"Lawrence of Arabia: a film's anthropology" - Steven C. Caton - Chapter 3: "Riding the Whirlwind"

 Chapter 3: "Riding the Whirlwind" Scripting the political in the Spectacle

The screenplay for Lawrence of Arabia is written by Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson. Both had a different view on which perspective they would use for the biography. Bolt had a particular interest in the psychology of each character, but Wilson wanted to take this opportunity for a political message. The issue here was that Wilson was blacklisted by the House Un-American Activities Committee because of his strong political beliefs that leaned to communism. Combining both perspectives seems to be a difficult job. The director David Lean wanted the film to be reflective. In the end, the viewers must have the freedom to critical interpretive the hero and his story. 

When Wilson started in Hollywood his primary concern was a question of representation. How can you give a powerful, political message within an industry that doesn't give you this freedom of speech? Especially around the time of the Cold War, Hollywood and the mass media was very careful in their presentations. There was general censorship. How Wilson got interested in the Lawrence of Arabia project, had to do with its perfect timing. From the 1950s came the deconstruction of the 'Lawrence Myth'. Wilson idea was to makes this a political question: Who was the man behind the myth? Was he part of a propaganda project? Especially Lawrence's 'contradictory character' had to be pieced out. 

David Lean also wanted the film to have that political aspect but chose to show it more subtly. He used particularly Lawrence's character to give critique on European colonialism, so it wasn't too provocative. I believe that as a white British guy Lawrence's position was more secured to speak his mind, even in the social context of the 60s. 

The final narrative structure of the film can be described as a 'whirlwind'. Caton explains: "This could be a metaphor for a man riding political events that are ultimately out of his control(...) on the other, it perfectly captures the psyche of a man with contrary impulses that chase each other around a hollow centre." To connect every part in the film, Lean used the concept of parallelism. It is a regular repetition of certain tropes within the film, in a way that it highlights the meaning of these symbols. 

Combined with other cinematographic techniques as 'Brechtian alienation' and irony, the film had the purpose of being reflective. We had to make up our minds about this controversial figure and about the colonial aspect. Important life questions as, 'Who are we?', eventually ended for the viewers in a self-reflective state of mind. 

Remarkable is that with the mix of psychological and political, with the reflective goal, Lean created a new genre in filmmaking. Lawrence of Arabia could be seen as an "anti-epic" film.  Caton analyzes that Lean has "pushed the artistic possibilities of the big-screen epic as far as they can go" and with that resulted in a new genre. The spectacle aspect of the film wasn't meant to be a pure spectacle. The director chose specific flashy scenes or views, for example of the desert, only to support the narrative. He wanted to set certain moods and highlight certain details that give more explanation. But the "anti-epic" is most visible in the way it questions its own mythical construction of the hero. And the film was contributing to this construction. Within the reflective state of the viewer, there is a sudden realisation that this hero might even be not a hero after all.