| Lawrence
of Arabia or Smith in the Desert?
David Lean's film reviewed by a
historian Jeremy Wilson
page 2
Contents list for
this section
Preliminary: a note about
copyright
It is a convention that a review may
contain brief excerpts to illustrate points in the work under discussion, and
that these do not constitute an infringement of copyright. Copyright in T. E.
Lawrence's writings is owned by The Seven Pillars of Wisdom Trust. Copyright in
the film Lawrence of Arabia is owned by Horizon Pictures (GB) Limited.
Except where external sources are acknowledged, all other material in this
review pages is my copyright.
The question
How much of David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia is historically accurate?
This question has no bearing on
the merits of the film as a drama or as film-maker's art. It is nevertheless a
question which almost everyone who sees Lawrence of Arabia asks
themselves.
It is a legitimate question,
because the title of the film does not signal that it is fiction. The only
historical disclaimer appears in small print at the very end. Lawrence of Arabia
concerns the life of a real person, and the real history of a region that is
still torn by conflicts rooted in the period 1914-39.
|
Seven
Pillars of Wisdom
'You are intoxicated
with the splendour of the story. That's as it should be. The story I
have to tell is one of the most splendid ever given man for writing'
T.E.Lawrence, writing to
his friend Vyvyan Richards in 1923
'In these pages the
history is not of the Arab movement, but of me in it.'
T.E. Lawrence, Seven
Pillars of Wisdom, introductory chapter |
|
The
Playwright
'Seven Pillars of Wisdom was my prime, almost my only source for
the screen-play. It is a long book, diffuse and detailed. Ten different
dramas could be got from it. To choose which tenth you are going to take
for your drama is an impudent exercise but must be done. You will choose
of course what seems to you the most important tenth. Which tenth seems to
you the most important, and why, will depend on yourself, not Lawrence…'
Robert Bolt, Apologia
(Turner:Bolt
Appendix II, TELSJ V:1) |
Private agendas
Michael Wilson, who wrote the original script, had been a member of the
Communist Party. AT (p.73) writes: "Wilson's first draft was written very
much as a political drama. Although Lawrence is never less than the principal
character, Wilson's interest in the colonialism versus nationalism theme, with
Lawrence caught in the middle, took precedence. Lawrence's sexuality was never
one of Wilson's major concerns; he was more interested in Lawrence's scholastic
pursuits.
"This clearly displeased
Lean, who wanted to paint more of a controversial character study . . ."
I have not read Wilson's
screenplay, and it may well reflect left-wing and anti-imperialist convictions.
In reality, that would not be entirely unjust. Lawrence's predicament in
relation to Arab independence and the imperial intentions of France and Britain
is unquestionably and explicitly a central drama both in Seven Pillars
and in historical fact.
Robert Bolt was initially
commissioned (AT p. 81) to rewrite Wilson's dialogue. However, after reading
Wilson's script he decided that he couldn't work with it and had to start again
from scratch. Despite this claim Bolt did, in the event, use a large part of
Wilson's dramatic structure. This was finally to earn Wilson a (posthumous)
shared credit for the script.
As Bolt had decided to take a
fresh approach, it was perhaps inevitable that he would steer away from the
colonialism/nationalism theme previously used by Wilson (and Lean doubtless
encouraged him to do so). To some extent, therefore, the existence of the
earlier script may have forced his hand. In other circumstances he, too, might
have made Lawrence's political dilemma a central element in the drama.
Bolt, like Wilson, held strong
political views. In my judgment (on evidence that will be presented here) these
views are reflected in his script. Like Wilson, he was an ex-member of the
Communist Party. His political opinions remained left-wing and he was strongly
anti-war. At the time he was working on Lawrence of Arabia, he was a
prominent figure in the British anti-nuclear movement.
As a dramatist, Bolt was
interested in psychological interpretation and moral judgement. My conclusion,
having compared Seven Pillars to the script, is that he hoped in the film
to convey an anti-war message.
This is confirmed in a comment
in his correspondence with Liddell Hart. The letter in question is primarily
about what Bolt saw as Lawrence's sado-masochism and its consequences, and the
self-revelation that he alleged had occurred for Lawrence as a result of the
Tafas massacre. However, in his penultimate paragraph Bolt wrote: "In the
film, in dramatic - and therefore crude - terms I have tried to show this
contradiction in him, show what it cost him, show how use of it was made by the
Generals and Politicians who needed him in order to perform the duties society
had imposed on them, show how War and nothing else was the villain of the piece,
in taking this fine and hardy man and turning his own best qualities against
him, filling him as you say, with revulsion for himself.' (M&R p. 151)
Note: "War and nothing
else was the villain of the piece..."
Therefore Bolt saw Lawrence
of Arabia as an appropriate vehicle for this political message - a message
to which he, personally, was deeply and publicly committed. The dramatic
interpretation that he chose fitted this message.
Their
private agendas made Wilson and Bolt unlikely candidates to write the screenplay
of someone regarded by many as a hero of an imperial war. Without such
influences, the account of Lawrence given in the film might have been very
different.
|
