I had a bad experience with Lawrence of Arabia when I was a lad (the film that is, not the person). I still have vivid memories of sitting through this interminable film and over forty years later still remembered it as the distilled essence of boredom. It can't possibly be as bad as I remember, I told myself. I must have been too young to appreciate it at the time. Still somehow I never got around to trying it again.
Recently I acquired a box set of David Lean films running from his first as director, In Which We Serve, through to Hobson's Choice in 1954. All the films had some restoration work done to them and they all looked good. In fact I wasn't prepared for just how good some of the films were. Of course, I was familiar with Brief Encounter and Great Expectations, both as good as ever but I wasn't prepared for just how good all the rest were. Passionate Friends is similar in some ways to Brief Encounter to my eyes a much more adult treatment of the issues than the rather soppy, though irresistible, Brief Encounter. Oliver Twist quite took my breath away with its cinematography and Robert Newton's portrayal of Bill Sykes, a singularly chilling performance which is far more disturbing than the anaemic serial killers we see in more recent films. It was all looking promising then for a reappraisal of Lawrence of Arabia. Even so the DVD sat unwatched on a shelf for several months, so bad was my memory of the original experience of seeing it. Eventually the fateful day arrived (well two days to tell the truth as I stopped at the original intermission and resumed the next day).
So, was it any better than my memories suggested? Not much. At least I knew a little more about the history than I did before and could find something interesting from that point of view. But otherwise it was every bit as bombastic, boring and ennui-inducing as I had found it originally. On IMDb I see that the average score is 8.6 and it ranks at number 42 in the top 250 so someone clearly likes it. Here's why all those people are wrong:
1 The film has been praised for its cinematography, particularly the desert photography. I'll agree that there are some good shots but they aren't that great. If I want desert shots I can see much better by buying the box set of "Life" and watching the episode on deserts. In fact I can find a dozen BBC series, usually in High Definition and usually narrated by David Attenborough which outstrip anything in Lawrence. If you like desert shots my advice would be get the documentaries instead and turn off the sound so you aren't disturbed by Attenborough droning on and on. In fact play some good desert music like Tinarewen in the background, turn the central heating up and refuse to drink water for 24 hours for a really good effect.
2 The majority of the film is taken up by Lawrence seemingly crossing deserts in real time. This is both boring and pointless as a filmic experience. An alternative would be to try (1) above.
3 The theme tune – you know, the one you can't get out of your head even if you try, occurs exactly when and where you think it will, usually signalling another real time trek across another bloody desert (or back again). At least you can enliven your viewing experience by predicting when the theme tune will come back in – I guarantee you'll get it right every time.
4 The action scenes all run left to right (or is it right to left, I forget). There's a reason for this which I also forget but bores on IMDb can explain it to you. Despite the huge numbers of extras, camels etc employed it generates some really unimpressive battle scenes when you start to notice the left-to-rightness of the action.
5 I've not read any of T.E. Lawrence's original writing but I'd be very surprised to learn he was such a crashing, pompous bore and bigot as the portrayal in this film suggests. The character in the film is so deeply unlikable as to immediately nullify my suspension of disbelief. My mind keeps interrupting my concentration as it asks how anyone can be inspired to follow this idiot.
6 Many say that Peter O'Toole's portrayal is magnetic, compelling, heroic and so on in this film. I say his acting suggests that he is completely bewildered by what the character is supposed to be like so he's just settled for acting mad and unpleasant whilst staring distractedly into space.
7 Goggles on a bush. How much more obvious and clichéd can you get?
8 So that's where Alec Guinness got his inspiration for Obi-Wan Kenobi?
9 Coming in at just under 47 hours in length this film is just too long. Simply taking out Omar Sharif's entrance scene would trim 24 hours from the running time. Ideally a ninety minute cut would be just about watchable.
It wouldn't be cricket to not mention the good points of the film as well and they can be summarised in just two words – Claude Rains.
Recently I acquired a box set of David Lean films running from his first as director, In Which We Serve, through to Hobson's Choice in 1954. All the films had some restoration work done to them and they all looked good. In fact I wasn't prepared for just how good some of the films were. Of course, I was familiar with Brief Encounter and Great Expectations, both as good as ever but I wasn't prepared for just how good all the rest were. Passionate Friends is similar in some ways to Brief Encounter to my eyes a much more adult treatment of the issues than the rather soppy, though irresistible, Brief Encounter. Oliver Twist quite took my breath away with its cinematography and Robert Newton's portrayal of Bill Sykes, a singularly chilling performance which is far more disturbing than the anaemic serial killers we see in more recent films. It was all looking promising then for a reappraisal of Lawrence of Arabia. Even so the DVD sat unwatched on a shelf for several months, so bad was my memory of the original experience of seeing it. Eventually the fateful day arrived (well two days to tell the truth as I stopped at the original intermission and resumed the next day).
So, was it any better than my memories suggested? Not much. At least I knew a little more about the history than I did before and could find something interesting from that point of view. But otherwise it was every bit as bombastic, boring and ennui-inducing as I had found it originally. On IMDb I see that the average score is 8.6 and it ranks at number 42 in the top 250 so someone clearly likes it. Here's why all those people are wrong:
1 The film has been praised for its cinematography, particularly the desert photography. I'll agree that there are some good shots but they aren't that great. If I want desert shots I can see much better by buying the box set of "Life" and watching the episode on deserts. In fact I can find a dozen BBC series, usually in High Definition and usually narrated by David Attenborough which outstrip anything in Lawrence. If you like desert shots my advice would be get the documentaries instead and turn off the sound so you aren't disturbed by Attenborough droning on and on. In fact play some good desert music like Tinarewen in the background, turn the central heating up and refuse to drink water for 24 hours for a really good effect.
2 The majority of the film is taken up by Lawrence seemingly crossing deserts in real time. This is both boring and pointless as a filmic experience. An alternative would be to try (1) above.
3 The theme tune – you know, the one you can't get out of your head even if you try, occurs exactly when and where you think it will, usually signalling another real time trek across another bloody desert (or back again). At least you can enliven your viewing experience by predicting when the theme tune will come back in – I guarantee you'll get it right every time.
4 The action scenes all run left to right (or is it right to left, I forget). There's a reason for this which I also forget but bores on IMDb can explain it to you. Despite the huge numbers of extras, camels etc employed it generates some really unimpressive battle scenes when you start to notice the left-to-rightness of the action.
5 I've not read any of T.E. Lawrence's original writing but I'd be very surprised to learn he was such a crashing, pompous bore and bigot as the portrayal in this film suggests. The character in the film is so deeply unlikable as to immediately nullify my suspension of disbelief. My mind keeps interrupting my concentration as it asks how anyone can be inspired to follow this idiot.
6 Many say that Peter O'Toole's portrayal is magnetic, compelling, heroic and so on in this film. I say his acting suggests that he is completely bewildered by what the character is supposed to be like so he's just settled for acting mad and unpleasant whilst staring distractedly into space.
7 Goggles on a bush. How much more obvious and clichéd can you get?
8 So that's where Alec Guinness got his inspiration for Obi-Wan Kenobi?
9 Coming in at just under 47 hours in length this film is just too long. Simply taking out Omar Sharif's entrance scene would trim 24 hours from the running time. Ideally a ninety minute cut would be just about watchable.
It wouldn't be cricket to not mention the good points of the film as well and they can be summarised in just two words – Claude Rains.