Lawrence of Arabia

Sometimes I think that my movie reviews should be just that, and personal interjections or deviating tangents are best avoided.  On the flip side of that coin; perhaps it's the tangents which make these reviews uniquely my own.  Also considering that my path in life seems more focused on Calculus right now than filmmaking, perhaps it is fitting that tangents take a more prominent position in my writing...

I'm a bit of a movie nerd if you didn't already know.  As I posted a review a few weeks ago I noticed that I'm coming up on 200 postings (well over 200 movies since often I review multiple movies in each post).  I also remembered that my 100th posting a few years back was for "The Dark Knight", which got me excited thinking that "The Dark Knight Rises" was on track to be my 200th posting.  Well, here I am at the 199th posting, about to write about a classic.  This poses somewhat of a dilemma, considering that there are a few movies I'd like to see before "The Dark Knight Rises" is released in just over a month.  I couldn't possibly see "Brave" and not write about it sometime in the next few weeks, and there's a few other movies I'd still like to see including showings of "Cool Hand Luke" and "The Searchers" at our local theater.  Perhaps this doesn't make sense to anyone else, but it just seemed like a really cool milestone to have both Batman movies mark notable points in my blogwriting endeavor.   Of course this could be all moot; the world could easily come to an end in the next 32 days and I may never see "The Dark Knight Rises", or worse it could be a horrible film and I won't even want to write about it.  Now let's get to "Lawrence of Arabia"...

After seeing the clip of "Lawrence of Arabia" in "Prometheus" I placed the former on hold at my library since it has been many years since my last viewing.  I had only seen it once before, probably around the age of 12-14, so my impression of the film was quite obscure.  I remember it being long, I think many actually may have heard me say that it would have been better had it ended half-way through.  I no longer hold that opinion.  The task of reviewing this film is daunting to me, so I will break it down into three categories; the cinematography, the story and performances, and the philosophy.

Apparently there is a high definition film transfer which has recently occurred, which means a theatrical re-release is coming soon and Blu Ray.  I am looking forward to both.  Even on DVD it is clear that this film is a visual masterpiece.  Certain sequences, such as Lawrence walking across the train cars burn impressions of his character into your memory.  Other shots, such as Lawrence's arrival at the Suez Canal must be seen, mere descriptions would do it little justice.  Considering that the desert is itself a central character in this film, shooting on location contributes so much to the look and feel of "Lawrence of Arabia".  I watched a short interview with Steven Spielberg (included on the DVD) in which he mentions that audiences can tell the difference between real scenery and sound stages or special effects.  Going back and looking at "Lawrence" and other epic films of the time, it boggles my mind that any self-respecting director would work exclusively with green screens or on a set if a possible real location would work instead.  "Prometheus" helps prove my point, the best looking parts of that film were definitely the real landscapes.  Movies like "Jurassic Park" work precisely because the craftsmen work so relentlessly to make the essential sets look so like the actual locations, which are utilized as much as possible.  "Lawrence of Arabia" has a train wreck which is far more convincing than the recent "Super 8", I wonder why that is?

You may have wondered at my division of categories, let me take a moment to give a brief explanation:  Cinematography is the way the film is framed, everything onscreen has a visual impact on the audience.  The story and performances go together, these are the basics of cause and affect, motivation, reactions, and consequences.  Philosophy is the reason any of this is interesting or important.  So as I discuss the story and performances it is best not to analyze the morality (or lack thereof) contained within this film, I will simply try to criticize the presentation.  Substance will be considered in the next section...  Peter O'Toole plays Lawrence perfectly.  Quite often during the almost four hour movie, one of my kids would ask "why did he say that" or "why is he smiling?"  They were picking up on the contradictions between what Lawrence had said a moment before and the way he was currently acting.  The screenplay, and O'Toole's portrayal of Lawrence definitely keep the audience on their toes.  The early scenes of Lawrence in Cairo (excerpted in "Prometheus") are wonderful at establishing his character.  He is a restless misfit, who can sense a world of opportunity just over the horizon.  Two great movies come to mind that I would like to compare with "Lawrence of Arabia"; "Patton" starring George C. Scott and "The Aviator" featuring Leonardo DiCaprio.  "Patton" examines the life of a singularly-minded warrior.  His delusional personality makes him a fascinating character, yet there isn't much depth.  "The Aviator" follows Howard Hughes' transformation  from a visionary genius to obsessive-compulsive recluse.  While the story is sadly captivating, it is overall a simplistic representation.  In contrast, O'Toole's Lawrence is a dynamic man, who cannot be easily defined.  In a single scene Lawrence seems disconnected from reality, wandering in a daze and the very next moment is perfectly lucid.  He weeps over the death of a man he hardly knew and later slaughters unarmed men without hint of remorse.  Having the audience question Lawrence's inconsistencies (as my kids were doing) is no accident; he is going mad.  One of my least favorite movies is also about madness; "Black Hawk Down".  The director of that film (ironically) Ridley Scott wasn't content with conveying the madness of a horrible situation, rather he attempted to drive the audience mad too.  If frustrating and infuriating the audience was his goal, then I guess he deserves due praise, but watching that movie is such a horrible experience in and of itself.  "Lawrence of Arabia" paints a coherent, even beautiful picture of one man's ascent to greatness and descent into madness, which amazingly both were occurring at the same time.

Watching "Lawrence of Arabia" with my kids made me pay special attention to the philosophical aspect of the film.  I actually paused the DVD a few times to explain certain scenes or answer specific questions.  One such moment came during a scene where various tribesmen were invoking God's name as a blessing upon Lawrence and his quest.  "God be with you" is a wonderful thing to say.  "If God wills it" might be even better.  How come Christians don't talk to each other like this?    I explained to my kids that some people have false beliefs, not recognizing Christ as God's son, the one and only saviour.  Unfortunately while 99.9% of the people in this movie are claiming to serve God, they are in actuality seriously misguided.  The other .1% is Lawrence himself, he believes only in himself.  What makes him dangerous is his knowledge, he has an extensive understanding of history; he knows the truth but does not accept it.  The apparent contradiction that Lawrence can both hate death and take pleasure from murder is really not a contradiction at all.  The struggle with sin that exists for those who seek to honor God does not look the same for those who are at the center of their own lives.  Lawrence was a tortured man, but he could see no rhyme or reason for his misery.  He found himself in a paradox; how could he define purpose in life if he truly didn't care about the people he claimed to be fighting for?  At best Lawrence is a tragic hero, someone who accomplished great victories which supported a higher purpose, while at the same time losing his own soul.  "Lawrence of Arabia" could be seen as a tribute to an incredible man, I see it as a stern warning.  The best warnings are the ones that really get you attention.

Prometheus

Let me tell you why I liked "Prometheus".  From the opening shot to the film's closing "Prometheus" follows the two most important rules of great science fiction:  First it is visually amazing; even the shots of Earth are wondrous and effective in establishing context for the story we are about to experience.  Secondly, and most importantly, questions are posed which force us as the audience to become involved with the decisions and consequences that occur onscreen.  These questions can be simple as; would take your helmet off on an alien planet?  Or deep; how would a scientific discovery affect your faith?  I went to see "Prometheus" with Rob, and I think that the initial premise of the story was too much for him to overcome; that humans were created by an alien race.  I can imagine that for many reading this review this would be a major hang-up and would distract from their enjoyment of the film.  Let me suggest that the movie isn't trying to preach one origin theory or another, rather the aliens, the space travel, the technology, and the scary monsters are all merely for entertainment value, while the substance of this film is in the questions.  In true science fiction form, there will always be far more questions than there are answers; answers are so disappointing and anti-climactic.  The main characters here are a scientist named Elizabeth Shaw (played by Noomi Rapace) and an android named David (played by Michael Fassbender).  Shaw is portrayed as a woman strongly clinging to her faith, regardless of events which might cause others to fall away.  This is a stroke of genius, because typically scientists are portrayed merely as cerebral, whereas a reasonable person must conclude that any belief system is ultimately based on faith.  Ridley Scott (the director) masterfully establishes Shaw as the center of this film; I was truly sympathetic to her plight and was rooting for her.  Typically movies treat the audience with a childlike disdain; either root for Tom Cruise or the other guy, who by the way is trying to initiate a Nuclear holocaust.  In "Prometheus" Scott allows us to choose who the "good guy" is by introducing us to the characters and asking the question, who's side would you be on?  As was true in her "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" role, Rapace is able to subtly play Shaw as both extremely brave and strong while being realistically fragile.  Her actions never seem like they are plot devices, rather she is a living, reasoning person in an extraordinary situation.  This is well contrasted against the David character, who builds upon Scott's fascination with androids and their unavoidable influence on humanity (and visa versa).  Scott's original "Alien" and of course "Blade Runner" ask moral questions about man creating beings in our own likeness.  "Prometheus" goes further, delving into the irony of men who are searching for answers about their creators, while so callously mistreating their own creations.  David could easily have been presented as an antagonist, yet Scott understands that a intricate android character is far more stimulating than an evil robot.  Early scenes where David is watching "Lawrence of Arabia" clue us in that this movie is aspiring to be far greater than some shallow sci-fi horror flick.  That being said, what would an Alien movie be without some scary aliens?  Here too Scott doesn't disappoint.  The alien creatures are imaginative and set the right tone for the part they play in this story.  The primary alien race which is focused on are familiar yet intimidating, making it possible to conclude that while they should be respected they might be friendly too.  Then there's the more mysterious creatures, the kind that are obviously up to no good.  Scott and his team of effects wizards once again prove that aliens don't have to be big and scary looking to be be deadly.  Personally I'm not a fan of the horror/creature genre, yet Scott uses techniques from that industry to create motivation and tension.  What better way to examine what a person's true character is than to put them in room with a maneating alien parasite?  The other effects were equally amazing; this film was shot in the newest high definition 3D digital format, and seeing it in IMAX is impressive.  The panoramic views and majestic interior shots benefit most from the 3D, and fortunately it never felt like a gimmick. Scott clearly knows how to utilize technology to compliment the story he is trying to tell; I think that all the great directors push the limits of filmmaking but never loose sight of what they are seeking to accomplish. The worst thing that can happen in a movie is breaking the illusion (with the one exception being "Ferris Bueller's Day Off").  I would hate to spoil anything for someone who has not yet seen the movie, so consider yourself warned.  The last ten minutes of the movie contain my only complaints, albeit rather minor ones:  Firstly there is the unnecessary double ending...  I would have preferred the first ending of the ship flying into the proverbial sunset, fade to black, the end.  I know that the second ending was meant for the fans (of which I am one), but it wasn't beneficial to the movie itself and somehow seemed out of place.  Secondly there is the possibility of a glaring continuity issue, if in fact this is the definitive prequel to "Alien".  A very central character isn't where he should be at the end of this movie considering where he is discovered in "Alien".  Because the movie never claims to be leading up to the beginning of "Alien" perhaps there is an explanation for this apparent oversight, so I can't complain too much.  I was reminded of the scene from "Empire" when Obi-Wan tells Luke that he was trained by Yoda, then in the prequels inexplicably Qui-Gon is Obi-Wan's master.  There is a hint of that feeling here at the end of "Prometheus", but I talked myself through it, and it's not that bad.  Overall the ending is satisfactory, and the film as a whole is one of the best I've seen in a long time.  Take that "Cowboys and Aliens"!

The Dictator, Dark Shadows, The Three Stooges, and Snow White and the Huntsman

I tend to take longer to post my impressions of movies depending on how inspired I was by the viewing experience.

I saw "The Dictator" a few weeks back, and while it was somewhat funny, it was mostly flat. My hope for this movie stemmed from the previous experience of seeing "Borat", which surprised me as being hilarious throughout. Unfortunately "the Dictator" was too concerned with its heartwarming and ironic message that it ceased to be a comedy. As is too often the case, once again the trailer really did give away most of the funny parts, with one notable exception involving Daffy Duck cartoons (now I've officially given away all the funny parts making it pointless for you to see this movie).

Johnny Depp and Tim Burton made my favorite Halloween movie, "Sleepy Hollow". They have worked together many times, often with wonderful results. As with the movie I reviewed above, here in "Dark Shadows" it would seem that everyone involved in this movie forgot that they were supposed to be making a comedy. Parts that could have been funny were interrupted by disturbing moments, and the overall tone of the movie was too campy for the disturbing parts to rise to the level of dark comedy. I heard someone else accuse Johnny Depp of being on cruise control in this role, and I would have to agree. Usually his performances are unique and fun to watch, but here it was just blah. This coming Halloween I'll be watching my copy of "Sleepy Hollow" again, and hopefully the "Dark Shadows" experience will quickly escape my memory.

The kids and I saw "The Three Stooges" at the local dollar theater this past week. Personally I've never been that much of a Stooges fan, but being a guy I have a certain amount of appreciation for them and their cultural impact. I do like previous Farrelly brothers movies, and knowing that they're big Stooges fanatics got me interested in what their updated version would be like. Overall I really enjoyed the movie; the Stooges were well cast (Curly being the best), and the story was strong enough to hold together the slapstick scenes and typical Stooge dialogue. Perhaps the best question that could be asked concerning the Three Stooges movie would be, is it really necessary? Of course not, but then isn't that true about so many movies. This was entertaining, and true to its source material, what more could we ask for?

Rob and I saw "Snow White and the Huntsman" the other night. There are certain movies that are really good for the first 3/4 or so, then fizzle out at the end. When it's all over I actually wish that I could have just seen the good part and left before everything went down hill. What would be worse, not knowing the ending to a good movie, or sticking around long enough to know that it wasn't that good after all? Alas, this is one of those catch-22s; one that is impossible to avoid. Even if you swear-off movies altogether which helps you cut out the bad endings, you'll completely miss out on the good movies which are out there. "The Last Samurai" is an excellent example of this unfortunate phenomena, everything in the Japanese village was wonderful, but the final battle sequence and subsequent closing pretty much ruined the movie. Here in "Snow White" there is so much to like; lush fairy tale atmosphere, Charlize Theron as the evil queen, amazing effects, and even good performances from an actor and actress who haven't impressed me with their earlier work. Yet, as is too often the case, the conclusion of this movie doesn't live up to its set-up. Perhaps you could be spared the disappointment of this movie and walk out when the ravens begin swarming around the evil queen at approximately the 100 minute mark. Can you handle not knowing the ending while being comforted with the fact that you were spared a bad experience?

... Neither could I.