>literally a 3 hour movie about a faggot who tries to liberate mudslimes from the (((evil white man))), only to realize that he can't because they're fucking mudslides
>10/10 from almost all critics
>(((Spielberg))) loves it
Why did you mislead me, Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
mirror.co.uk
twitter.com
spielberg liked a movie that shows muslims as incompetent? doesnt this run counter to your narrative? also why wouldnt you like a movie like this?
british film us such a trashheap they have to defend and promote their few passable movies to death
>year 1962
find something better from that year
It shows white men as evil oppressors, when in fact it is (((the tribe))) that is to blame, as Spielberg well knows.
You don't understand art and you sholve your politics in anything
Back to capeshit, kiddo
doesnt it portray everyone as somehow at fault? the white men for invading and the muslims for failing to unify?
you need to stay off Sup Forums for a while dude
This movie is kino as fuck fight me IRL
>dumb amerimutt can't appreciate greatest kino ever made
wow i'm shocked
maybe go watch the avengers or justice league, thats more to (((your))) taste, faggot
A year later and better in every way.
>3 hours
>He didn't watch the 4-hour extended version
dumb amerikike mutt
he is talking about why gave isreal to the jews instead of to jordan
>tfw recognize this is a bait thread
>tfw reply anyway
>tfw know Sup Forums will never be patrician enough to discuss the niceties of LoA which is by all regards a masterpiece of the highest order
>tfw to appreciate artistry is to be alone
How did they get away with it Sup Forums?
...
>Turks
>white men
??? What the fuck are you talking about.
Arabs are caucasoids anyway, never got why people make such a fuss about this
it was a different time
everyone on Sup Forums agrees Lawrence of Arabia is a genuine perfect masterpiece, I'm pretty sure this is a troll thread, or some american underage who's into capeshit and nolantino.
>movie literally depicts a 6' 2" beautiful blonde blue eyed white man getting raped by a swarthy pygmy man and referred to as a Circassian
>constantly lauded as a pinnacle of culture and film making
What did they mean by this? Or was Lawrence not raped?
Go back to Sup Forums when you 18, kid.
lol what? Fucking barely.
In fact, Lawrence's entire character serves to show how that's not true. An external force, represented by a white as snow British man, is what's required to bring the Arabs even close to unification.
Prince Feisal is similar. He's an internal force that does (or will) succeed at unifying his people, because he's a product of British education and customs.
The entire film shits on the Arabs for their stupid tribalism. This is made IMMEDIATELY obvious when Lawrence witnesses a man get murdered over a water well. The only justification provided is some ancient familial conflict, which is obviously fucking retarded.
The only people who can bring peace have adopted a Western way of thinking. Traditional Arab culture is presented as warlike and infantile. Did you even watch the damn movie?
>Arabs wanted to be sovereign rulers
>Sherif goes from being a barbarous murderer to an endearing character who is never anything but sympathetic even as a villain
>the British plot and plan the whole time to cheat everyone including Lawrence
ok user
>tfw many scenes remain cut to this day and there is no complete version
>tfw the film is nearly 4 hours but still not long enough
Both you and OP are trying to apply modern SJW politics to a a masterpiece work of art made in the 60's.
Back then, people didn't try to hamfist an obvious political or moral message into every movie or "take sides".
the movie is neither pro-this, or anti-that, its more to show an adventurer descending into banality and madness.
I fucking hate how americans think EVERYTHING must have some political message. Its why america could literally have never made a movie like Lawrence of Arabia. If the Americans made it, it would probably have a forced-in love story, all the arabs would have american accents, and the turks would be doing Heil Hitlers.
>the British plot and plan the whole time to cheat everyone including Lawrence
But that's what happened, half of the conflict pre-Israel is thanks to how Britain divided up the Levant after WW2. Actually the Israel problem is also because of Britain
was it rape?
WW1*
>>Arabs wanted to be sovereign rulers
Do you mean the Arabs desire to have another Arab rule them, as opposed to the British? To a large extent, that's what Prince Feisal's character represents.
Or do you mean that the Arabs want to remain separate, with tribes in charge of each region? Because the film shows how terrible that would be.
>>The British plot and plan the whole time to cheat everyone
This is pretty historic.
Probably, Turks were (are) notorious buttchuggers
politics kills art, art is beyond politics because it's about life of which politics only represents a narrow spectrum
>Because the film shows how terrible that would be.
Reality shows how it's turned out
There's a fucking scene where they're discussing how to form their own nation. Acting as though there's no politics whatsoever in this movie is just being stupid. It means ignoring the obvious historical context of the setting and the real life figures that each character is representing.
I wouldn't say there's a singular "message" to the movie, or a point that's being hamfisted. But there is clearly a comment about Arab culture and customs at the time. Their capacity to fight over frivolousness is emphasized throughout the film and ultimately serves as the reason why Lawrence's attempt at unification fails.
>I fucking hate how americans think EVERYTHING must have some political message.
I'm not even an American you dickhead. I'm just not going to ignore apparent elements of the movie, because I hate Tumblr SJWs.
that's what Prince Faisal actually looked like. mohammed himself had red hair, so there are obviously some very European looking arabs
>from the (((evil white man)))
>turks are white
found the roach
>people call this scene ambiguous
Honestly I thought there was some white mans burden stuff going on, Lawrence keeps trying to make the savages into civilized people but fails, the british and the head arabs know better.
>LoA
???
Turks ARE white. just look at their president. His son is ginger ffs
>I fucking hate how americans think EVERYTHING must have some political message
>Lawrence of Arabia
You either haven't watch/finish the movie or whenever the cultural clashes occurs within the movie you decided to completely mute all your senses.
Turk here. all memes aside, Tayyip Erdoğan isn't Turkish. his mother and father are Georgians who moved to Turkey.
Redpilled mvie about how dumb liberals are
>Lawrence wants to be an Arab
>this is reinforced over and over
>he strongly dislikes British society
>this is reinforced over and over
>hurr durr white man's burden
I get you learned a new term in your 10th grade social studies class but that doesn't mean you need to use it every chance you get reddit-user.
Subah hul hire my fellow circassians
I've read some of his letters and correspondences with European politicians, interesting guy.
One of the greatest films of all time, but Bridge of River Kwai was better.
most historians agree actually that TE Lawrence most likely was not raped, at least not in the context depicted in the film, but did have some sort of homosexual encounter
>>Lawrence wants to be an Arab
Lawrence initially sought "great fun". It is never even implied he wants to be an arab.
>strongly dislikes British society
prove it
Lawrence doesn't fit into British society, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he wants to be an Arab either. He wants to be free and uninhibited. His dealings with the Arab tribes and their brutality is immensely frustrating, I struggle to believe he wants to be apart of that lifestyle.
You should see Passage to India.
>Lawrence wants to be an Arab
he loves the free-spiritness of the Arab, if anything he's trying to combine the best of both worlds, by trying to do good for his new people by applying the best part of "modern civilization" he knew from being a high-class british in the past.
>>It is never even implied he wants to be an arab.
>being this much of a brainlet
>ywn rape Peeter O'Toole
feels bad man
>feels as an outsider among his tribe during his great fun adventure
>wants to be an arab
And you're calling me a brainlet.
...That's not him saying he wants to be an Arab.
It's him saying that because he's British, he isn't THE Arab revolt. In effect, his point is that the Arabs have to find their strength from within and rule themselves. They can't be lead by some foreign authority, whether that's Lawrence or some British puppet.
>one quote
trust in reddit to deal in absolutes.
That was way too preachy. I could never get into it.
That's saying the exact opposite of what you're implying
>guy who got triggered by keywords like "white man's burden" is revealed to be a brainlet who take things at face-value
It's esepcially funny that the poster who used the term said "some...stuff going on", implying the term he's using doesn't fully applies but some elements of it is close to what he wants to convey.
dem raimiposting really did a number on the reddithotheads.
I liked it but i mention it because Alec Guinness plays an Indian.
He was a good poo.
Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula look euro af
I won't even be surprised they were literally right next to europe for thousands of years (North Africa was pretty much Europe as well)
lawrence of arabia is very hated in modern mena and the movie is considered as westerner propaganda.
>film is literally called Lawrence of Arabia
>samefagging this hard while so wrong
lol
>Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula look euro af
>I won't even be surprised they were literally right next to europe for thousands of years (North Africa was pretty much Europe as well)
top fucking kek , you Europeans look like us , we middle easterners settled in our region much before Europeans settled in europe.
Also arabians don't exactly look like you
I know you are trying to make him look bad but I can't resist.
That's because Arabs feel embarrased af that there whole "revolution against the ebil turks" was manufactured by UK and France, to divide up the Middle East
In reality, there was no Arab vs Turk war, the Ottomans were a multiracial state that all Muslims, from Indonesia, through India, to Africa fell connected to. Most people don't know this but there were actually more Arabs fighting on the Ottoman side than on the rebel side.
Arabs today have to convince themselves that the rebellion they instigated against the "Turks" was justified in any way, even though all their problems arise from them splitting up from the Ottomans and creating their own artificial states that are essentially protectorates of the United Kingdom or France
5 posts, probably belonging to 2 anons. You're only proving me right faggot.
It's even evident in the movie when they show Turks fighting in Arabia, and Turkish generals leading the battles against them, when there weren't even that many ethnic Turks fighting in the Arabian Peninsula, it was mostly Arabs and Arab generals under the Ottoman Empire
Yeah, I don't know what Arabs this guy is talking about. Many of the Arabs from the Arab peninsula I see look half-black, like the guys in the pic you posted.
If he said Levantine Arabs then he might have a point. There is a sizable population of assimilated Lebanese where I live, and most of them just look Italian or Greek until you find out about their background.
The ambiguity of LoA several decades later is why it's such a great film. I've never read a definitive breakdown of its meaning, if it exists. But it's not an "anti-white film" as OP screeches. I view it as a dark comedy about a homosexual who whips the Arab world and British empire into a frenzy, due to his own vanity and misdirected energies in lieu of sex.
In a way, Lawrence is like the proto millennial. He's acting out like an actor in a play, full of grandeur, and the British empire is happy to fund his bullshit as an experiment, a lark. But Lawrence doesn't have the intelligence to consider the consequences of his actions, nor does he believe he can miserably fail.
So Lawrence is a metaphor, the embodiment of madness and chaos throughout history. He's a storm of personality, an admirer of the dust clouds he makes, not of what is left in his wake. That's my read of this film, and I could be mostly wrong. The great irony is that Lawrence's narcissism lends itself to the great movie of all time, redeeming himself some what, asking us if he was before his time or a horseman of self-involved doom prognosticated for the white race.
>Yeah, I don't know what Arabs this guy is talking about
You can thank KANGZ for the confusion, BLM and other retarded black tweets/fb posts aside, modern day media has duped enough people who has no to very little travel experience and dealings with foreigners to believe that nothing exists beyond Whites, Blacks, and Asians.
Ottoman Arabia would have been 100x better than the shit excuses for countries that exist in the Middle East today
Funfact: It was the Ottomans that first fought the Wahabbis (and Wahabbism spawned as a revolt against Ottoman rule), which is the ideology that is followed and espoused by Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda, and ISIS
I disagree on some points you said like claiming most muslims felt connected to the ottoman empire including arabs because alot of arabs did hate the ottmans especially the levantine arabs and the shia muslims , but yes the arabs now in general consider the whole ww1 in the middle east as a british plan to decide Muslims and Arabs and that Sykes picot ruined the region and the brits were huge fat liers because they promised them a huge stong state and instead they became colonies.
>The ambiguity of LoA several decades later is why it's such a great film.
There's really no ambiguity. It's a Nietzschean tale. Your analysis is retarded.
false the saud family just wanted to rule and dominate Arabia , wahhabis became relevant in saudia in the 60s and not in ww1 era
kek do some whites really consider it as an anti white film ? Here in mena it's considered as a pro westerner, anti arab/muslim movie
>It's a Nietzschean tale
Hi college student, please enlighten using specifics not generalities you spout to girls in hornribbed glasses on the cafeteria line
>hornribbed
plebes need not apply
I dunno, but when I watched it, the homosexual undercurrents were undeniable, yet no friends or family or film nerds had the slightest idea what I meant. So that was awkward. Hence why I say it's an ambiguous film. Its scope is highly prased, its meaning is rarely addressed directly.
He blew you the fuck out, college student.
>the homosexual undercurrents were undeniable
please elaborate, I felt nothing of the sort until that scene happens.
>everyone who isn't an archetypal normie must be gay
ugh
fag
The emphasis on his overly good looks, the vanity about his appearance, the indulgent way he carries himself, his lack of interest in women and fucking. There's the scene with young boys at the oasis that really stood out to me. He's arguably a sociopathic faggot dancing on the world's stage, unconcerned with British interests, consumed with his personal image and day dreams. I've read quite a few essays about Lawrence's perceived homosexuality, I believe his family even had to release a statement denying it irl.
Try to raise your discourse beyond typing nigger-tier farm noises, thanks.
>With the resignation of the Ottoman Empire from the war with the Armistice of Mudros between Ottoman Empire and Entente on 30 October 1918, it was expected that Fahreddin Pasha would also surrender. He refused and did not surrender even after the end of the war despite pleas from the Ottoman Sultan. He held the city until 72 days after the end of the war. After the Armistice of Moudros the closest Ottoman unit was 1300 km (808 miles) away from Medina.[8]
>also tried to blow up the great mosque when the french and british tried to get him to surrender
Why didn't you save him Sup Forums?
Hmmm, yeah i remember that oasis scene. White people here in mena and especially in North Africa are considered as pedophile predators.
>The emphasis...fucking.
I just dismiss that part as him being from a high class, western enviroment, serving to exaggerate his difference from the Arabs to build up the change that was going to take place.
Women and sex are relatively unncessary to me in this movie because they are not what Lawrence is looking for.
>There's the scene with young boys at the oasis
The part where he met those two kids who want to be his servant? I thought they were just there for comic-relief.
I need to watch the extended version in the future anyways but those things you made really didn't stood out to me at my first viewing.
Well, like I said, I was confused that few others picked up on the homo subtext of the film, but it's been widely debated for decades, simply google and "homosexual" appears beside the title in top listings.
Example: mirror.co.uk
>The part where he met those two kids who want to be his servant
Yep, "serve" him, this subtext is pretty blatant man.
>all servant boys are fuckslaves too
Maybe your projecting your own pederasty
it's not his fault, colleges encourage idiot kids to see degenerate subtext in art, it's considered progressive
College courses usually have the courtesy of attributing that sort of interpretation to a specific school of theory (psychoanaylsis etc.) so you know there's other ways of looking at it. That user states it like it's a fact.
Lol, GTFO
>David Lean confirmed this: "Yes. Of course it is. Throughout. Lawrence was very, if not entirely, homosexual. We thought we were being very daring at the time: Lawrence and Omar, Lawrence and the Arab boys."
I think LoA is at it's core a critique of 'Great man history'. I would say that's the number one theme, with everything else secondary.
...
>turks
>white
at least you got the evil part right
Did you even read the book, brainlet? Also, stop posting that roach, I should sleep it's too late to jack off.
>people actually responding seriously to this shit bait
I fucking hate this board