I watched this for the first time ever this morning, all 3 and a half hours of it.
What an epic, way ahead of it's time.
I realize now how far the film industry has degenerated into garbage.
What are your favorite films of yesteryear?
What are the "must see's" of the 50's and 60's?
It is one of my favourite films of all time
It's kind of boring
ive never really appreciated older films but my god when i watched this i was in fucking awe.
I feel the same, having just watched it.
Me too, looking forward to watching it again
careful OP, you start watching stuff like this and it's gonna make 99% of the stuff made now seem like DOG SHIT
(try Dr. Zhivago next)
>Lawrence of Arabia is considered "vintage" now
what the fuck happened to this board
Spalovač Mrtvol/The Cremator(1969)
>babby just watched Lawrence of Arabia for the first time
So this is the patricians of Sup Forums...
they don't make them like they used to
studios today are ran by investors and shareholders bulls
>m-muh china pandering
>80000 people fought in the Arab Revolt
>makes a movie about the one white guy there
As far as I know, Arabs didn't have any cinemas out in the desert in the 60's. The film wasn't made for them.
The film tells the story of a real person- T. E. Lawrence. You clearly haven't watched it
Lawrence of Arabia is literally flawless. Me and some friends took acid and watched it while we were students. Very few films manage to hold your complete attention when you're half insane, but that film... Goddamn.
It's also great to find out how much of a fucking Don Peter O'toole was. He and Omar Sharif (O'toole referred to him as "Sahara Bob" for the duration of the shoot) were almost blind drunk the entire time. Apparently in the iconic close-up of a white-robed T.E Lawrence and Sherif Ali staring at the Turks they were both hammered.
David Lean & Billy Wilder are two of my favorite directors. Their work doesn't feel remotely "dated," and probably never will. Both directors have a very keen sensibility towards dialogue & performance that makes their characters universally understandable & relatable. And needless to say, both of them are highly accomplished & innovative as visual artists in the medium of film.
Doctor Zhivago is probably my favorite film of all time. I've never seen a bad film from Billy Wilder, but I could suggest Some Like It Hot or The Apartment if you're in the mood for a nice movie, Ace in the Hole or Sunset Blvd if you want something darker
Thanks.
Making a list to watch over the next couple weeks
hello grandpa
Anything older than 2000 is old as fuck
this has nothing to do with age plebtard. When you're a patrician who watches an extensive amount of movies, 60's award winning full color movies aren't considered "vintage"
The Apartment's ability to seem like it could've been made today is unbelievable for a comedy.
>People call themselves "patrician" unironically
what the fuck happened to this board
Ben-Hur is GOAT
There is a wide range of ages who browse Sup Forums together.
What is considered vintage is nothing more than an opinion and it's an opinion that adds nothing to the thread.
It is not literally flawless.
There are some striking historically inaccuracies, especially about the protagonist.
it's still a tongue in cheek term, I wasn't being entirely serious
It's over half a century old, how is it not vintage?
A feature film is not a historical document, user. Everyone accepts that going in.
What has that got to do with anything?
They strived for historical accuracy in many areas, only to drop the ball with the protagonist, whom the movie is about.
That is a flaw.
Dr. Zhivago is goat
waterloo
Zulu
> hey, I see you are a vintage car enthusiast
> no, they are not vintage because I still use them
Friend, I don't think you know what that word means.
Was Lawrence a hero or villain?
there's an implicit "rare" in the word vintage. If a car enthusiast saw you call some 90s car "vintage" he would laugh in your face. 60s cars can be vintage because they're rare and not as widely popular as a 60s movie everyone is assumed to have watched at least once in this board. Yes, it's stupid gatekeeping logic, but it's what used to keep this board fresh.
a raped homosexual
Not a single Arabia was an old friend post I am disappoint.
this is the kind of film that was made when jews worked for Hollywood,instead of owning it.
M8 Bone stock 90's sports car are very hard to find, wouldn't mind if someone called one Vintage
Almost anything with Heston is great
being a drunk was super manly back then.
now it's seen as an illness or pathetic self-indulgence.
i remember peter o'toole making a goddam fool of himself during interviews and wondering if he was just acting the kook due to insecurity.
maybe if he was sober he'd reveal what a genuine idiot he was, that sort of thing.
drunks are kinda lame.
they didn't drop the ball they told a good story and didn't feel like they had to include every speck of dandruff to pacify the autistic and literal zombies out there.
There were books by and about the man before there was color in movies. Calm your fucken tits.
You now realize there were no women (who spoke lines).
extremely overrated
you sound like a bitch, tbqh
oh shit.
I guess it was WW1 though so fair enough.
I did notice as I watched that there were no Arab woman anywhere. There was looting but no raping :(
Out of curiosity user, what do you consider a good film?
But LoA was raped.
>uses "overrated" as criticism
To Catch a Pleb
>The expressions on the turks face who is holding his arms.
1962 and they accurately depicted the turkroach
>changing major facet of protagonists personality
>speck of dandruff
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
I am perfectly calm you fucking autist.
It's cinema, relax
You are in no position to be calling people autists
pleb
You're the one sperging out because I pointed out that it wasn't flawless.
I don't see why you're so triggered by this.
I'm not even that user.
Nobody here cares about your spergy opinions
Whatever you say nigger, whatever you say.
It's a film, BASED on historical events. It doesn't present itself as a re-enactment or history lesson, it's a fictionalized interpretation and re-contextualization of historical events. You don't learn about history just by watching films, that's what history books and encyclopedias are for.
I just don't think it's right to call a creative choice a "flaw," except from a very specific & limited perspective that has nothing to do with film criticism. By that standard, there's never been a great feature film made about history. By the very nature of script structure, dialogue & performance, history must be altered & edited for efficient storytelling and intended dramatic effect.
This is another one of those "great movies" that everyone has heard of, everyone has heard how good it is, but I would bet that most people in this thread have avoided it because it's long as fuck.
I finally watched it last year, and it's totally worth the runtime, it really is as great as everyone says.
Great and flawless are not synonymous you twit.
Nobody is saying that it isn't a great film.
You can alter small events, but it's an insult to the the person it is based on when you change their personality so drastically.
What a coincidence, I just picked this up for 99 cents today
Well I don't know if I'd call it "flawless" either, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree on the historical inaccuracy thing. I think the film should be judged as a stand-alone work of art, separately from the real historical events that can be learned about elsewhere
I think a film can only be judged as a stand-alone piece of art if it doesn't have source material.
We're just not gonna agree on that, we're coming at it from different perspectives. It's the same as an adaptation of a novel. Changes are always made, and people who love the book complain about it, but sometimes a straight transcription of the novel would've been worse for the film. They're separate entities.
You don't have to know or care about the real T.E. Lawrence to understand & appreciate Lawrence of Arabia, just like a good adaptation doesn't require any familiarity with the source material