4 ms·

> The 1962 film based on a romanticized version of Lawrence’s journey... rested on the idea of the ‘white savior,’ whose role was to lend a sympathetic ear to o

> The 1962 film based on a romanticized version of Lawrence’s journey... rested on the idea of the ‘white savior,’ whose role was to lend a sympathetic ear to oppressed peoples and provide assistance to improve their lot in life. I really think this is the wrong interpretation of the end of that movie.

Animats 2y ago
It's very much the British Empire view of the world. Read Kipling's India tales.
- karaterobot 2y ago
  Done. It's got nothing to do with this movie, though.
- Neonlicht 2y ago
  Considering the British supplied weapons, explosives and tactics to the Saudi uprising "white man saviour" is not far from the truth no? I don't know why it is considered politically incorrect nowadays to say that the world as we know it was shaped by white people. Deng Xiaoping himself constantly told his own comrades how fucking pathetic China had become. And nobody could argue with him.
dkarl 2y ago
This didn't sit well with me either. In the movie, Lawrence tries to resolve his apparent split loyalties by bringing the Arab and British interests into alignment and has a couple of initial exhilarating successes, but he ultimately fails, badly. Neither the Arabs nor the British live up to his idealistic expectations. The British use him in ways contrary to his intentions. He also discovers that his own idealism is compromised by his egotism and sadism. The beautiful, dramatic desert landscape, the danger of Lawrence's mission, the high political stakes for the Arab tribes, and the historical context of war all help create an illusion of the possibility of heroic transcendence that is deeply inspiring, but in the end, it is all human and mundane: human vices at the small scale and human politics at the large scale. There is no transcendence. I can see how some people walking out of the theater might have only remembered the feelings stirred up by the beautiful cinematography and the epic score, and forgotten absolutely everything else, but I think it's a better movie for sweeping the viewer up into that feeling before dropping them down into the political squabbling, betrayal, disappointment, and tragedy.
- isleyaardvark 2y ago
  The movie pretty explicitly has Lawrence trying to deal with these split loyalties and has him specifically aware that the result of his actions as a British officer end up screwing over his Arab allies. Not to mention the scene where he tries to pass as an actual Arab, the results of which aren't those of a stereotypical "white savior" story. I can't really say it's not a "white savior" story but it's a subversive enough take on it that I'd recommend it to people who are turned off by white savior stories. The movie has much more depth than that.
panick21_ 2y ago
The movie makes if fairly clear that he is a political tool to help Britain win the war. And he receives the provided assistance to help win the war, not to improve their lives. Its only Lawrence himself who romanticizes his own journy and hopes preserve some form of democratic nationalism. Only to be then synically stabed in the back literally everybody, the tribal leaders, the english politicans and of course the arab rules. My favoirte part of the movie is when the english leader and the arab rules both agree that its good that he is finally gone. This is the origin of the modern battle inside of the middle east between islamic populism (muslim brotherhood) and ruling dynasties (Saud). The movie made this very clear and expicite, and Lawrence himself knew that this was his role, even when he tried to do the best he can for the people he liked within these constraints.

Animats 2y ago

It's very much the British Empire view of the world. Read Kipling's India tales.

karaterobot 2y ago
Done. It's got nothing to do with this movie, though.
Neonlicht 2y ago
Considering the British supplied weapons, explosives and tactics to the Saudi uprising "white man saviour" is not far from the truth no? I don't know why it is considered politically incorrect nowadays to say that the world as we know it was shaped by white people. Deng Xiaoping himself constantly told his own comrades how fucking pathetic China had become. And nobody could argue with him.

dkarl 2y ago

This didn't sit well with me either. In the movie, Lawrence tries to resolve his apparent split loyalties by bringing the Arab and British interests into alignment and has a couple of initial exhilarating successes, but he ultimately fails, badly. Neither the Arabs nor the British live up to his idealistic expectations. The British use him in ways contrary to his intentions. He also discovers that his own idealism is compromised by his egotism and sadism. The beautiful, dramatic desert landscape, the danger of Lawrence's mission, the high political stakes for the Arab tribes, and the historical context of war all help create an illusion of the possibility of heroic transcendence that is deeply inspiring, but in the end, it is all human and mundane: human vices at the small scale and human politics at the large scale. There is no transcendence. I can see how some people walking out of the theater might have only remembered the feelings stirred up by the beautiful cinematography and the epic score, and forgotten absolutely everything else, but I think it's a better movie for sweeping the viewer up into that feeling before dropping them down into the political squabbling, betrayal, disappointment, and tragedy.

isleyaardvark 2y ago
The movie pretty explicitly has Lawrence trying to deal with these split loyalties and has him specifically aware that the result of his actions as a British officer end up screwing over his Arab allies. Not to mention the scene where he tries to pass as an actual Arab, the results of which aren't those of a stereotypical "white savior" story. I can't really say it's not a "white savior" story but it's a subversive enough take on it that I'd recommend it to people who are turned off by white savior stories. The movie has much more depth than that.

panick21_ 2y ago

The movie makes if fairly clear that he is a political tool to help Britain win the war. And he receives the provided assistance to help win the war, not to improve their lives. Its only Lawrence himself who romanticizes his own journy and hopes preserve some form of democratic nationalism. Only to be then synically stabed in the back literally everybody, the tribal leaders, the english politicans and of course the arab rules. My favoirte part of the movie is when the english leader and the arab rules both agree that its good that he is finally gone. This is the origin of the modern battle inside of the middle east between islamic populism (muslim brotherhood) and ruling dynasties (Saud). The movie made this very clear and expicite, and Lawrence himself knew that this was his role, even when he tried to do the best he can for the people he liked within these constraints.