LAWRENCE OF ARABIA at NYC's Ziegfeld Theater in September! (1 Viewer)

[SteveP]

I must say I do feel blessed to have experienced several 70MM films on the deeply curved Dimension 150 screen at the legendary Rivoli Theatre in Times Square in the 1970's

 

[Zach K]

I didn't really mean that as an insult of the visual process employed in this film. I assumed this was technicolor based on the "look" of the film. Forgive my ignorance. By "dated" I meant that it gave away the age of the film, not meant as any derision. Most modern films simply don't have the saturated color balance that was prevalent in films of the day, that's where my assumption was wrong.

 

[Brook K]

Great news that it's coming to Atlanta. I saw it in 70mm here in '99 and will love seeing it again.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

Zach, if you were at the 1:00 PM showing, then you just missed me! I was the lonely guy sitting way in the back. New verdict: A great film that is not without its flaws. More on that later.

 

[Robert Harris]

Zach K on color:

What you're seeing as the difference between "modern" and "classic Technicolor" (sic) films is neither the age of the film nor the photographic process, but rather, a high speed, one-lite dupe as opposed to a timed print made at slow/normal printing speeds.

RAH

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Here is the most recent article on the re-release of this great film. This one comes from the Los Angeles Times Calendar Section. Click Here.
Only three more days.....

 

[Andrew_Sch]

OK, here's my full report:
In short: It doesn't suck!!!
Longer Version:
First, the good: First of all, what an experience!!! Part of the this is credited to the theater and not the movie, but this is one of the only times I've been to a movie that was somehow more than a movie. As soon as the overture started playing and the curtain remained closed, I knew this was something special. After the curtains opened, it only got better. For the first two, two and a half hours, I was completely enthralled by the striking beauty of the desert imagery. From Omar Sharif's entrance, to the daring rescue in the sun's anvil, to the appearence of the ship in the Suez Canal, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen.
Then something happened. Lawrence left the desert. That was not good. This is a desert film, and when it leaves the desert, it drags...and drags...and drags. They could have done something, anything to make the last hour or so of the movie a little more compelling. If it had been half as good as the opening two hours, I wouldn't hesitate to give this film as much credit as even Rob Tomlin himself gives.
As it stands, the last hour could be two monkeys playing catch with their own feces and it wouldn't take away from the brilliance of the first two hours. All in all, I'm very glad I gave this (IMO) brilliant, flawed film another chance, and I'd like to thank (or blatanly suck up to, depending on how you look at it) Mr. Robert Harris and the Senator theater for a wonderful presentation. I didn't know new films, let alone 40-year-old ones, could look this good. God bless 70MM.

 

[Robert Harris]

Andrew --

Your comments on LoA seem to synchornize with the textures and storyline of the two parts of the film.

While the first part (135 minutes) follows Lawrence's triumphant rise from military cartographer to larger than life desert hero, the second part tracks his betrayal by the British military and government, which as part of the Sykes-Picot Treaty arranged between themselves (a British civil servant and a French civil servant ) to part out the territories controlled by those who became Lawrences's friends and allies. The British and French
"allowed" Lawrence to win the territories with the help of the Arab Tribes in flushng out the Turks, so that their land could then be broken up by and between France and England, which led to many wars which the world still faces today in the Middle East. There is more going on in LoA than one can easily discern from the surface.

Watching someone we have come to like and respect take a downward spiral, both outwardly and inwardly is not easy to watch, and it is this which makes the second part of LoA a difficult view for some.

As Allenby says in a bit of missing dialogue from the balcony seduction in which he places himself in a paternal position Lawrence, in order to have him return to Arabia...

"You've had a glimpse of the pit."

Its obviously not a fun place to be. Nor is it supposed to be. The fact that you were troubled by the second part speaks well of both the film and for you. It worked as it was intended.

RAH

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Mr. Harris' response to Andrew's post said pretty much everything....in a very eloquent manner, I might add!
After the intermission, the movie does take on a different tone. A troubling one. After all that this man went through (the daring rescue in the desert, having to execute that same man later on, getting the Arabs to stop fighting among themselves and to unite in fighting the Turks, crossing the "uncrossable" Nefud Desert, invading Aqaba by land, etc.) he was betrayed by his own British Military, who, as Mr. Harris indicated, divided the land of Lawrence's "friends" with the French. Lawrence is left not only feeling betrayed, but must wonder whether all of his amazing accomplishments were completely in vain.
It should be noted that it is not completely accurate to say that everything after the intermission (or Suez Canal) is "away from the desert". In fact, one of the more famous scenes in the movie takes place after the intermission: the ambush of the Turkish train with dynamite! (David Lean sure loved trains, didn't he!) Then, another Turkish train carrying loads of horses is successfully attacked. It is after this that Auda and his men, after taking their "loot" desert Lawrence. He must convince them to rejoin him if he is to take Damascus!
After convincing Auda and his men to rejoin him, on their way to Damascus, Lawrence and his cavalry force come upon some Turks that just massacred an Arab village in its path. Lawrence must decide whether to lead a charge on the Turks, or to go around them and head for Damascus instead. Enraged by the massacre, one of the Arabs (who grew up in the village) charges from the ranks and is shot down by the Turks in front of everyone. Revealing his repressed bloodthirsty (recall that he stated that he "liked it" referring to the execution he carried out) and maddened state in one of the more memorable sequences, Lawrence leads the Arab charge against the Turks, shouting with wild-eyed vengeance:
"No prisoners! No prisoners!"
In the blood-bath that follows, Lawrence leads the Arabs to Damascus, and overtake it as well.
I could go on (believe me ) but the point I am trying to make is that although the last hour or so takes on a different feel, there is still a lot going on, and it is this portion of the movie that, in many ways, is the most important part of the movie. As Mr. Harris said, it is not comfortable to watch, and it isn't suppose to be.
Andrew- your response to LoA is familiar. You didn't think you liked it the first time you saw it. If I recall correctly, you have now seen it a few (three?)times, and you have gotten more out of it every time you have seen it. It has many layers, and they tend to reveal more of themselves on repeated viewings.
Thanks for your comments on your impressions of seeing LoA in 70mm!

 

[Robert Harris]

My thanks to Rob Tomlin for his additional comments -- and one more for you.

The second part of Loa was designed to bring the audience down along with Lawrence...

right down to the details of costumes.

Phillis Dalton, the brilliant costume designer, created Lawrence's white robes (all from the same pattern0 in different quality and thicknesses of fabrics.

The more Lawrence goes into his funk, the thinner, less regal and more transluscent his robes become.

There is nothing about this production that was not planned to perfection.

Possibly except for the script pages seen blowing atop one of the desert whirlwinds, picked up by second unit as Lawrence travels across the landscape with the boys.

And speaking of "the boys," it was recently discussed in the British media that Michel Ray, who played Farraj, and is now married to the daughter of the owner of Heinekin Breweries, is one of the wealthiest men in England. Hope I didn't get his last point wrong.

RAH

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The change in his mental state as reflected by the condition of Lawrence and his robes is sort of double underlined by the parallel construction of having Lawrence looking at his reflection in his knife in both acts.

Technically, it is the same action, but in the first act, it is vanity and ego with Lawrence admiring his new robes. In the second act, you get the sense that he is scared of the face that is looking back at him.

Regards,

 

[DeeF]

Embarrassing as this is to state, I really don't care for the Ziegfield (in New York). The architecture is 70s tacky, the seats are uncomfortable, and the acoustics of the room make the sound too wet, so that the dialogue is often unintelligible. I think there are superior large screens in town (the Sony Lincoln Square, for instance) and I wish that special events like Lawrence of Arabia wouldn't always go to the Ziegfield.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

I just ordered the DVD (two-discer, of course), hopefully my wonderful experience at the Senator won't sour the mixed DVD presentation. DeeF, if you're not satisfied with the Ziegfield's presentation, LOA at the Senator may be worth the drive, depending on how much you like the movie.

 

[Jason Adams]

What you're seeing as the difference between "modern" and "classic Technicolor" (sic) films is neither the age of the film nor the photographic process, but rather, a high speed, one-lite dupe as opposed to a timed print made at slow/normal printing speeds.

Ah, so in that case, why does Pearl Harbor look more like the older printing process?

 

[Peter Kline]

Pearl Harbor was photographed and designed to look like older color films. Filmakers decision. Film is a creative art, well sometimes, and there should be no rule as to how a film should look in my opinon. Too many of contemporary films treat color as a necessary thing, not as a way to enhance the experience.

 

[Kieran Coghlan]

Is there any way to find out if LOA will be playing in or around San Francisco? I have been holding out watching the DVD, as I've never seen the film EVER, and when I heard that it would be re-released, I wanted to see it in 70mm first time around. Now, it seems that it's not even going to be shown in my area!!! :frowning:
How can I find out for sure? Any suggestions on how to convince a theater to show it?

 

[Robert Harris]

Lawrence (and his camel) will arrive at San Francisco's classic Castro Theatre on Friday.

The presentation there will be up to their normal superb standards.

He arrives Wednesday at New York's Ziegfeld and Seattle's Cinerama.

D.C., Detroit, Atlanta and other cities to follow.

RAH

 

[Andrew_Sch]

I assume since no HTF members from the Philly/Jersey area made the trip down, this means that it will be playing in Philly as well?

 

[Stacie]

I, my husband, and whichever of our friends we can drag along with us will be lined up in front of the Heights Theater in Minneapolis on Friday, October 18th to experience Lawrence in 70mm. I can't wait.

If any other Twin Citizens happen to drop by this thread, I would encourage you to go, even if you think you don't like Lawrence (!!!) The remodeled, revamped Heights has been a fabulous addition to culture in the Twin Cities. In the last year, I've seen Vertigo, Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, Oklahoma, and of course, 2001, all in beautfully presented 70mm.

This is a theater that deserves all the support we can give it.

Just another reason to love Minnesota (hey, it's not that cold out yet!)

 

[Kieran Coghlan]

Thanks for the info, Robert. Curious, did you know this info because of your connections, or is there some homepage for this latest re-release, with show dates and locations, etc.?
Thanks...