Lawrence of Middle-earth

[Sauron the White]

Just spent the afternoon watching a HD version of the masterful and beautiful David Dean film LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. It is rightfully considered as one of the greatest films of all time. I was inspired to go to the net and find out more about both Lawrence and the film. I was struck by an article in wikipedia which basically said the film was not accurate at all. It deviated greatly from the book and from accounts of nearly all who were the principal real life characters. If there was an Accuracy Meter, it would have registered rather low on the scale.

the article can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_of_Arabia_(film)

here are the relevant parts

Historical accuracy
The historical accuracy of the film, and particularly its portrayal of Lawrence himself, has been called into question by numerous scholars. Most of the film's characters are either real or based on real characters to varying degrees. The events depicted in the film are largely based on accepted historical fact and Lawrence's own writing about events, though they have various degrees of romanticisation.

Some scenes — such as the attack on Aqaba — were heavily fictionalized, while those dealing with the Arab Council were inaccurate, in as much as the council remained more or less in power in Syria until France deposed Feisal in 1920. The theme (in the second half of the film) that Lawrence's Arab army deserted almost to a man as he moved further north was completely fictional. The film's timeline of the Arab Revolt and World War I, and the geography of the Hedjaz region, are frequently questionable. For instance, Bentley interviews Feisal in late 1917, after the fall of Aqaba, saying the United States has not yet entered the war; yet America had been in the war for several months by that point in time. Further, Lawrence's involvement in the Arab Revolt prior to the attack on Aqaba — such as his involvement in the seizures of Yenbo and Wejh — is completely excised.


[edit] Representation of Lawrence
Many complaints about the film's accuracy, however, centre on the characterization of Lawrence himself.


The real Lawrence of Arabia in the white silk robes of the Sherifs of Mecca.The perceived problems with the portrayal of Lawrence begin with the differences in his physical appearance: 6-foot 2-inch Peter O'Toole was almost nine inches taller than the real Lawrence. His behavior, however, has caused much more debate.

The screenwriters depict Lawrence as an egotist. Lawrence actually shunned the limelight, as evidenced by his attempts after the war to hide under various assumed names. Even during the war, Lowell Thomas wrote in With Lawrence in Arabia that he could only take pictures of him by tricking him (though he did later agree to pose for several pictures for Thomas's stage show). Thomas's famous comment that Lawrence "had a genius for backing into the limelight" referred to the fact that his extraordinary actions prevented him from being as private as he would have liked. Others disagree, pointing to Lawrence's own writings in Seven Pillars of Wisdom to support the argument that he was egotistical.

A controversial choice is the portrayal of Lawrence as being repulsed by violence while also enjoying it. The real Lawrence was far from a pacifist before the war; indeed, he was a crack shot with a pistol (his preferred weapon being a Colt .45 Peacemaker) and enjoyed practising at shooting ranges when he could. There is no record of his feeling any particular remorse over the Tafas massacre in his writings or other correspondence (it was, after all, retaliation by the Bedouin for the Turks' sack of the village). Lawrence was remorseful to some extent over the number of Turks (and Arabs) killed in his campaigns (as is clear throughout Seven Pillars of Wisdom and his other writings), but the depiction of him as a sadist who enjoyed violence is based on no historical evidence.

It should be pointed out that Lawrence was aware of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, contrary to the film, but he hoped that the Arabs' contribution to the Allied victory would convince the Allies to grant the Arabs their independence. Lawrence was, as the film suggests, torn between loyalty to the British and his promises to the Arabs; but by omitting his knowledge of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the film removes the catalyst for this conflict.


[edit] Representation of other characters

Jack Hawkins as General AllenbyThe film's portrayal of General Allenby as a cynical, manipulative superior is not entirely accurate either. Allenby and Lawrence respected and liked each other; Lawrence once said of Allenby that he was "an admiration of mine",[2] and later that "[he was] physically large and confident, and morally so great that the comprehension of our littleness came slow to him".[3] Allenby, for his part, remarked upon Lawrence's death that "I have lost a good friend and a valued comrade. Lawrence was under my command, but, after acquainting him with my strategical plan, I gave him a free hand. His co-operation was marked by the utmost loyalty, and I never had anything but praise for his work which, indeed, was invaluable throughout the campaign,"[4] (in contrast to the fictional Allenby's words at Lawrence's funeral in the film) and spoke highly of him on numerous other occasions. It seems likely that this characterization of Allenby is in large part due to the screenwriters' anti-war sentiments. While Allenby admittedly did manipulate Lawrence during the war, their relationship lasted for years after its end, indicating that, in real-life, they were friendly, if not terribly close. Similarly, General Murray, though initially skeptical of the Arab Revolt's potential, thought highly of Lawrence's abilities as an intelligence officer; the intense dislike shown towards Lawrence in the film is in fact the opposite of Murray's real feelings.

The depiction of Auda abu Tayi as a man only interested in loot and money is also at odds with the historical record. While Auda did at first join the Arab Revolt for monetary reasons, he quickly became a steadfast supporter of Arab independence and only abandoned the cause after the collapse of the Arab government in Damascus. He was present with Lawrence from the beginning of the Aqaba expedition, and in fact helped plan it along with Feisal I of Iraq.

Feisal, far from being the middle-aged man depicted, was in reality in his early thirties at the time of the revolt.[5] While Feisal was considered by Lawrence to be a wise and insightful man, he also had a nasty sense of humour (often involving practical jokes) which is not evident in the film. He also did not speak English, whereas in the film he is quite fluent.

A particularly telling fact of the film's inaccuracies are the reaction of those who knew Lawrence and the other characters. The most vehement critic of the film's inaccuracy was Professor A.W. Lawrence, T.E.'s younger brother and literary executor who had given the rights to Seven Pillars of Wisdom to Sam Spiegel for ƒ25,000. Lawrence went on a campaign in the US and Britain denouncing the film, famously saying that "I should not have recognized my own brother". Lowell Thomas was also critical of the portrayal of Lawrence and most of the film's characters, feeling that the train attack scenes were the only reasonably accurate aspect of the film.

The criticisms were not restricted to Lawrence. The Allenby family lodged a formal complaint against Columbia about the portrayal of their ancestor. Descendants of Auda abu Tayi and the real Sherif Ali (despite the fact that the film's Ali was fictional) went further, actively suing Columbia due to the portrayal of their ancestors. The Auda case went on for almost ten years before it was finally dropped.[

However, it brings me back to one of the things discussed here from time to time - if a film needs to be accurate to its source material. Very clearly, in LAWRENCE, we have a superior film by almost every standard of measurment and it has certainly proved the test of time as well being around for some 46 years and yet to be surpassed. I cannot imagine any knowledgable person claiming that it is not a good film, nay even a great film, because it was not accurate to the real life personage of its personalities or to the events portrayed.

I realize that on this site there are many who concede that the LOTR films were indeed successful in terms of box office revenues, professional critical response and industry awards but still argue against it because it was not accurate to the books as much as they would have liked.

Does not the experience of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA illustrate how meaningless this false test of accuracy is in discussing the quality of a film?

[skip spence]

I've noticed this ongoing discussion although I haven't really followed it. Please tell me if I got it wrong:

On the one side you've got the pre-movie falang led by Sauron the White, who keep insisting that a movie is an all together different thing to a book and that making changes to adapt the it to the big screen is not only excusable but also nessesary. The pre-movie folks obviously liked the PJ films.

On the other side you've got the Tolkien purists who feel that PJ's adaption was disrespectful to the feel, characters and details of the books because too much was altered and that is was a poor movie because of this.

But isn't it getting tiresome to go on and on with the same arguments? Isn't it time to let this one slide StW?

For the record I liked the movies and felt that PJ did a really good job on the whole. Visually it was great and I felt that it retained the feel of the books well. I was also impressed by the attention to nerdy details, although they got some things wrong too. As a fan, some scenes and aspects of the film were certainly annoying. But you must accept that some populist scenes such as Legolas skating on a shield or killing ridiculosly large olliphants in action hero style will be included. A movie of this magnitute must cater to a huge audience and I would not be surprised if those action hero episodes are the favourite scenes for many people, primarly children.

[Sauron the White]

NO. This is about the idea of accuracy to source material - not if you liked or did not like the films. The playing field is hopefully narrowed to avoid the usual discussion.

[skip spence]

^That's what I wrote too, wasn't it?

But I don't know where your going with this. Would you, as a Tolkien fan, like it if PJ altered the story all together, even if it was a good and profitable film in itself? Probably not, I'd guess. Of course a filmmaker should respect the source material. Why else would he use it? But is he/she obliged to follow the source material it in every minor detail? Of course not.

[Sauron the White]

Skip - maybe its my fault for not being as specific in print as I should have been.
Allow me to go at this from a different tact.

We can disagree about if we liked the films or not. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that and nobody is right or wrong. Having said that, I notice that one thing that has been said is that the movies are not good because they are not accurate. More than one person has said, in different ways, that the films were not good because they simply were not faithful to the books and they can never get past that.

I am using the example of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA as a film. My post comes complete with a long list of serious areas where major things were changed causing it to be rather unfaithful and innacurate both to reality and to the book Lawrence himself wrote. In other words, it was not at all faithful to its source material.

However, the film LofA is heralded by many as one of the greatest films of all time and is truly a great film. This, despite its lack of accuracy or faithfulness to the source material. When you judge a film, accuracy to the source material means precious little as to if it is a good or quality film or not. LAWRENCE proves this.

In this thread I hope to hear from others on this idea. Not if they liked the films or not. Not if they think the films are great or terrible. But the narrow idea of accuracy to source material and its importance or lack of importance to a films worth.

[Nerwen]

The first thing I'd like to say is that Lawrence of Arabia, as a film about real people, may involve more ethical problems than exist in the case of an adaptation of a work of fiction.

Still, if you want to see it as analogous to LotR–

I think (and I believe I've said this before) there are two separate questions here:

1. Is the quality of a film dependent on its faithfulness to its source material? My answer would be no.

2. Is there any obligation (moral, I'm talking about, not artistic) for someone making a film to respect the source material? I should say yes, though how much is certainly something you can argue about.

As a reductio ad absurdum, StW, wouldn't you be screaming if someone produced The Lord of the Rings as a romantic comedy set in New York?

I say this, not because I'm in the anti-movie camp, but because it seems to me that your way of thinking is just as rigid, if not more so, than that of the book purists. Maybe you should accept that some people just don't like the films?

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I say this, not because I'm in the anti-movie camp, but because it seems to me that your way of thinking is just as rigid, if not more so, than that of the book purists. Maybe you should accept that some people just don't like the films?

Exactly. This thread is about the merits of PJ's LOtR movies, not about Lawrence of Arabia or the importance of accuracy to source material. I don't think anyone here would suggest that PJ should have made the film using the book as a manuscript with all the dialogue carboncopied and with a narrator for the prose. Of course you have to make changes to adapt a book to a screenplay. And no, a film should not be judged based primarly on how faithful it was to the source material. But undoubtebly this will be important to many hardcore fans of Tolkien as I'm sure it was for the familes of people depicted in LoA too.

[ArathornJax]

Whether a film is true to the source or not I believe comes down to what is the purpose of the film? Is the purpose like Gods and Generals to be accurate and show as accurate as possible the events of a period of time or like Gettysburg which tried to show the events of one day (both based on historical fiction and both movies got many things right, but historians will tell you many things were wrong)? Or is the purpose of the movie to entertain with a good story, good script and good acting (and allow the studio to make good money)?

I think if you look at good movies they do differ from the source material that they are based on. No biggie as the purpose I feel is to entertain and for the movie to make money (more the better for all usually).
Gladiator is another movie you can look it. It is far from true to the source material, though elements and themes exit that are close to the source. Isn't The Godfather also sharing this? I believe and correct me if I am wrong, that Silence of the Lambs varied from the source material. Same with Saving Private Ryan (and the story it is was based around). etc. Do they lose their entertainment value because of that? Nope. I think that is the key. If a movie has a good script/writing, good directing and acting, and audiences relate or connect with the movie, and perhaps it touches an important theme or two, the movie is usually successful and considered highly successful (there are those movies that are just for entertainment and profit also).

In the end this comes down to personal preference. Some may only like a literary source while others may like both interpretations, while for others only the movie adaptation will suffice. Each their own. As for me I choose . . . . and that is what important to me, what I choose, while I respect what others choose even if I disagree.

[skip spence]

I watched The Cinderella Man yesterday and came to think ot this thread.

In this excellent movie Russel Crowe plays Jim Braddock, a down-and-out boxer struggling to pay the rent in the middle of the great depression. He then gets a chance to fight a highly rated contender as a last minute replacement, and sensationally beats him. Eventually he even gets a shot a the heavyweight title agaist Max Bauer. It was something in the portrayal of Bauer that caught my attention. He was mainly portrayed like a malicios monster, for ex. telling Braddock's wife she was going to become a widow (Bauer did in fact kill one man in the ring and another man he fought died some months afterwards), and like an arrogant if charismatic playboy with a hollywood smile. But there were always a few redeeming moments for the character, and in the end of the film he was given a scene where he respectfully congratulates the triumphant Braddock.

I got interested in the real Max Bauer and googled him. He seemed a nice enough bloke, who was deeply affected by the deaths he caused, or might have caused. Bauer son was also upset by how his father was portrayed and accused director Ron Howards of making him a villain as a contrast to the hero Braddock. And I think it was clear that Howard on the one hand did want to demonize Bauer for dramatic effect but on the other hand also did not want to be disrespectful to the memory of Bauer by falsely portraying him as a monster. This tension actually made made him a good movie character, probably much better than either the true and perhaps likeable Max Bauer or a wholly evil bad guy type.

Where am I going with this? Well, maybe that every movie based on a source material, be it a book or real events, will have parts that some people with a emotional attachment to the source material will be unhappy about. This is almost unavoildable as a movie adaptation requires making changes to several key parts of the source material. A good screenplay I think finds a balance between being true to the source material and finding a satisfactory dramatic structure fitting for the big screen. But some people with a close association to the source material or a part of it will always dislike any adaptation that makes their area of special intest seem of less worth. And from their point of view (which is also mine at times), this is very understandable. Of course Max Bauer's son didn't like the portrayal of his loved father. I did though.

Anyway, you can't please everybody but yet this is what a big hollywood film tries to do. And this doesn't please everybody either. PJ had a difficult task and and on the whole he completed it very well IMO.