The 1962 film Lawrence
of Arabia, is a film that depicts the experiences of British Colonel T.E.
Lawrence in the Arab Uprisings of the first world war. The film itself covers Lawrence’s
time as a British Officer in the Arabian Peninsula; and his involvement as leader
of the Arab revolt against the Turkish army, and the delegator of the Arab
National Council. The film tries to portray Lawrence's heroic/courageous deeds, while also showing the psychological affects that the war would burden on him.
While the film itself is based of the story of T.E. Lawrence,
it is better understood to be a depiction of the book Seven Pillars of
Wisdom, by T.E. Lawrence. The film, as well as the book, can be seen as
more of Lawrence’s personal depiction of the events that happened on the Arabian
Peninsula than a true historical record of what took place. Historians debate whether
or not the accuracy of all elements of Lawrence’s accounts, saying that he may
have embellished aspects of the story to be more favorable towards himself. Besides
Lawrence’s possible reconstruction of events, the film makers would also take
liberty in making slight changes of the events of the story to better fit how
they wanted to represent it.
The film also does
a decent job of representing the historical subtleties of the story. They did a
good job in matching clothing, equipment, etc. to those of the time period. They
did however fail to be historically correct with some of the historical gear of
the time. One of the most glaring inaccuracies was the weaponry within the
film. These include: the Turkish army using an American 1919 browning machine
gun (during a battle in 1918), the rebels only using British SMLE Enfield
rifles (even before being resupplied by the British), and T.E. Lawrence using a
British Webley revolver (when in fact he carried an American Colt 1911 handgun).
While these inaccuracies are minor in the overall scheme of the film, they do take
away from the immersion for those who know/catch these mistakes.
The film does an overall
good job at capturing the essence of the story Lawrence of Arabia. While being
produced in the 1960s, the film has aged very well. While some select scenes in
the film struggle due to the technology of the time, most of the it is very
well filmed. It is a truly amazing how well they were able to achieve the visuals
they were without more modern technology.
Work Cited
Anderson, Scott. “The True Story of Lawrence of Arabia.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 1 July 2014, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-lawrence-arabia-180951857/.
Dud, Mrs. “Lawrence of Arabia: Hollywood Fact or Fiction?” Dr Dud's Dicta, 30 July 2015, drdudsdicta.com/2014/08/09/lawrence-of-arabia-hollywood-fact-or-fiction/.
Hoffman, George. “T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and the M1911 » Sight M1911.” Sight M1911 RSS, sightm1911.com/lib/history/telawrence.htm.
Stejskal, James. “The Arab Revolt and the Guns of Lawrence of Arabia.” American Rifleman, 23 Nov. 2018, www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/11/23/the-arab-revolt-and-the-guns-of-lawrence-of-arabia/.
Woolf, Christopher. “Is Peter O'Toole's Lawrence of Arabia Fact or Fiction?” Public Radio International, 16 Dec. 2013, www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-16/peter-otooles-lawrence-arabia-fact-or-fiction.
I definitely need to watch this movie! I think it is super interesting that out of all stories to choose from WWI, they chose this one. Perhaps because of the action? Or perhaps the movie was a call to help those who made it home from war, given that they depicted the psychological affects that the war would eventually have on him. I feel that many historical movies are slightly off or exaggerate and it seems like this one follows suit. Although, from this blog, it does not seem like it is as extreme as some.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your very precise description of how they incorrectly portrayed the weaponry. Most would overlook something like that, because a gun is a gun, but in actually the weapons used by each country was very specific to each country.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Emma in the way you described the guns. It seems like such a small detail, but I like how you were so exact with the guns and pointed out how this wasn't exactly accurate to the time and place. Also, often times people just look over old movies nowadays because of the quality and the poor technology at the time, but this movie seems to overlook that aspect. Definitely a movie I would watch from the way you explained it.
ReplyDeleteFilm directors always change certain aspects of history to suit their own liking, so they may have thought it would look better with the other weapons. It does seem like an interesting movie to watch and I would definitely watch it, especially if it is mostly historically accurate.
ReplyDeleteI wonder which elements of Lawrence's account historians have debated over, and therefore how the movie would have been presented differently if the accuracy of these events was certain. And as others here have already said, good call on the weaponry. As a former theatre student, we're taught to make sure literally every painstaking detail of a production is historically accurate - it's kind of satisfying to see a professional company miss the devil here. Also, did you catch the two scenes when Lawrence examines his reflection from his knife? Gotta get that character development!
ReplyDeleteI also like your correction to detail about the weaponry. I think that it is important to accurately represent the weapons that were used from each country because they were distinct. Which also makes me think, because all the weapons used were different, could this have given someone an advantage if their weapons were made better?
ReplyDelete