'Lawrence of Arabia': Masterpiece? Or a lot of hot (desert) air?
"Lawrence of Arabia" won seven Academy Awards in 1962, including best picture and director (David Lean). Did it really deserve to beat "The Longest Day," "The Music Man," "Mutiny on the Bounty" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the top prize?
It got some socko reviews back then. Variety called the $15-million production "a king-size adventure yarn." But those were the days when most film-goers confused best picture with big picture, especially Oscar voters. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times insisted that an intimate little film, "A Taste of Honey," was really the best film of 1962 and he dismissed "Lawrence of Arabia" as "a lot of sand and fury signifying little or nothing about Lawrence."
Was Crowther right? Well, indeed, the movie reveals little about who Lawrence really was, but that was standard operating procedure for sugar-coated Hollywood bios back then. Furthermore, much of what was on the wide screen was fictional (the attack on Aqaba) or inaccurate (mass desertions by his Arab soldiers). Does that matter?
Crowther thought so and continued to blast away at it: "'Lawrence of Arabia' is, in the last analysis, just a huge, thundering camel-opera that tends to run down rather badly as it rolls on into its third hour and gets involved with sullen disillusion and political deceit." Crowther wasn't alone. Also among its haters was Andrew Sarris, the then-Village Voice scribe who's venerated today as a god among film critics.
Nonetheless, "Lawrence of Arabia" reigns in the top 10 of greatest movies ever made as listed by the American Film Institute (ranked No. 5 in 1997 and No. 7 in 2007).
(Columbia Pictures)
At the time that I saw "Lawrence of Arabia" in a large London movie theatre in 1962, I considered it a masterpiece. I still think it is, but am disappointed to learn that the attack on Aqaba was fictional, since that was an exciting part of the film. However, the achievement of this epic story as directed by David Lean still impresses me to this day. And what a cast!!
Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Omar Sharif, and, of course, the marvelous Peter O'Toole. By the way, I agree that "A Taste of Honey" is indeed a wonderful and moving film (what a haunting theme song), but the buzz that year was all about "Lawrence" and I don't think that hindsight is going to take anything away from seeing it that day in London and being totally enthralled by it.
Posted by: Justin | November 02, 2008 at 10:26 PM
That was a great year for the movies besides the six already mentioned in your article.
Many worthwhile movies were released, such as
The Miracle Worker
David and Lisa
Divorce, Italian Style
Days of Wine and Roses
Billy Budd
Birdman of Alcatraz
Freud
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
Lolita
Sweet Bird of Youth
Long Day's Journey Into Night
The Manchurian Candidate
Sundays and Cybele
Through a Glass Darkly
Advise and Consent
War Hunt
There were probably more but New York had a newspaper strike, and so there were no Critics' Awards. (More films would have been spotlighted.)
Posted by: A M | November 02, 2008 at 09:58 PM
The entire question is insulting to everyone who made LAWRENCE the great film that it is. To infer that it's a "sugar-coated" bio-pic is ridiculously absurd. If anything, it makes Lawrence look rather loony, which I would say is a far cry from Candyland. It doesn't tell us exactly who he was, because, as Robert Bolt's screenplay dictates, at least, he himself didn't know; he was torn between two worlds geographically, idealogically, emotionally, and sexually. And as for the reality of the film, who cares? If I want the real story, I'll read a thousand page biography. If I want a visual taste of the spirit of Lawrence's story, then I stick with the movie. No movie, not even in three hours, can tell the whole story of a man, much less recount at the same time the exact details of the times in which he lived. If LAWRENCE OF ARABIA isn't the gold standard of what a bio-pic should do--entertain, fascinate, inform, and transport--then I don't really know what film DOES represent that standard. I'd advise coming up with some better questions...
Posted by: Dean Treadway | November 01, 2008 at 03:44 PM
mr. o,neil, im from that era that loved loved large long epic size pics. id watch it 100 tymes just to see peter petey they called him in his hometown, otoole, it 2 me is a masterpiece, always. com.pare it to mutiny on the bounty, ITHINKNOTT marlonbrando made a farce of that movie on an of the set . just my opinion, thank you gd day to you sir.
Posted by: BEATRICE PATRICK | November 01, 2008 at 08:34 AM
This question seems ridiculous, Tom. Not to be rude, but was it a low news day? In spite of Crowther's comments, it's a film that seems richer with every viewing. And it's technical accomplishments still look impressive today--not to mention it's still regarded in most academic film circles as a masterpiece.
Posted by: Godfather | October 31, 2008 at 08:34 PM