| Lawrence
of Arabia or Smith in the Desert?
David Lean's film reviewed by a
historian Jeremy Wilson
page 4
Contents list for
this section This is the
last page of the preliminary section. Comments on the individual scenes follow.
Dramatic
themes, interpretation and other historical problems
From a historian's standpoint, composite characters are acceptable, provided
their words and actions are broadly consistent with real people. Brighton, for
example, is well drawn.
The
scriptwriter's dramatic themes and 'interpretation' are a different case. They
are sometimes far less obvious and therefore, given the persuasiveness of the
medium, more troubling.
Here are some
themes detectable in Lawrence of Arabia. They have undoubtedly influenced
the perceptions of some subsequent biographers.
There is
no victory
A glorious and untarnished victory held no attraction for scriptwriters with
anti-war convictions. To avoid that, hubris/nemesis is a key dramatic theme,
used in the film on many levels (e.g. the tarnished events in second part offset
the clean victory in the first).
This not only
led to invention (e.g. Daud’s death introduced to offset the capture of Akaba)
but also to gross historical misrepresentation. The film shows the Arab Revolt
as an empty victory, whereas both directly and by example it had significant and
(for colonial peoples) positive effects. As the French and the British Imperial
Government in India had rightly feared, it was dangerous to fan the flame of an
independence movement - in the Middle East or anywhere else. British endorsement
of the Revolt helped to make nationalist rebellion respectable. Conversely, it
undermined the respectability of imperialism, already attacked by Communists and
by President Wilson in his Fourteen Points. Without the success of the Revolt
and Britain's generous support for Hussein's cause, there would probably have
been a far smoother transition from Turkish rule to the French and British
Mandates in Syria and Iraq. How long would it have taken the Arabs to obtain
self-government in those places? Possibly longer than it did.
There can
be no 'hero' (because war is morally corrupting)
This, as seen in Bolt's letter to Liddell Hart already quoted, is central to
his biographical interpretation.
The
presentation of Lawrence as a sadist, culminating in the account of the massacre
at Tafas, is the key invention that supports Bolt's anti-war theme. He makes
Lawrence responsible for the massacre, representing him as a man degraded to
animal level, completely carried away by blood-lust. I will discuss this further
in the section dealing with Tafas.
Building up
to Tafas, Bolt inserted disquieting dialogue earlier in the film, notably an
entirely fictional confession by Lawrence that he had 'enjoyed' executing Gasim.
Egomania
Given Bolt's
convictions, one could hardly expect him to represent Lawrence as a nice guy.
Part of what A.W. Lawrence called the film's 'character assassination' was the
portrayal of Lawrence's 'egomania'. This reaches its peak of absurdity when
Lawrence declares the Revolt in Deraa.
British
Government policy was evil and manipulating
Both Wilson and Bolt held left wing views. Wilson's original treatment may
also have been influenced by traditional American views about British
imperialism. It may therefore have been more extreme than Bolt's.
The film
suggests that Lawrence was an oddball, cynically exploited for their secret
political ends both by the British and by Feisal. Some post-film writers have
echoed this interpretation - yet it has little basis in historical fact.
Lawrence was not an unwitting tool of British or Arab manipulation. He had been
closely involved in these topics since the beginning of 1915. In real life he
probably had a clearer view than Allenby of British-Indian, French, and Arab
political objectives. Although the film does not show it (focusing instead on
the relationship with Ali) Lawrence was a key adviser to Feisal, both during the
Revolt and afterwards at the Paris Peace Conference.
Sexuality
The screenplay was written 5-6 years after publication of Richard
Aldington’s Lawrence of Arabia, which claimed that Lawrence was
homosexual.
Richard
Meinertzhagen had meanwhile inserted in his Middle East Diary (1959) a
claim that when he first saw Lawrence, he had asked himself: ‘Boy or girl?’
This diary entry, almost certainly a post-Aldington invention, was widely
reported at the time.
Unsurprisingly,
the film makers were influenced by these claims, most obviously in the portrayal
of Lawrence in Cairo in 1916.
Deraa is
the key
In Seven
Pillars, Lawrence presented the Arab Revolt as a triumph for the Arabs,
though a tragedy for himself.
He clearly
set out two elements that contributed to that personal tragedy. First, and in
many ways most important, was the increasing dishonesty of his wartime role vis-à-vis
the Arabs. Secondly, and on an entirely different level, there was his reaction
to male rape at Deraa. Bolt chose to present only one of these two elements,
Deraa. He suppressed the other almost completely.
This huge
distortion has influenced many subsequent writers - even some scholars. It may
also help to explain the continuing obsession in some quarters with Deraa. As I
pointed out in my introduction to Lawrence's Minorities (London, Jonathan
Cape, 1971) and in my biography (pp. 409-11) there is unassailable contemporary
evidence about the extent of Lawrence's concern over the dishonesty of his
wartime role. This arose months before the events at Deraa. He felt so deeply
about it that before the capture of Akaba he set off on what he saw as a
virtually suicidal journey behind enemy lines, writing: "Clayton. I've
decided to go off alone to Damascus, hoping to get killed on the way: for all
sakes try to clear this show up before it goes further. We are calling them to
fight for us on a lie, and I can't stand it."
Here was a
real anti-war theme - but Bolt needed to distance himself from Wilson's script.
Moreover, the Deraa theme appealed to Lean (and perhaps to Bolt himself) more
strongly. As businessmen, the film-makers were putting huge sums at risk. The
Deraa theme was fundamentally sexual, therefore (as anyone in the media world
will tell you) more commercial.
Masochism
In view of Lawrence's post-war writings and behavior, Bolt felt that he was
on safe ground in representing Lawrence as a masochist, even before the Arab
Revolt.
Despite many
(and on-going) attempts, no-one has ever produced any convincing evidence that
Lawrence was a masochist before the war and, specifically, before the events at
Deraa.
"Who
are you"
Another curious theme is that neither Lawrence nor anyone else could work
out who he really 'was'. Despite the "myself" chapter (and most people
could write an equivalent, if they tried), Lawrence can hardly be said to have
displayed any such uncertainty.
Lawrence's
dwindling forces
A mistaken and truly needless theme in the drama is that because Arab
tribesmen went home with their loot after successful raids - Lawrence’s Revolt
was conducted with progressively smaller Arab forces.
Overall, this
conclusion is completely wrong (though temporarily, at a local level, it was
occasionally true). As the Revolt moved northwards it called on tribal forces
hitherto unused. The Hauran forces long known to be available, and finally
called out in the last stages of the campaign, swelled the Arab army to a far
larger size than at any previous time.
A different
issue is the seasonality of the Arab campaign. In severe winter conditions
operations were virtually impossible and the irregular forces returned, on the
whole, to live with their tribes. Almost all military campaigns are affected by
weather.
Moreover, the
Arab Regulars were, by 1918, a sizeable and effective force.
Casual
disregard for facts and geography
It is one thing to argue that historical fact may be sacrificed for the
benefit of dramatic art. It is quite another to disregard historical fact
altogether.
Lawrence
of Arabia contains many errors in
chronology and geography, often for no apparent reason. The script leaves the
impression that its authors thought their art is above such trivial details.
Artistic
freedom, like the freedom of the press, can be abused. If a film purports to be
about real historical events and places, and a wealth of information about those
events and places is available, it is no defence at all to argue that
Shakespeare, with far smaller resources, also made historical mistakes. |
