Retro Review: Lawrence of Arabia

In 1916, a man set off across the desert to seek out the peoples of the Arabian peninsula, then in revolt against the Ottoman Empire. In doing so he would live on as a hero and a legend in the English speaking world. That man was Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence, otherwise known as Lawrence of Arabia. His deeds inspired many stories from both the First World War and then again in its aftermath as tales of his daring-do were embellished by the media and pop culture, particularly by a great song by Sabaton inspired by the title of Lawrence's own book. One of the most famous of course, would come in 1962 with the film bearing his name Lawrence of Arabia.

From wikimedia commons

Now just to get something out of the way, this film is not by a long shot historically accurate. It contains many embellishments and occasionally outright fabrications of both the man himself and the people he worked with. So don't view this as a documentary or factual commentary on Lawrence's life and wartime career. If you want information on that I sincerely recommend a review by History Buffs examining the film, and the excellent work done by the Great War YouTube channel in examining both the war itself and some about Lawrence. Both are great channels that deserve your time and attention.

Without further adieu, let's get to the review.

Filmed in 1962, the movie was directed by David Lean, a great British film director of the time period. It has a quite amazing all-star cast with Peter O'Toole as Lawrence. The man looks so much like Lawrence that it would have been hard to justify not casting him. Then you have Alec Guinness (of Star Wars fame) playing Prince Faisal, both a real character and an amalgamation of other important Middle Eastern leaders, and doing it quite well. Next we have Anthony Quinn (Antonio Rodolfo Quinn Oaxaca) as Auda abu Tayi, an important tribal leader (and real historical figure). Following up you get Jack Hawkins as General Allenby, and he is further famous for his role in what was probably my favorite childhood movie Bridge on the River Kwai, and he delivers a stellar performance here. Then we have Omar Sharif, a famous Middle Eastern actor and of Doctor Zhivago fame, who portrays Sherif Ali, a fictional character who serves as an amalgamation of various other important Muslim characters from the source material. Finally we have Claude Rains as Mr. Dryden, a very cynical and almost sinister character who first helps Lawrence, but really only represents the interests of the British Empire through the Arab Bureau.

A brief note is that yes we do have a few characters in what amounts to blackface playing Arab figures. If you're uncomfortable with that I wouldn't suggest watching this movie as it doesn't really draw attention to that fact, but it certainly doesn't go out of its way to hide it. The movie is a product of its time so it definitely has some questionable choices in how it tells the story, but for all that, it is still a great film, probably one of the best of all time really!

Plans to make a film about Lawrence's life and his wartime exploits had been in the works for years, but they had all fallen through. Plans to make a film in the 1940s were shelved due to various financial difficulties in Hollywood, while in the 50s there were many discussions, but none ever went anywhere. Thankfully the work done on Bridge Over the River Kwai by director David Lean and producer Sam Spiegel. Having worked together before they became interested in another historic collaboration and thankfully decided they would jump on for another one by buying the rights to produce an adaptation of Lawrence's book Seven Pillars of Wisdom in 1960.

Shooting in such exotic locations as Spain, Jordan, and Morocco it managed to capture the desert feeling it was searching for, and thanks to the work done to bring the feeling of being in a visually appealing wasteland to screen, when you watch this movie you really feel transported to another world! It's had visuals homaged and spoofed in films like A New Hope and Space Balls. The city of Seville in Spain was used as a stand in for Cairo, Jerusalem and Damascus, pulling triple duty as a the capital of three modern countries!

The score was composed by Maurice Jarre and performed by the London Philharmonic Orchestra, and was composed and scored in just six weeks! This is a truly phenomenal feat and the movie is well worth seeing for the sound track alone. Though at nearly four hours long it does come with a scored intermission so you can resume watching at a later date!

Visually, this movie is breathtaking. The sheer spectacle invoked which shows the sweeping drama of the Arabian deserts, the heat of battle, and amazing shots done to show off the acting range of Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif is quite impressive. Wide views of the desert and shots done in large rooms and offices for powerful effect each bring either wonder or quiet dread. That quiet dread is especially important in the political scenes, which all seem to be against Lawrence and his Arab allies, making the pomp and power portrayed in them all the more sharply contrasted with scenes of sprawling Arab camps with some riches but nothing so imposing as what is available to the British officers and politicians.

In shooting the battle scenes we have many amazing views, both of sweeping vistas with hundreds of extras on camel or horseback and then close in shots of the sort of tame 1960s era film carnage. One of the most amazing is filmed of the aftermath of the historically accurate slaughter of a Turkish column as it was retreating from the British after massacring the village of Tafas. This is perhaps one of the most interesting scenes as it shows the films portrayal of Lawrence succumbing to his bloodlust he has been developing since the beginning of his time in Egypt, and he revels in the slaughter of the Turkish column, laying about with his pistol almost indiscriminately, even shooting the corpses of Turkish soldiers. It was amazing work done shooting this scene, and the sheer pageantry of it must be applauded.

O'Toole's portrayal of Lawrence is only based slightly on the historical Lawrence, but he does an amazing job bringing this character to life on the screen. A man fascinated with the culture of the people he was sent to observe, but also a man not used to war. His first great test comes by solving a blood feud on the eve of battle, executing a man he just saved in order to ensure the two tribes do not go to war before they capture Aqaba. The strain of battle and political double dealing takes its toll on Lawrence, but he also begins to believe his own hype and thinks he can deliver miracles which leads to increasingly risky behavior which worries both his British patrons and Arab allies. It all leads to an exhausted and shell shocked veteran ready for wars' end.

His constant companion, Sherif Ali, is well done by Omar Sharif. The character is a proud Arab chieftain who rules his people with an iron fist, but is also a gracious host and skilled warrior. He believes in the vision of Prince Faisal for an Arab Kingdom, but does not trust the Europeans. Believing in Lawrence's abilities he supports and carries his friend (in one case literally) through the war and tries to help him in the peace. In the end though, these two men are from different worlds, making it difficult for them to stay together as the war ends.

These amazing actors, supported by others, craft an intriguing story which is well told on the screen. I was swept away by the battles and intrigue, and Lawrence's struggles and turmoil were gut wrenching to watch as he was swept up in the war. Though the movie is very long, it is very much worth a watch and I would definitely recommend sitting down and taking the time to watch it. Currently available on Netflix, it is absolutely great way to either spend a day or two evenings transported back over a century to the Great War and the world of Lawrence of Arabia.

A Game of Thrones

For the first time in nearly a decade, I delved wholeheartedly into the world of Westeros and the Seven Kingdoms. I begin my reread of the (so far) five books making up the A Song of Ice and Fire series. I start with A Game of Thrones.

Originally published in 1996 this book has set off over two decades of well informed speculation, appreciation and adaptation within the world of fantasy. With board games, card games and the wildly successful small screen adaptation that was Game of Thrones the ASOIAF series has gained enormous traction in both overall media and the fantasy genre as a whole.

It all began here though.

A copy of the book which owes my family and friends nothing

I must admit that at first, I was very resistant to picking up the series. My brother originally stumbled upon it while looking for good books to read. I myself was little intrigued, and instead was trying to continue with various books I was personally reading at the time. I picked up A Game of Thrones very hesitantly and walked into it and came away not unduly impressed. I actually put it down until I saw the first episode of the small screen. Then I picked the book up and read through it as quickly as I could.

This is one of the few times I've really gone the opposite way with a show making me read a book series. My opinion on the show and its ending is available for all to see, so I won't elaborate on that but let me just say I'm glad I'm rereading the book series.

Since then I have sucked a few people into the series, and my brother has never let me live down that it was he that got me into reading it. He was right, I was wrong, and that's all I am going to say about that!

But we start in the foreboding world of Westeros, in the realm of the Seven Kingdoms. Beyond the vast icy Wall a threat of ancient legend is rising, and below conspiracies in the halls of King's Landing threaten to topple the realm into civil war at the worst possible moment.

Our principle view of this world comes through the members of House Stark, little Bran, the girls Arya and Sansa, and the matriarch and patriarch Catelyn and Eddard Stark respectively. They tell most of the tale which we become familiar with, and their decisions will ultimately play a great role in the fate of kingdoms.

The outlying viewpoint characters are those of Jon Snow, a Stark yet a bastard boy unloved by the matriarch. Tyrion Lannister, the dwarf of the rival House Lannister, and finally Daenery's Targaryen, the last of the old line of House Targaryen. These tell separate stories across the Narrow Sea in the Free Cities and on the Wall, showing us separate but no less important plot lines in the whole game of thrones which plays out.

Going back and rereading this book I was shocked at how much my memory had been filtered through the television series. There were bits I had outright forgotten, and characters or subplots I didn't even remember. Getting back into the heads of the characters and their struggles was a very welcome journey for me to take.

The mystery still lies thick upon the story, and the plotting and intrigue between the lords and ladies continue to impress me. I will be thrilled to re-explore where different plots go, and what I find myself learning again as the series is brought into a new light for me.

It opened my eyes to different aspects of the story the show missed, and different perceptions of the characters I had not previously thought about in well over a decade. Ned Stark is a very canny operator who is trying to do what is right in light of his wartime experience, his daughters have both been raised in very different circumstances which influence their decisions, and his wife and sons are all very strong and independent characters. That said, his death near the end of the book shocked me when I originally read it, much as it shocked many other first time readers. The story of Daenery's and her rebirth as it were was also one that I thought I knew, but the reality of it compared to the show did again surprise me! It just goes to show you how much can really be lost in an adaptation!

The remainder of the series is part of my 2020 reread, and I intend to say more about this now ongoing fantasy classic as I dive deeper into books I haven't picked up in over a decade. Rest assured though, it is a series which I can happily recommend to anyone.

Why an Independent Confederacy Would Be a BAD Thing

As it is now April, and something of a self-proclaimed "Confederate Heritage" month, I would like to illustrate why a world where the Confederate States of America winning its abortive war of independence would be a very bad thing.

The American Civil War, for those who do not know, was fought from 1861-1865 over the subject of slavery in the United States. Those states which would comprise the Confederate States were all in the deep South, 11 slave holding states whose economies depended on the chattel slavery system which supported the lucrative cotton export business. The secession was indirectly sparked by the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 after years of rising tensions after events like the Dredd Scott court case and the political bloodshed of Bleeding Kansas. The bloodiest war in American history followed with over 800,000 dead.

The penultimate result was that the American Union was saved, slavery in the United States (and ultimately, the Western Hemisphere) was ended, and in the immortal words of Lincoln ensured "government for the people by the people shall not perish from the Earth."

However, even in the aftermath of the war a "Lost Cause" ideology began to develop in its wake. This romanticized the conflict, trying to rationalize the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men who fought on the wrong side of the conflict. A romantic view of the Antebellum South developed, a land of graceful belles, honorable men, yeoman farmers and happy slaves working for benevolent masters on colorful plantations. Naturally, this made the South look less dark and more desirable in hindsight, which even gave rise to such romanticism in novels and movies like Gone With the Wind.

Literally called The Lost Cause, Henry Mosler, 1868

In reality, beyond this romantic view, the Confederate States was a country fueled by slavery, powered by a strong central government, and a country with internal divisions between secessionists and Unionists. Fellow blogger Sean Korsgaard did an excellent piece on the biggest misconceptions about the Confederacy, and I encourage you to check it out. Had it succeeded in its attempted rebellion, the world would have been a much poorer place for it.

To begin with the simplest observation, the United States, far from girding the continent, would be balkanized into two nations, and potentially more should some sort of secession fever take hold. Instead of a nation stretching from sea to shining sea, you might end up with something looking like this:

Multiple disparate republics hemmed across the continent and a United States potentially cut off from its Pacific coast. Even with just the two, the United States would suddenly have a potentially hostile neighbor on its southern border, one which had just fought a destructive and bloody war against it with the very real possibility it might do so again.

This opens up two further problems for future history. The first is that the United States might fall into isolationism as it has no reason to look beyond its own borders for fear of a conflict, literally, on the steps of the national capital. Hell, the national capital might not even be Washington anymore in this scenario as it might be moved further away from any prospective frontier in favor of some old spot like Philadelphia. A sore humiliation that would be for the United States.

The second problem would be that, without United States proving it could project unprecedented military power in its own backyard, the powers of Europe might be tempted to play around in the New World. Already in 1861 a combined alliance of Spain, France and Britain, seized Vera Cruz in Mexico to compel the Mexican government to pay its debts. This in turn led to France trying to prop up a puppet monarchy and make Mexico a de-facto colony. Spain too tried to seize hold of its old colony on Dominica, fighting a bloody war to try and hold it. They even spent money on a naval conflict to seize guano rich islands off the coasts of South America. Britain too had interests in places from the San Juan Islands to Hawaii, and could have benefited from a balkanized US. The nascent Confederate States too might attempt to seize Cuba as had been a dream of Southern politicians for decades.

Without the United States to exert pressure on foreign governments to ward off these European encroachments, might these imperial adventures have succeeded? Might we see the Americas once again under the European thumb?

From wikimediacommons

Another, and far more depressing, scenario would see the delayed end of slavery in the United States itself.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was by no means a slam dunk when it was initially proposed in 1863. In order to pass, Lincoln had to exert considerable political capital and personal influence to get it through Congress, while it had previously failed one vote already in June, it needed to overcome a thirteen vote deficiency to pass by the needed two-thirds majority. In a situation where Lincoln most likely has lost the election and has no political favors to spare, Democrats who voted for the amendment might feel no pressure to do so, and those who historically abstained may vote to strike it down. Instead of being passed and ratified in January 1865, a more Democratic inclined Congress may instead let the vote die on the floor, and the Republican Party may be unable to exert any pressure to take the issue up again.

From wikimediacommons

Now, slavery would die out in the North sooner or later, there were only 400,000 enslaved persons in loyal states in 1860, and that number would most likely be halved in the aftermath of the war. But, those slave masters uninclined to give up their property or the institution, may keep people in bondage in the North. This does not mean slavery extends indefinitely, but that it may take perhaps a decade to finally end the practice in the United States. A sad fate for many, and a sad coda to a shattered nation.

Ultimately, both (all?) nations would be poorer with a secession of the Confederate states. Assuming no 'secession fever' then even these two nations would be poorer than the undivided United States. Though a United States which has not fallen into more than two nations will still become a powerhouse, it will not be quite as powerful as it was. Still far more powerful than the nascent Confederate States, but not as strong as it would be otherwise. Would it then fall into the system of alliances which ripped the world apart in 1914, or whatever other global system emerges from 1860 onwards and bring North America into a war to end all wars?

I think it can be argued that a world where the Confederate States managed to gain its independence could be considered a very dark world. One where slavery continues well into the 19th century in the American South and beyond. The Confederacy would seek to expand into places like Cuba and Central America, and other European powers would definitely take advantage of a distracted United States. It's a world where democracy might be regarded as bad idea, the American experiment having failed.

Though many entertaining stories have been written about such a world, from one of my favorites the Shattered Nation series and of course the Southern Victory series by Harry Turtledove, to the classic Bring the Jubilee and even an alternate history by Winston Churchill; I think it is better that this idea is merely a thought experiment rather than a reality. It is interesting to speculate on, but not something I would sincerely want to have happened.

Personally, I'm glad to live in a world where the only true Confederate flag was a white flag.