Lawrence of Arabia: 1962

I finally caught up and filled in the gaps in my blog by watching Lawrence of Arabia, the 1962 film that won Best Picture, and it was no small accomplishment...the film is 217 minutes not including the intro and intermission music. The story was interesting: Lawrence is a soldier in the British Army during World War I. He is stationed in Arabia, where the Arabs and British are fighting the Turks. For some unclear reason, Lawrence is fascinated by Arabia. At times it seems like his desire to help the Arabs is to give them freedom and to help them create their own nation. But most of the time it seems like Lawrence helps the Arabs because they idolize him. Lawrence thrives on this attention, becoming drunk on the power it gives, but this power causes him to become arrogant, causing his downfall.

Having an engaging story makes the film easier to watch since the length of the film is overwhelming. And at times, unnecessary. The director David Lean was clearly a fan of the extreme long shot as a means to set the tone. The desert is a brutal, cruel, yet beautiful landscape, and its contrasts support Lawrence's internal conflict. He knows that blood must be shed yet he cannot bear to watch. Later, he seems bloodthirsty. While I appreciate the director's intentions with the desert shots, there are definitely more used than necessary. Perhaps Lean wanted us to feel like we were on Lawrence's journey with him, under the unrelenting sun and blistering heat and dealing with the fighting Arab tribes.

Lawrence in the desert

I think what made me like the arrogant Lawrence is when he defends the Arabs to the British officers. There is clear prejudice; the British see the Arabs as dirty, barbarous people (something Lawrence actually says to one of the Arabs before he becomes one of them). Lawrence becomes an advocate for the Arabs, wanting them to have the freedom to govern themselves, but he knows that the British Army is acting in the interest of the British Empire, which wants Arabia as part of its empire. In the interactions between the British and the Arabs, the British look down upon the Arabs. In one scene, Lawrence arrives with his servant, a boy he rescued, and when they enter the officers' bar, the other officers want the boy kicked out because he's an Arab. Lawrence defends the boy:

Lawrence's defense of Farraj shows Lawrence's decency. Yes, he may be full of himself, but he does seem to actually care.

I can't say I'd watch this film again; once is enough for sure. But surprisingly, I actually enjoyed the film. The story was interesting, and the characters were thoughtful. I could do without the long desert shots, but that's really my only complaint.

Tom Jones: 1963

Tom Jones is a bad boy with a good heart. Based on Henry Fielding's novel of the same title, the film Tom Jones shows us that any man should be forgiven for his behavior as long as he has good intentions and as long as he has true love. I'm not sure I agree with this part as although Tom is charming and kind he's a complete player and I doubt he's going to change his ways after marrying his true love.

The storyline is fairly simplistic: Tom grows up, falls in love, behaves badly, embarrasses family, leaves home, and returns to their favor after some truth is revealed. There wasn't anything about the story or the characters that I found really interesting. Some of them are stereotypical: the drunken aristocrat, the servants, the uptight cousin, etc. Lacking originality in story and character makes Tom Jones a surprising pick for Best Picture, so I began to think about other reasons why the film was selected...and I'm still thinking, two weeks after watching the film. I'm at a loss.

My main problem with Tom Jones is that it doesn't seem to have aged well. The cinematography seems dated. To transition from one scene to the next and to add comic effect, the director used a spotlight transition where as the screen went black, there was a circle that zoomed and focused in on one character's face who was either the troublemaker of the scene or the one who would have a smirk. It came across as cheesy instead of funny, but perhaps when the film was first released, this was seen as clever. Another characteristic of the film was the use of montages and extended non-speaking scenes where we see Tom fall in love or flirtation. In one scene, Tom and Mrs. Waters share a meal, and to build sexual tension, the director cuts from Tom to Mrs. Waters repeatedly as they eat. The characters begin to eat the food more suggestively, wordlessly communicating their desire. It comes across as ridiculous, which initially may have added to the comedy of the film, but it didn't have that effect for me.

In the end, Tom Jones was a disappointment. I didn't find it humorous...I didn't even find it somewhat interesting.

My Fair Lady: 1964

I watched My Fair Lady once, but since I was in high school and thought I knew everything but really didn't, I don't think I appreciated the film the way I should have. I remember liking the music, but I don't think I paid much attention to Eliza's situation after she has been transformed into a "proper lady." After Professor Higgins teaches Eliza how to dress, behave, and speak, she no longer fits into her old life as a flower girl, selling small bouquets of flowers on the streets of London. Yet she doesn't feel as if she belongs in high class society either. Eliza becomes homeless in a sense, as she has no place in society to belong. And the worst of it is that Professor Higgins doesn't understand her problem nor does he seem to care. He's far too busy gloating over his success at changing her while Eliza is beginning to realize that she didn't need to be changed in the first place...all she needed was someone to treat her with some respect, with some kindness. Eliza's story, then, becomes a commentary on social classes and early 20th century London: the lower classes shouldn't change who they are, the higher classes should change their perception.

As far as the cinematography, the film has some interesting transitions. When Eliza's father is about to enter the scene and a new day has started, the director has the extras enter the scene in small groups, take their places, and freeze. After several groups have entered and the scene seems full, the groups remain frozen for just a moment, and then, as if a switch has been flipped, the scene comes to life. Similarly, for the horse race scene, the director starts the scene with everyone frozen in place:

Of all the films I've watched thus far, I don't remember any of them using this technique to change scenes. The director only uses it a few times, but it's effective for showing the differences between the two social classes. The first transition with working class people shows individuals starting work for the day; that scene has them entering and freezing whereas the race scene all the upper class people are already in place, as if they don't have the same urgency to get to work. It's subtle in how the two transitions differ, but the transitions themselves really stand out in the film.

As for the music, it seems like My Fair Lady had more songs than West Side Story but the songs were much shorter. In that way, My Fair Lady makes me think of a typical musical: characters break into song whenever and wherever and just as easily stop singing  when they've expressed whatever they wanted to express in song. So for someone who doesn't care for musicals, this one would probably be more difficult to sit through than others.