![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarahmichiganSo, it's probably a big old "duh" to some of you that I should have watched the classic 1962 David Lean film "Lawrence of Arabia" BEFORE I tried to watch the made-for-TV movie "A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia."
And I'm sure some of you are appalled that I've reached the age of 37 without having seen the '62 film before.
Nevertheless, it was kind of interesting to watch them in the "wrong" order, and here are my thoughts on both.
"A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia": OK, I admit it that Ralph Fiennes' hotness was one of the reason I initially checked this movie out. I thought I knew enough about Lawrence's life that'd make sense, but I think I would have gotten more out of it if I'd seen the '62 film first.
First off, the positives: It's beautifully shot, Fiennes is radiant and makes a wonderfully beautiful but asexual Lawrence, and Alexander Siddig (still going by his real name Siddig El Fadil at this time) was a huge surprise. He plays the Arabic prince beautifully and he is stunningly handsome, which doesn't hurt. This film also deconstructs some of the mythos around T.E. Lawrence and looks at his life more critically than the '62 epic did as well.
Big negative, though: It's a terribly talky movie. It's mainly about political maneuvering, and there's a lot of dialog and not nearly enough action, though there is some smoking, smoldering chemistry (not really sexual, but intense, nonetheless) between Fiennes and El Fadil.
So, I went back and watched the classic not too long afterward...
"Lawrence of Arabia": Things started off badly because we've been having some issues with our DVD player, and when the music started up with a black screen, I thought there was something wrong with the DVD or the player. I went back to the menu, started over, and saw there was a disclaimer saying that "Director David Lean intended for the overture to play with no picture" both at the beginning of the film, and after the "intermission" that's inserted into this (rather long) movie. I was thinking to myself, "Well, David Lean is a punkass, then, because film is a visual medium!" Philistine or not, I fast-forwarded through the 4-minute-plus overture to get to the visuals... And, from there on out, I have to say it was a fantastic movie.
Did they take liberties with the truth? For sure. Lawrence had turned into a legend in his own time, much less nearly 30 years after his own death, but that's part of the charm of the movie.
It's one of Peter O'Toole's earliest roles, and he is... again the word "radiant" comes to mind. His blue eyes peering out of a wind- and sun-burned face, his platinum hair, his white robes of the desert sherif. Wonderful. And he plays him asexual but slightly effeminate, extremely smart and arrogant and masochistic, which is just right. He also does a bang-up portrayal of Lawrence's wild-eyed craziness after being captured, beaten and sexually abused (though the last bit is only hinted at extremely obliquely) by the Turks.
And Omar Sharif as Sherif Ali? OHMIGOD. I've always had a "thing" for Omar Sharif since the first time I saw him in Dr. Zhivago, but he is 10 times sexier in "Lawrence." Those eyes! I could fall into them and never come out. Even his dorky mustache cannot detract from his beauty. And, I should probably mention that he acts the part beautifully as well. :)
I do have some quibbles, in addition to the one already mentioned about Lean's lunk-headed ideas about the overture.
For one, PLEASE STOP CASTING ALEC GUINNESS AS 'THE EXOTIC ONE' for chrissake! I'd just recently watched him play the Indian character Godbole in "A Passage to India" not long ago, and here he is cast as a blue-eyed Arab. Guinness can act the fuck out of any part, but why, why couldn't they find more Arabic actors for these roles? Anthony Quinn, with his dark-browed looks, actually was passable as Bedouin mercenary, but Guinness is the ultimate English white boy. Geezy petes! *
Also, I had to laugh at an early line in the movie that that said the Bedouin could "travel 60 miles a day in the deep desert." No disrespect to the Bedouin, who I'm sure are desert experts, but they can't move 60 miles in a day in the desert - their CAMELS can. I have a lot more respect for camels after watching the film, actually. They're odd and clumsy looking out of context, but in the desert, they actually look pretty elegant, especially when dressed up colorfully Bedouin-style. And they can go 20 days without water. These are some tough animals!
When all is said and done, I'm glad I watched both, but it's certainly the '62 movie that I will definitely have to watch again.
(Also, thanks for reading and sorry that this devolved into a drool-fest over all the eye candy...)
*as I noted in the comments, this is actually me chiding the David Lean of 1984 more than the David Lean of 1962.
And I'm sure some of you are appalled that I've reached the age of 37 without having seen the '62 film before.
Nevertheless, it was kind of interesting to watch them in the "wrong" order, and here are my thoughts on both.
"A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia": OK, I admit it that Ralph Fiennes' hotness was one of the reason I initially checked this movie out. I thought I knew enough about Lawrence's life that'd make sense, but I think I would have gotten more out of it if I'd seen the '62 film first.
First off, the positives: It's beautifully shot, Fiennes is radiant and makes a wonderfully beautiful but asexual Lawrence, and Alexander Siddig (still going by his real name Siddig El Fadil at this time) was a huge surprise. He plays the Arabic prince beautifully and he is stunningly handsome, which doesn't hurt. This film also deconstructs some of the mythos around T.E. Lawrence and looks at his life more critically than the '62 epic did as well.
Big negative, though: It's a terribly talky movie. It's mainly about political maneuvering, and there's a lot of dialog and not nearly enough action, though there is some smoking, smoldering chemistry (not really sexual, but intense, nonetheless) between Fiennes and El Fadil.
So, I went back and watched the classic not too long afterward...
"Lawrence of Arabia": Things started off badly because we've been having some issues with our DVD player, and when the music started up with a black screen, I thought there was something wrong with the DVD or the player. I went back to the menu, started over, and saw there was a disclaimer saying that "Director David Lean intended for the overture to play with no picture" both at the beginning of the film, and after the "intermission" that's inserted into this (rather long) movie. I was thinking to myself, "Well, David Lean is a punkass, then, because film is a visual medium!" Philistine or not, I fast-forwarded through the 4-minute-plus overture to get to the visuals... And, from there on out, I have to say it was a fantastic movie.
Did they take liberties with the truth? For sure. Lawrence had turned into a legend in his own time, much less nearly 30 years after his own death, but that's part of the charm of the movie.
It's one of Peter O'Toole's earliest roles, and he is... again the word "radiant" comes to mind. His blue eyes peering out of a wind- and sun-burned face, his platinum hair, his white robes of the desert sherif. Wonderful. And he plays him asexual but slightly effeminate, extremely smart and arrogant and masochistic, which is just right. He also does a bang-up portrayal of Lawrence's wild-eyed craziness after being captured, beaten and sexually abused (though the last bit is only hinted at extremely obliquely) by the Turks.
And Omar Sharif as Sherif Ali? OHMIGOD. I've always had a "thing" for Omar Sharif since the first time I saw him in Dr. Zhivago, but he is 10 times sexier in "Lawrence." Those eyes! I could fall into them and never come out. Even his dorky mustache cannot detract from his beauty. And, I should probably mention that he acts the part beautifully as well. :)
I do have some quibbles, in addition to the one already mentioned about Lean's lunk-headed ideas about the overture.
For one, PLEASE STOP CASTING ALEC GUINNESS AS 'THE EXOTIC ONE' for chrissake! I'd just recently watched him play the Indian character Godbole in "A Passage to India" not long ago, and here he is cast as a blue-eyed Arab. Guinness can act the fuck out of any part, but why, why couldn't they find more Arabic actors for these roles? Anthony Quinn, with his dark-browed looks, actually was passable as Bedouin mercenary, but Guinness is the ultimate English white boy. Geezy petes! *
Also, I had to laugh at an early line in the movie that that said the Bedouin could "travel 60 miles a day in the deep desert." No disrespect to the Bedouin, who I'm sure are desert experts, but they can't move 60 miles in a day in the desert - their CAMELS can. I have a lot more respect for camels after watching the film, actually. They're odd and clumsy looking out of context, but in the desert, they actually look pretty elegant, especially when dressed up colorfully Bedouin-style. And they can go 20 days without water. These are some tough animals!
When all is said and done, I'm glad I watched both, but it's certainly the '62 movie that I will definitely have to watch again.
(Also, thanks for reading and sorry that this devolved into a drool-fest over all the eye candy...)
*as I noted in the comments, this is actually me chiding the David Lean of 1984 more than the David Lean of 1962.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 05:43 pm (UTC)It boggles the mind that some people find it boring; it's long, but it's pretty action packed and the acting, music, sets & costumes are STUNNING. I didn't realize it until looking it up, but it actually approaches being FOUR hours long, which is long even for a stage play with intermission (my family was heavily involved in community theater, so I'm not ignorant of that field). It seemed to go faster because it's actually well-paced for such a long movie.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 05:25 pm (UTC)As far as the Godbole thing (I'm not sure I've even SEEN Passage) you have a point there, but don't underestimate the power of having worked together before. SO much about filmmaking is using people you know.
I've really never been bothered by racism or sexism in older movies. I just see them as products of their times. I tend not to look at them with a modern eye. But then, I'm really not very critical of movies for someone with a film degree. lol