Talk:Lawrence of Arabia (film)

Archives

NPOV

This article is almost entirely americentric: No British POV, No Arab POV. It almost completely ignores all non american awards. This needs to be addressed. Alkivar 22:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like the rest of Wikipedia, sorry to say. -- Simonides 00:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes except its pointedly obvious in this article as it deals with a British soldier in Arabian lands. Most other articles with an americentric angle at least are primarily American in origin. Alkivar 01:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Title

Since the person is covered on T. E. Lawrence, this page may as well be about the film -- Tarquin

The film should be at Lawrence of Arabia (film) and this should be a redirect. --Jiang

Since T. E. Lawrence is covering the person, the Lawrence of Arabia does not need the addition (film). A bidirectional link at the beginning should be enough. Fantasy 09:02, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, many links refer to the person and not the film. Just because the person article exists does not mean this article is freed up. Links will more often refer to the person, I believe. --Jiang 09:05, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is a simple method to fix this: Have a look at

• http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=T._E._Lawrence

and

• http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Lawrence_of_Arabia

and set the wrong links right. It seems to me, that there are not so many wrong links, what do you say? Fantasy 09:28, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that people will create wrong links in the future. I guess it's doable if this page is constantly monitored to prevent people from adding the wrong link --Jiang 17:06, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please, do have a look at this two lists. You will see, that it is clear already that People just know that this are two different things. And if someone is directed to the wrong page, the first line will tell him to go to the right page (and he can correct the wrong linking). Don't worry too much about this. Wikipedia has some kind of self-healing system... ;-) Fantasy 20:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PS: It is not "doable", it is standard to watch pages in Wikipedia. I do it every day (and night). Thats the reason, why Wikipedia works.

Alrighty. But do check back once in a while though. --Jiang

Since T.E. Lawrence has been known as "Lawrence of Arabia" since 1919 (credited to Lowell Thomas), some 43 years before the film, this page should be a redirect to the man and should not host the film page. In the long run the man is bound to generate more links to this page than the film. If it were merely the title of a book rather than a film would we be having this debate? Mintguy 21:42, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know that. For me "Lawrence of Arabia" was always just the film (I love btw.). Change it to whatever you want, I am not oposing it. Fantasy 22:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Look, the guy has a name and should clearly go under his official name (TE Lawrence) with perhaps a slight note on the top of the film page with a link to the man's page. Re: the rather condescending comment about "would we have done this if it were just a book" the answer is, if the book had acheived such a landmark status as the movie, then certainly we would. This isn't just any movie, it's the winner of a Best Picture, it's a three and a half hour epic that people sit and watch. It's a jewel of the cinema, pure and simple. No need to get condescending about it. nwt, 7:22 AM CDT, 21 Aug 2003

I don't quite understand where you're coming from. I don't think I was being condescending. I'm a big fan of the film. There is no question the T.E Lawrence should be at [[T.E. Lawrence]]. The question is, should [[Lawrence of Arabia]] be about the film or should it be a redirect to the man, and the film be at Lawrence of Arabia (film). T.E. Lawrence was popularly known as Lawrence of Arabia for nearly 50 years before the film was made. The average person is more likely to know of the man by Lawrence of Arabia than by his real name. Mintguy 12:37, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia

Should Lawrence of Arabia (history) be a redirect to the man, a redirect to the film, or a disambiguation page? Sgt Pinback 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A "documentary"?

I hadn't thought that this film was ever marketed as a documentary, or even a historical reconstruction. Rather, it's a big budget entertainment more or less based on real events with more or less real people.

In view of this, I'm surprised that by far the largest section is on "Historicity".

I don't know much about the movie, but my impression was that it succeeded or largely on the strength of its virtues as a movie, not as a historical work. Perhaps we need more about the former. -- Hoary 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I don't see how a "Good Article" can have "trivia" in it. If the "trivia" isn't really trivial, move it where appropriate within the article; if it really is trivia, delete it. -- Hoary 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Trivia is information and encyclopedias contain information. --some dude.

Perhaps simply renaming "Trivia" to a different title? 71.238.35.126 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

the information remains trivia regardless of what the section is titled. it should either be incorporated into the article, or dropped. Anastrophe (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed

For being on hold for a week.--SeizureDog 11:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

Where does all the information come from? -- Hoary 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for a failed nomination

It may be helpful to add some imput as to why this nomination should fail in order to facilitate future GA nominations. This article will need siginificant work before becoming a GA, as it's almost in the "Start" grade in terms of development. Why?

• There is no plot!!!
• There is almost nothing in the article concerning the casting, production, etc of the film.

There are of course, many other issues, but those are the two big ones. It's to my opinion, at this point in the article's history, that only the support of a well versed fan of the film can really drive this article forward.--P-Chan 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Plot!!! Clarityfiend 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Quicksand

While Mythbusters debunked the idea that wet quicksand can kill, apparently the same cannot be said of dry quicksand. The appropriate changes have been made. Clarityfiend 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lawrence of Arabia.jpg

Fair use added. SkierRMH 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence DIDN'T get raped

Seriously, thats wikipedia original research at its worst.

It's implied, but you are correct. It shouldn't be written that way. I've changed it back to the way I originally wrote it. Clarityfiend 06:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't state speculation as if it were the truth. However, what we can state is that it has been speculated for many years by many different biographers that what happened to him there was not just some sort of physical beating, but rape. We also have his own testimony that, whatever it was that happened to him, and despite the brutality of it, he enjoyed it. The fact that we don't know, and will probably never know, the precise details, does not mean that he was definitely not raped. But neither does it mean that he was. -- JackofOz 06:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! When something is empirically implied in a film and outside sources confirm it, it is not original research to say so. You're totally misunderstanding what the term means. Original research is for an idea that is completely original (such as new scientific theories), so if multiple parties - such as this review from the TE Lawrence Studies group and by Jeremy Wilson (!) - describe the Deraa scenes and their implied rape as a central plot turning point in the film, it is not original research. When Lawrence gets eyed and fondled by the Bey and the whole time he's licking his bloody lips, it certainly isn't a simple beating that is implied. VanTucky 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Something that occurs off-screen in a movie is inherently a matter of subjective interpretation. It's fine to say that many people have interpreted these scenes to mean Lawrence was raped, but it's not fine to say the movie depicted the rape of Lawrence, because it didn't. Whether he was actually raped or not will never be known now - see this para from our article on Lawrence - "In Seven Pillars, Lawrence claims that, while reconnoitering Deraa in Arab disguise, he was captured, tortured and possibly gang-raped.[8] ... For supporting evidence there are letters and reports that Lawrence bore scars of whippings, but the actual facts of the event are lost. Lawrence's own statements and actions concerning the incident contributed to the confusion. He removed the page from his war diary which would have covered the November 1917 week in question. As a result, the veracity of the Deraa events is a subject of debate." -- JackofOz 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've changed it to explicitly say that Wilson says that he thinks it is implied. VanTucky 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Feisal/Faisal

So what's the deal with this prince? If his real name is Faisal (historically) than why do we use Feisal? Is that a misspelling in the film? --24.239.55.46 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's how it's spelled in IMDb and (presumably) in the credits. There's one place in the article where it refers to the real Faisal, where it's shown as Feisel. For 100% accuracy, I suppose it should be changed, but I'm sure somebody would come along, notice it, and make it consistent with the rest. Clarityfiend 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While watching this move in English class with the subtitles on, I saw that it spells his name with an e. I think that's enough to make the switch. 71.238.35.126 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

wikilinks

The name Lawrence is wikilinked all over this article. Isn't only the first instance supposed to be linked? - superβεεcat  22:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Got rid of most of them. A few are okay. Clarityfiend 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawarence of arabia in India -- Vishal1976

Is it true?

A well-known Pakistani weekly Friday Times (Oct 4-10, 2002, comment page) published the following piece under the heading “Pir Karam Shah was Lawrence of Arabia”.

“According to Khabrain magazine, one Pir Karam Shah active in India in 1927 was actually T.E. Lawrence or Lawrence of Arabia sent to India on a secret mission. He lived for two years in NWFP. He was sent again in 1935 to operate in a number of places in India. He was a graduate of Al Azhar and knew his Arabic. This was the year when the British government told the world that Lawrence had died in an accident in England. In Srinagar, Lawrence started giving sermons in the Hazratbal mosque as Pir Karam Shah. There, a new convert to Islam (after falling in love with a Muslim Gujjar woman), Henry Nedou fell under his charm in a mosque and married his daughter to him. This Nedou was the owner of the Nedous Hotel where the Avari Hotel of today is standing in Lahore. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi of Deoband was privy to the secret identity of Lawrence and warned his Deobandi disciples not to fall prey to Lawrence’s expertise in Islamic fiqht. One disciple had actually become the follower of Lawrence as Pir Karam Shah.

He exposed him by provoking him. He said Shakespeare was actually an Iranian Pir called Sheikh Pir. On this, Pir Karam Shah lost his temper and started haranguing him in English. Henry Nedou had a brilliant daughter named Akbar Jehan who stood first in the Senior Cambridge exam. After shifting from Amritsar to Lahore with his new wife Pir Karam Shah or Lawrence of Arabia started disappearing for half the month and drinking French wine. On this Akbar Jehan became alarmed and informed her father about the real identity of Pir Karam Shah. Henry Nedou called wrestlers Gama Pehlwan and his brother Imam Bakhsh Pehlwan from Amritsar. They overpowered Lawrence of Arabia and forced him to write a Muslim talaq to Akbar Jehan. Later Akbar Jehan became the wife of the great Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdullah. Lawrence was recalled to England and actually died in 1941 during the Second World War in London. He did not die in 1935 as had been announced earlier. One son was born from the marriage of Akbar Jehan and Lawrence of Arabia. She was to be the mother of Farooq Abdullah, the present (sic) Chief Minister of Held Kashmir.”

Since this is an interesting piece of information (if true), I request the readers to shed any light they can on this story.

Dr K.N. PANDITA, Jammu

Sadism

...but the depiction of him as a sadist who enjoyed violence is based on no historical evidence

This might best be re-worded. Claiming that the real Lawrence didn't enjoy violence and that this is based on no historical evidence seems to be in direct contradiction to the T.E. Lawrence article. If it is accurate, it seems he might well have been a masochist, having paid people to beat him, and while that doesn't necessarily also make him a sadist, it would suggest that he enjoyed violence. If the author disputes this claim (sorry, I can't help here), she or he would do well to cite some relevant evidence. --WH

Questions on Sexuality

Shouldn't there be some mention in the article as to the overt references of Lawrence being gay. There were numerous occasions in the film where it is not only implied that he was gay, but also it seemed as though there were implications to him having actual relationships with some of the other characters in the film. I didn't see it mentioned in the article so if someone has more sourced information they should include. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Such occasions in the film being? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue is very complex. On the one hand, as the article points out, women have almost no visibility in this film, and Lawrence's personality is certainly depicted as, in many ways, somewhat strange, eccentric, or odd. On the other hand, the historical literature today generally agrees that Lawrence was heterosexual, albeit, again, somewhat strange (as far as I've researched in the most recent books). However, I would claim the homoeroticism is definitely a subtext in many areas of this film: Take Farruj and Daud. They are almost certainly lovers. I've seen this film at least 5 or 6 times, and I happened to have seen it again last night (that's why I thought of looking up the Wikipedia article). And it was clear--at least to me--that their relationship was romantic, if not also sexual. When Farruj is swallowed by the quicksand, Daud sobs like a shattered lover, and Lawrence consoles him by enveloping the boy's body into his arms and body. This incident reveals an extraordinary sensitivity, as well as the ability to express it physically, of Lawrence to another man. On the other hand, (how many hands so far?), in his interrogation by the Bey, it does seem to appear that Lawrence does indeed have no clue as to what the Bey is after until it is really revealed to him. So: We have contrasting elements in the portrait. Nevertheless, I do think it is a subtext--or theme--in the film, regardless of whether the film stakes any direct claim as to Lawrence's actual sexual orientation. 69.203.13.82 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Allen Roth

One more aspect of the homoerotic subtext is the casting of Peter O'Toole. His looks were not exactly those of a rugged "leading man" type. In this respect, I am reminded of what Gore Vidal said to O'Toole at the time: "Peter, if you were any more pretty, they would have had to call the film "Florence of Arabia." 69.203.13.82 (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Allen Roth

Do I know you?

This quote is not a recurring line in the movie. Lawrence says it once at the end of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's only one place. It is also said when Lawrence finally gets to the Suez Canal, and the British officer on the motorcycle shouts it twice. VanTucky 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a diffent phrase. "Who Are You" is said once, not by Lawrence, and it is generally what anyone would say, because the officer didn't know who they were. "Do I Know You?" Is said once, by Lawrence to a random officer. So it the first isn't a neither is recuring, and the first isn't the right quote. However, I agree that the movie deals with his personal identity, but the line is not a valid example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious Problems

While I believe that all the editors who have worked on this important article about what is commonly acknowledged to be one of the great films of all time should be commended for their efforts - the scope, depth, and structure of the article being beyond reproach - there remain serious problems with the language of the writing in several sections, and I have begun to address those problems.

Most of the sections after "Plot" are highly POV, and as my edits indicate, sourcing some of the provable suggestions will bolster the integrity of the article. Generalized references to Seven Pillars are not sourcing: if these sentences are to remain in the article, chapter and verse need to be cited, and preferably from a source other than Seven Pillars, whose veracity and accuracy have been called into question since its publication.

I have removed this entire paragraph:

One possible interpretation of the film's so-called "sadism" portrayal is that Lawrence's self-described (to Allenby) "enjoyment" of the execution of Gazim is a reference to his enjoying and toying with the messianic overtones of his mission and actions in Arabia. This theme reaches a crescendo when a wounded Lawrence, blood on both palms, walks on top of a destroyed Turkish train in order to rapture his Bedouin troops. The scene ends with discordant music and visual focus on Lawrence's strutting boots as if to say: Danger! This imitation of Christ will end in fascism if not controlled. This interpretation is born out by the text of Seven Pillars of Wisdom in several places.

First, the entire paragraph reads like a movie review, not an encyclopedia article.

Well, that of course is your "POV". The article mentions the well-known controversy over the film's *supposed* portrayal of Lawrence as having sadomasochistic tendencies. I am certain that the film has a different narrative entirely. I would think that alternate POVs are necessary to balance that.

Second, Lawrence's "enjoyment" confession to Allenby is one of wrenching pain, self-disgust, and near despair - the pretext for Lawrence (in the film) imploring Allenby not to send him back to the Arab revolt.

Yes, he is in gut-wrenching pain that his Oxford intellectual messianic games have blown up in his face, and that he is losing himself among the various psychological poses that he has struck. That Lawrence is "playing games" is indicated by the film when he tells Dreyden, "This will be fun." to which Dreyden replies, "It is generally agreed that you have a funny sense of fun." Also, when Lawrence is first given his Bedouin robes by Ali, we are treated to the scene of him looking at his reflection in the dagger and laughing to himself -- clearly surprised and amused by the twists and turns of the mental game he is playing. A serious game, to be sure, as Lawrence himself wrote in the conclusion of Seven Pillars: "I had always wished to feel myself the node of a national movement. Now I had better quit Arabia before authority quickened in me." [Again, my paraphrase.] To be specific: what could Lawrence have "enjoyed" during Gazim's execution? The *thrill* of giving the speech to all of the collected Bedouin: "I have no tribe. Therefore I shall execute the Law." The *thrill* of then succeeding to do it -- of welding together the warring tribes under his persona. But that tragically and confusedly got mixed together with the horror of actually shooting Gazim, whom Lawrence had just saved from the Nafud desert. To underscore the whole situation, Lean has Ali say: "You have given life, and you have taken it away" which is as Biblical/Koranic as you can get. But the script isn't finished with us yet, as Auda abu Tayi brings the entire argument of fatalism vs. free will back (humorously no less): "It was written." (That Gazim must die, after all.) The brilliant multi-level discourse that this film presents makes it one of the all-time greats.

Third, "rapture" is not a verb ("enrapture" is but does not fit here), and in any case Lawrence's stroll along the roofs of the destroyed rail cars is explicitly for the benefit of reporter Bentley, who wants pictures of Lawrence as hero in order to lionize TEL in the public eye.

Bently does invite Lawrence to walk for his camera. But the moment is clearly larger than that. The music swells into a mystical scale with the sunlight filtering through Lawrence's robes as he stands above everyone. The Bedou chant his name, fulfilling Feisal's words to Bently (in the restored version) that "the man who grants victory is the man who is worshiped in this part of the world" [my paraphrase]. The music then descends from this high point to discordance as the camera tilts down and focuses on Lawrence's boots as I had described.

The Bedou are mere props for Bentley's ambition, and the scene is more of a commentary on media and the nature of fame than on Lawrence's character at this point in the film.

That is your silliest comment. The Bedouin have just fought a battle, how can they possibly be considered "props"? The Bedou are celebrating Lawrence's leadership. What is "Bently's ambition"? Surely Bently is not guiding the course of battle, Lawrence is. Bently merely capitalizes on the moment, and helps to shape it, which, yes, can be a commentary on the media especially in war time. Lawrence might be accused of using the Bedouin as props for *his* ambition. The film shows Feisal as being wary of such a possibility: "Perhaps you are just another of these desert-loving Englishman?" The real Lawrence in fact tortured himself mentally that he *might* be doing just that. It was an unjustified self-accusation, as it turns out. But that was one of Lawrence's most terrible burdens (as portrayed consciously in Seven Pillars and perhaps unconsciously in the Collected Letters) -- his over-intellectualizing everything, an inheritance from his Edwardian Oxford intellectual milieu. I think that this *scene* has much more in it than just a commentary on Bently's ambition. Larger forces are being considered here.

(BTW - a better argument for a portrayal of Lawrence as sadist in the film can be made from the depiction of Lawrence before, during, and after the massacre at Tafas where O'Toole seems to be attempting indirectly to portray a man reaching a sexual climax).

Well, hmmm. Not sure exactly what *your* POV is here.

Fifth, the italicized sentence is highly POV, and the subsequent sentence is another example of a reference intended to be a source but that is not.

Chill out dude! O'toole *purposefully* wipes the blood on both palms before starting his "messiah" walk. This is certainly a cinematic que from David Lean. It doesn't mean that the film intends a particular Christian messianism. Lawrence mentions "Moses did" when he decides to cross Sinai from Akaba to Cairo. It's just a cinematic reference to messianism in general. If I footnoted the references in Seven Pillars, the article would become pedantic.

My intent here is not to substitute one interpretation for another, but rather to move the article as a whole past the realm of interpretation and keep it within the scope of sourceable fact. The film is far too important (and parenthetically I love it far too much) to leave this article in its current state, in which it will almost certainly never attain GA rating - or be useful as an objective source.Sensei48 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. You win. Setmose (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)