the jackpot, with BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, and he was able to write his own ticket.

LAWRENCE wasn't the most obvious choice. An obscure campaign, and a hero who was something of a queer duck. "He saw the odd, and missed the even," Lawrence once remarked, although not of himself. It was intransigent material, and it wasn't an easy sell. Sam Spiegel wanted Brando to play the part, and Albert Finney was actually tested. O'Toole only came on board after they turned it down. There's a story (not on IMDb) that when O'Toole leaned over Spiegel's desk to shake hands on the deal, a half-pint of whiskey fell out of his breast pocket, which didn't inspire confidence. They spent something like a year and a half on the shoot, Jordan, Spain, Morocco. Spiegel must have been tearing his hair out, as production costs mounted, but he was already in too deep, and he kept the faith. CLEOPATRA, the next year, put Fox out of business.


Both the risk and the reward were enormous. It cost fifteen million bucks, in 1960's money. It grossed seventy million, eventually. It swept the Oscars. It made Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif bankable stars. It gave David Lean the opportunity to make DOCTOR ZHIVAGO---which for all the sentimental attachment people have for "Lara's Theme," we might as well admit is a dull thud. LAWRENCE, though, in a sense, is sui generis. It made spectaculars buzzy. But everybody in the movie business missed the point. LAWRENCE was an intelligent spectacular. That's what made it work. It wasn't a sword-and-sandals epic, although there was plenty of sand. It was about something, and it was about something you could imagine having a stake in. Lawrence spits in the fire. "That, is not an argument," one of his Arab captains says. But the movie itself is. It argues that a man can change history. Lawrence, in life, may have well seen the odd, and missed the even. In legend, he becomes larger than life.

What's it say? We write stories. Lawrence wrote his own. SEVEN PILLARS is, perhaps, not entirely candid, and even while he left stuff out, he embroidered other things. Why spoil a good story for lack of the facts? More to the point, as writers, we're often jackdaws, and feather our nests with shiny borrowings. The lasting lesson of LAWRENCE, for me---the movie, and in some part the man---is that we shape a narrative to suit our purpose. The match, the desert landscape opening before us. "Nothing is written," Lawrence says, meaning nothing is Fated. But in a fiction, of course, everything is. It all answers to a resolution. Grief is purged, innocence is redeemed, the natural order is restored. Well, maybe. We impose, in other words, a moral, and leave ambiguity to life itself.