By: Shaurya Mahajan
The author is a second-year BA LLB student at Jindal Global Law School. He can be reached at 23jgls-shaurya@jgu.edu.in.
Introduction
Given the understanding of the division of the world into two components: the Orient and the Occident, one might assume that any piece of art addressing any one of the two shall remain restricted to critique concerning the other. David Lean subverts this assumption in his film, Lawrence of Arabia. The 1962 movie delves into the life story and the character of British Army officer T.E Lawrence. Set in the backdrop of the First World War in the Near East, it discusses the Arab conflict with the Ottoman Empire. Despite being a war movie, the movie does not focus on WW1 but instead on Lawrence's eventful life.
The recent events and violence between Israel and its neighbouring states highlight the need to understand the persistent nature of the themes of scenery vis-à-vis violence and the subsequent mythification and to look beyond the bounds of temporality. For understanding the various elements and perspectives it is necessary to critically interrogate and engage with the myth of the man - the story of Lawrence himself. This paper argues that the film presents a paradoxical duality, juxtaposing Lawrence's white saviour complex, rooted in Orientalism and settler colonialism, with an appreciation for indigenous knowledge and culture. This duality itself exists within a contrapositive framework of colonialism where one coloniser (British) is helping fight against the other coloniser (Turks).
White Saviour Complex
Lawrence's story originates in Sharif Hussein of Mecca's revolt against the Ottoman Empire in 1916 to oppose what he termed as "Turkish usurpation and westernisation" (Bayly 26). His third son, Prince Feisal, led this rebellion against the Ottoman Turks, an empire viewed as "nothing more than colonialism" (Dolbee 194). He also takes the centre stage of authority in the film as the representative of the Hashemite family. However, despite his crucial role, he is overshadowed by Lawrence and his seemingly heroic deeds in the film. This overshadowing by the "titular white saviour" brings to the fore what Rudyard Kipling famously refers to in his poem as "The White Man's Burden" (Dolbee 194). [1] The movie shows Lawrence, a British officer and a white man, as the "messiah" who single-handedly unites the warring Arab tribes against the Ottomans. He gives them their purpose and "writes" it for them (Entin 445).
There is a particular scene showcasing the practice of the tribesmen to leave behind anyone who cannot catch up with the rest of the group. This scene depicts their 'heartless warring nature' as their "original sin" and the need for a white man to lead them on the path to redemption [2]. This practice stems from a very survival-oriented strategic approach that seems appropriate for the harsh climate in which these people live. They portray this acceptance of reality with the phrase - "It is written". This is directly contrasted with Lawrence saying, "nothing is written," and his view of this attitude and practice as savage and inhumane, and thus, he goes out alone to rescue and bring back that one person, endangering the entire group in the process. His juxtaposition of his values and morals on a place and people nothing alike and his intention to civilise as he sees fit places him in line with the classical "mission Civilis Atrice" and clearly depicts his white saviour complex [3]. This argument is further strengthened by placing reliance upon the production and reception aspects of the film (Bohne 5). Both these relied upon the nostalgia of the British Empire and its "gentlemanly disentanglement" and altruistic endeavour of the advancement and freedom of a people concurrently "splendid and backward" (Bohne 4). This nostalgic remembrance sparked by the release of the film coincides with the British Empire’s final throes following the disaster in the Suez Canal crisis. This is only strengthened by his trying to impose his ideas of nationhood and freedom on a people that effectively lived non-pastoral lives without any real borders. This imposition of ideas and values creates an Orientalist narrative of understanding the East.
Oriental Gaze
The aspect of the Oriental gaze originates from Edward Said's seminal work, "Orientalism," and discusses the creation and preservation of occidental narratives about the Orient and their root in the structure of inherent power imbalance (Said). The movie fits within the frame of Orientalism both on the scale of individual characters and cinematography. The character of Sharif Ali is initially described as a "greedy, barbarous and cruel man" with the tendency for excessive emotional response and needs the white man's rescue to teach him to stay calm and realise that "nothing is written". The classic cinematographic and panoramic views depict the desert as timeless and endless and ascribe it as "exotic". This is also evident from Lawrence's view and appreciation of the desert and the lifestyle of its inhabitants. It's not just his appreciation but his fascination and exoticisation of it as an object of wonder. Prince Feisal's remark is worth noting when he says, "No Arab loves the desert. We love water and green trees, there is nothing in the desert. No man needs nothing." This quote directly contrasts Lawrence's idea and admiration for the desert.
The stark contrast in the perception of the human-nature relationship reveals the Western exoticisation of nature and the desire to tame it as a wild being. This exoticisation creates a historical narrative of the need to defend the exotic and reflects intrinsic power structures through its presupposition of the 'other' as defenceless (Bohne 7). Lawrence's role as the messiah in uniting the Arab tribes and leading them to victory is analogical to the Orient's need for a formal, rational, masculine West in Said's conceptualisation of Orientalism (Said). Lawrence's perception of the desert as 'pristine' and the relationship humans have with the desert also reveals the aspect of settler colonialism and its foundation in creating an Orientalist narrative.
Settler Colonialism
The aspect of the timeless desert informs the settler colonial fascination with natural wilderness. The movie has Lawrence showing a rather unusual fascination with the desert. It's unusual because it is in opposition to the view held by the native inhabitants of the area. Instead of focusing on the symbiotic relationship between humans and nature that local cultures foster, it focuses on taming the 'pristine wilderness.' This is evident from Lawrence's answer to Bentley when he asks what attracts him to the desert – "It's clean". The desert is not just vast and exotic but also desolate. This desolation contains the essential germ of its appeal – a loss of identity, a subsuming of character to nature, a surrender of oneself to the immensity of the desert. Lawrence's longing to return to the desert depicts his escapist longing to escape the bustling life of England for the exotic desert landscapes of Arabia.
Lisa Korteweg and Jan Oakley discuss recent movies such as 'Into the Wild' and 'Grizzly Man' and how these fit into the settler colonialist narrative of viewing nature as a 'pristine wilderness' and escaping into it (Korteweg and Oakley 132). Lawrence of Arabia, in its depiction of the desert and Lawrence's affinity for the desert, depicts these same underlying themes. This analysis goes a step further to illustrate the temporality of these narratives; a movie from the 20th century and a movie from the early 21st century have the same underlying themes and elements. While the film does portray the settler colonial perception of nature, the analysis would be incomplete without mentioning that the film also appreciates and stresses the importance of indigenous knowledge and cultural practices.
The Duality Emerges
The character of Lawrence is, through his actions, able to effectively convey and highlight the importance of local and indigenous knowledge. Having been convinced by Lawrence, Arab leaders rejected the British military's advice and adopted traditional forms of warfare – a decision that turned the tide of the conflict. This decision was rooted in including local knowledge about aspects such as access routes, topography, climate and more that the British were unaware of. This nontechnical knowledge is the kind that only a local or a rare outsider could possess and comprehend (Poushter 670).
Lawrence himself had a deep affinity for the culture and practices of the Arab people and was, therefore, able to be the rare outsider. It is worth noting that most, if not all, of his innovative ideas, including the storming of the Ottoman stronghold at Akaba, can be traced back to the possession and comprehension of this nontechnical knowledge (Kaeppel 65). Such a portrayal highlights the limits of foreign assistance and intervention and stresses the crucial role local factors play (Poushter 669). This portrayal creates a duality in the film's depiction, where, on the one hand, it is looking at the Arabs with an Oriental gaze; on the other hand, it also highlights the importance of indigenous knowledge systems. This duality is further extended to the two colonising powers in conflict, i.e., the British and the Ottomans, both of whom Lawrence proves wrong by utilising this indigenous knowledge.
Conclusion
"Does the bust of Lawrence belong in this place?" asks one of the people coming out of Lawrence's memorial service at the famous St. Paul's Cathedral. This question of Lawrence's place in history carried through the medium of the film, also remains the central question of this paper. This paper presents the paradoxical duality that the film conveys. While it presents Lawrence as a "white saviour," the film simultaneously acknowledges the critical role of local practices and cultural insights in shaping the conflict against the Ottoman Empire. Lawrence's role and legacy had an aspect of temporality – while he had a large impact on the short-term aspect of the conflict, his contribution did not resolve the long-term aspect of the 'Arab Question' [4] (Kaeppel 67). The film cements the mythologisation of the man Lawrence was, becoming part of a narrative larger than himself. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the importance of Lawrence's story is his story.
Works Cited
[1] It relates to the central motif of white men as having the duty of the “civilizing mission. It is set in the backdrop of the Philippine-American War and called upon the US to assert colonial control over the Filipino people to ‘civilize’ them.
[2] A concept that originates in Christian theology and represents the inherent sinfulness of humanity starting from Adam and Eve. The rite of Baptism acts as a cure for this original sin and could be equated with the need to civilise.
[3] Translates to “civilising mission” and has been used as a moral and political justification for colonial and military interventions. It is based on the belief that Western ‘civilised’ nations have to impart ‘civilisation’ to Eastern ‘primitive’ cultures.
[4] This referred to the question of the lands and people of the region post the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. This question was entangled within European colonial ambitions characterised by secret agreements such as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The question remains significant to date in our understanding of the conflicts in the region.
Bohne, Luciana. “Leaning Toward the Past: Pressures of Vision and Narrative in ‘Lawrence of Arabia.’” Film Criticism, vol. 15, no. 1, 1990, pp. 2–16.
Christopher Alan Bayly. Remaking the Modern World 1900-2015 Global Connections and Comparisons. Hoboken, Nj, Usa Wiley Blackwell, 2018.
Dolbee, Samuel. Locusts of Power. Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Entin, Jack. “Lawrence of Arabia on JSTOR.” The Clearing House, vol. 37, no. 7, 1963, pp. 444–45.
Kaeppel, C. “Lawrence of Arabia.” The Australian Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 29, 1936, pp. 63–67.
Korteweg, Lisa, and Jan Oakley. “Eco-Heroes out of Place and Relations: Decolonizing the
Narratives Of Into the Wild and Grizzly Man through Land Education.” Environmental Education Research, vol. 20, no. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 131–43.
Lean, David. Lawrence of Arabia, 1962.
Poushter, Jeffrey. "Democracy Assistance as Atexvov." International Journal, vol. 65, no. 3, Summer 2010, pp. 669-686.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Columbia UP, 1971.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author (s). They do not reflect the views or opinions of Diplomania or its members.
Comentarios