📰 Print ⏬ Download 📚 Rewrite ⇗
≈2294 words, ≈7.3 pages (Arial, 14 size)
Cite this essay: APA, MLA, Harvard and other ↓
≈2294 words, ≈7.3 pages (Arial, 14 size)
Cite this essay: APA, MLA, Harvard and other ↓
difficult to write a review of films such as "Lawrence of Arabia." Because on the one hand, I want to say very much, but on the other - you know what to tell you and there is nothing special. To say that this is a brilliant, unforgettable film will, of course, right and just, but it did not say about the film. Can be long talk on the subject of this film like no other has had an impact on world cinema, that beauty, purity and deep symbolism of visual range that film has no equal, and that in its apparent simplicity and linearity is full of metaphors and symbols. And it will certainly be properly
Similarly, you can endlessly admire the excellent direction of David Lean, who managed to combine in one film absolutely seemingly incongruous things -. Epic scale, whose dynamism and originality are outdated even for a day, and an amazing subtlety chamber of the film, in which every dialogue, every intonation of the hero carry a huge load. And this, of course, also be right, but here's the problem - the essence of the film does not give
It will not be able to explain its incredible appeal, its ability to stun and amaze.. The bottom line is that David Lin managed to create a clean piece of art, in which each frame is worthy of a separate eulogy and lectures on the topic "This shot in the history of cinema." It is no secret that, shooting this film, David Lean set itself a truly ambitious task - to shoot a film in its purest form. A film in which the story would have been told by no dialogues or narration, but through a series of visual, through images. And we can say with certainty that he succeeded. Because as a result the film to get a real cinematic jewel, each face that shines brighter with time only.
But the big, you know, the question is, what would be this film without the leading man, the marvelous Peter O 'Tula. That O 'Toole was the heart of this film, and in all that concerns him, I absolutely deny any sense of proportion - to admire this great actor, this great role, I can without a break for sleep and rest. His performance in this film ... it was somewhere beyond genius. She's brilliant. In general, as I have noticed about O'Toole, there are two conflicting versions. The first is that O'Toole was average actor, who was lucky to get into a great film, a truly brilliant director. According to the second, it was game O'Toole made "Lawrence of Arabia" great film. So here I am firmly convinced of the correctness of the second version. Yes, and without O'Toole's "Lawrence of ..." would have made perfect film. But it is a game, Peter made this film great . Make it a masterpiece for all time.
His performance gives the film the splendor and emotion, without which there is no masterpiece. His play brought the film to the level of genius, it is impossible to go beyond that - simply because there was nothing there and followed him. And his game ever made accusations of "academicism", which was fashionable to denounce many of the films of those years, blasphemous. After all, as a result it turned out that even the greatest actors rarely get - a living person. Not clichéd character with a standard set of characteristics, namely that a living person - a strikingly vivid and tangible. But in all respects, this hero had to get dry and confident walking stamp. And the result would be, if not Peter O'Toole, the actor made a real feat.
His Lawrence is human so that you can not even first to understand how this challenging role. This is not a set of stamps, a living man - infinitely strong and vulnerable, complex, ambiguous, and filled with the true human warmth. Personally, I remember, the first 10 minutes looked at Lawrence with a slight perplexity - what's this? But in those 10 minutes, I could not take my eyes off him. Only later, more or less regained consciousness, I realized that impressed me the most - the fact that the actor did not play a role. He just lived on the screen, and it was not Peter O'Toole, it was Thomas Edward Lawrence himself in the flesh.
It's an incredibly challenging role. Incredible. One wrong move - and the hero of "slips" and the magic will evaporate without a trace. After all, only through O'Toole film it became not consistent and leisurely synopsis of the Arab uprisings as a whole and the life of Colonel Lawrence in particular, a striking and uncompromising story of a man who gradually comes to its limit, "obsolete" themselves. Thanks to him, "Lawrence of Arabia" and to this day is one of the greatest films in cinema history, not bulky monument of the Great Style, with their glorious scenery and crowds of extras in full size. And to say that the actor in such films is supported by the epic background (due to which, they say, and it turns bright character) will be wrong. Any other actor epic backdrop of such a grand film, as "Lawrence of Arabia", would simply crushed. He crushed or pushed into the shadows. Peter O'Toole is against this background that not only did not get lost, but was able to subjugate it, to make this film in fact a benefit ... no, not even himself, and in fact his hero.
most valuable, not tire of repeating, O'Toole in the game is the fact that thanks to him, we see a living hero, and because of this view of many scenes in the film is a kind of test of the spirit. In one of the most striking scenes of the film Lawrence, previously gave the order to take no prisoners, wild-eyed shoots unarmed Turks, and when it ends cartridges, grabs the knife. Look at him at that moment really hard. And it's not some kind of otherworldly bloody scenes, but in the fact that, thanks to the game we like O'Toole are now next to the hero - and feel completely contradictory feelings which we felt would be in reality. Fear, shame, rage - because he and Lawrence now menacing and pathetic at the same time
He's really not playing this role, he lives it on the screen, and all his actions and speech bubbles -. It is deeply personal experiences. Personal to the point that sometimes uncomfortable to watch a hero - because it creates a feeling that you're behind them peep. It is striking also that in this role, which is often called romantic, on closer inspection there is nothing romantic. Lawrence by Peter O 'Tula - a selfish, arrogant, aggressive and self-absorbed poseur going on about his own fatality. A man for whom nothing is destined - in the sense that no one dares to stand in his way. The man, whose generosity is proving to be a beautiful name for his self-affirmation. A person who suffers a crushing finale in collapse, confined in a trap of his ambition and self-centeredness.
When the end of the film we see some kind of bitter, empty face of the hero, we suddenly realize that he's never happy in this life will be. And all this complex range of feelings the actor conveyed not through long monologues, and glances, half-tones, facial expressions. Brilliant, amazing role played at the same time with such an external ease, that the term "play" here and does not apply. Not played - I lived
You know, I'm an adult, who has long been deprived of illusions about the various film awards, especially the "Oscar!". I know that the award often accrue not to those who deserve it. Suffice it to recall that the greatest film of the XXI century "Lord of the Rings" (yes, that would still not removed subsequently, it is the "Lord of the Rings" will be the greatest film of the XXI century!) Got a well-deserved reward only the third call, and all becomes clear. Again, I understand. But if I remember what Peter O'Toole did not give the "Oscar" for his role as Laurence as his fists convulsively compressed, and his eyes were dark with anger. In general, my friends, is called: «No prisoners!»! I do not understand how it was possible not to award for this role - because I sympathize with the views of the journal «Premiere», to call this role the best acting work in cinema history. Suffice it to say that since the first time I looked, "Lawrence", no one actor and no part can no longer strike me. Such roles gets the once in a lifetime - it's true, but the images are of such a force once in a century
's about at this moment, I usually start to feel light remorse.. Of course, Peter O'Toole - genius and my favorite actor. But it must be noted that other actors working in the film are flawless. Especially worth mentioning intoxicating Alec Guinness in the role of Prince Faisal and the inimitable Anthony Quinn in the role Audy Abu Taya. Oh, it's just a workshop, not a game! Especially Guinness - what type, what elegance image as significantly, savoring every word he utters his lines ( «Wich is why my father made this war upon the Turks My farher, Mr. Lawrence, not the English.») ! Look at him - an indescribable pleasure (one wonders where his "Oscar" for supporting actress?)
is unparalleled Jack Hawkins as General Allenby -. Truly, there are no small roles, there are small actors. And just shamelessly good Omar Sharif in his first Hollywood role. His character - a real decoration of the film, charismatic, handsome, mysterious. Although for me the value of Sharif in the film are not limited to decorative functions. Most of all I appreciate his great duet with Peter O'Toole - one of the brightest duos in my memory. As they say in such cases, between the actors appeared serious "chemistry" - and the relationship of his characters are shown so that straight right now to run out into the yard and start playing in "Ali and Ourense" (I can for Ourense ...?). And showed that amazingly, without any hysteria and snot in "Alexander," Oliver Stone's spirit. And showed such restraint (even sparingly, in the opinion of modern audiences), but surprisingly vivid and touching.
Summing up, I would like to make one more, final, thought. About the film (well, however, as well as about many truly brilliant films) often say - "Now do not shoot." In general, it's hard to disagree. Today, the film with the application "Based on a true story" is bound to be a long, tedious and ponderous, with playing without any flashes of inspiration, like a textbook, actors. We filmed a lot of these, and will be charged more. And they, having received numerous awards, thoughtfully and with dignity, sink into oblivion. A great film David Lean will always remain for them a living reproach - because then, more than 40 years ago, the English director without any pathos, but with sincerity and drama took one of the best films of XX century
But the secret charm "Lawrence. Arabian "lies not in the time interval in which it was filmed. It's not the fact that in those years were shooting better or the actors were talented. And not even the fact that the actual protagonist of the film - the identity of more than a mysterious and interesting (there is where to turn). The point, again, is not the point. Just then all that has come together - a brilliant director, who shot his best film and a terrific actor who played his best role. And the result was the film, after watching that once and for all understand what the magic of cinema.