Lawrence of Arabia

an alphabetical reading

Dr. Barry Mauer

ENG 6810-0001
Texts & Technology Theory

Hatem Akil
05.02.05

This paper attempts to read the 1996 David Lean epic film Lawrence of Arabia within
the confines and advantages of the alphabetized, fragmentary form suggested and
deployed by Roland Barthes in Pleasure of the Text. This form enables the reader to
both reduce reliance on a hermeneutic reading of the text and maximize the coverage of
signifiers of “connotative density” in the text by adopting the “succession of letters in
order to link fragments”.

The author believes that ample justification for the method has already been covered by
Barthes himself, and therefore no method justification will be used. However, a final
comment on the process has been used at the conclusion of the paper.
Artillery:
The film drills it very clearly that artillery is a fundamental notion that communicates
meaning. General Murray, in charge of the British military in Cairo, is extremely angry
because he did not get enough artillery. His office is wrought with artillery artifacts: there
are a couple of full artillery shells at the entrance to his office, a shell-head on his desk,
a sculpture model of a canon on each side of the room and almost all artwork hanging
at his office portrays a form of artillery. Later in the movie, artillery is mentioned
repeatedly as a key factor for any successful military work. Colonel Brighton cautions
King Feisal and Lawrence that Aqaba is impenetrable because the Turks have 16-inch
artillery. And when the Arabs take over Aqaba, director David Lean takes a very long
shot with that long barrel almost indecently penetrating the sky and the sea.

2
Conversely, the British side makes it equally clear, once and again, that Lawrence can
get any kind of support he wishes, including unlimited access to cash and gold, except
for one thing: artillery.

The manifest representation here is seemingly military. However, the excessive

repetition of this theme, both in image and verbally, indicates a deeper alternative
signification. The film communicates a homoerotic world that is obsessed with
homosexual, sadomasochistic realities – not only of the main protagonist, but also of the
nature of the relationships between the Arab world and the West – in which the Arab
World is fantasized about as sexual and political prize to be had.

The distinctly phallic imagery of the artillery canon, seen within the framework of a
sexually charged world of men with homosexual tendencies is clearly a symbol of
power. It signifies the ability to exercise sexual domination as a literal and metaphorical
political control. The fact that this power (akin to today’s nuclear warheads) was traded
as a currency of control, but in no way made available to the Arabs, carries a latent
representation of a desire to literally sodomize the Arab.

This view of the Orient as a metaphorical object of desire is not new. The Orient has,
since Napoleonic times, been viewed as a sexual garden of pleasures with its harems,
eunuch, khawals (homosexuals), sexually aggressive men, etc. Many literary and
scholarly works have been focused on sexual subjects no only in the Orient – but with
the Orient as well.

3
The real person behind the character of Mr. Dryden, the head of the Arab Bureau and
the political engine behind the story in Lawrence of Arabia, is David George Hogarth.
Hogarth’s main work on the subject is aptly entitled: The Penetration of Arabia (New
York: Frederick A. Stockes, 1904). In the same vein, French author, Gustave Flaubert
spent time in Egypt, producing many works influenced by his experiences there,
including his sexual relationships with Madame Kuchuk, a famous dancer and
prostitute. As noted by Edward Said’s in Orientalism, Madame Kuchuk “…could say –
were she able to speak – ‘Je ne suis pas une femme, je sui un monde’.” (Orientalism p.
187).

To the imperial agent, represented by Lawrence and the ‘Arab Bureau’, the Orient is not
only a country to be conquered and controlled, it is a victim to be sexually mastered,
literally.

The ironic reversal in the story of T. E. Lawrence is that his dispatch to the Bedouins of
Arabia was intended as a sexual lure deeply rooted in the imperialist generalized
preconceived notion of the Arab. Lawrence was to serve as the direct violent object of
desire of the Arab. That is why he abandoned his pistol (a mini canon image) to his
Arab guide at the onset of his mission, thus announcing a submission of his sexuality to
those of the Arab. The reversal of this lure will enable the British to exert the same
result of physical rape on a whole nation, and for Lawrence to regain his pistol with
which he kills the very man whose life he had saved.

4
Architecture:
With most of the film taking place in desert settings and tents, almost all of the
architecture used the film is used by the British army in various locations. The grandeur
and elegance of these buildings, always orderly and extra clean – as opposed to
locations occupied by the Arabs -, is striking without fail.

General Murray’s office is abundant with military symbolism. Dryden’s office, by

contrast, features Egyptian antiquities and artifacts of various types. Aside from being
binary affects of British Imperialism of soldier and spy, these offices reflect: cause and
effects. What the soldiers conquer, the Orientalists plunder.

5
Architecture in the film is used as a living symptom of the spoils of war at a high level.
As opposed to the flagrant and petty clamoring of the Bedouin Arabs, architecture is the
imperialist equivalent of the spoils of war on a grand scale. What is truly amazing,
however, is how instantly and easily do the occupiers make themselves at home at the
newly conquered buildings. How these wonderful Islamic monuments are immediately
and easily annexed and appropriated by the Imperialists.

We see General Allenby at the British army headquarters in Cairo. We also see him in
similar surroundings in Jerusalem and in Damascus. One is hardly pressed to detect
much perceptible difference among these places. In each instance, the General makes
himself at home, inspecting the accommodations, and relaxing in the cool, balmy,
perfect weather of a conquered territory after another. One can not but compare the
relaxation and comfort experienced by General Allenby with the photograph taken of
General Tommy Franks settling in one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces, sitting in one of
Hussein’s fancy, comfy, chairs, smoking a victor’s cigar. The victors always smoke a
cigar. This one drinks a beer.

6
In all cases, Allenby and company take over the Arabic building and make it their own.
At no point are we confronted with any indigenous inhabitants or references to the world
outside of the British army quarters. The only exceptions to these rules are the constant
presence of windows and balconies that always allure to the presence of this
romanticized view of the world of Arabia with its palm trees, full moons, and scented
trees. Relegated to a view from a window, the Orient is never real, never brought to life
by the presence of indigenous inhabitants.

7
Blue Eyes:
In addition to his fair skin, Lawrence’s other identifier, as an Englishman, is his blue
eyes. They serve to contrast him with Ali and his brown eyes. Despite his perfect
command of Arabic and his Arab clothes, Lawrence is still not identified as an Arab, no
matter how hard he tries.

When he gets captured by the Turkish Commander in Deraa, he is instantly labeled by

the commander as an “Other” because of his blue eyes.

8
Bust – Egotism:
In many ways, this film is about Lawrence’s egotism-drenched psyche. Early in the
movie, we see T. E. Lawrence’s bust at his memorial at St. Paul’s Cathedral, with
almost everyone that knew him doubting his legacy, or even that they have ever know
him. Later in the movie, busts of famous conquerors and military heroes are always
omni-present whenever there is a British military office.

9
Chair:
A chair is an obvious symbol of power. At the Arab Council meeting in Damascus an
exceptionally ornate and large chair is left empty in reserve for King Feisal. However,
only moment later at Allenby’s office do we see a chair that looks quite similar to the
one reserved for Feisal, this time occupied by Allenby. King Feisal and Dryden are
sitting on smaller, much more modest chairs. It is quite clear who’s in power.

10
Dagger/ mirror phase:
Lawrence, throughout the film, tries very hard to become an Arab, or at least to be
viewed as one. He constantly vacillates between putting on an Arab dress and British
military uniform (both are uniform and identity signifiers that clearly communicate
allegiance). The first time Lawrence gets into an Arab dress, he gets excited, dances
around, then checks his reflection in the dagger he carries around his waste. This
becomes a Lacanic mirror-stage confirmation of his new identity. However, it is not just
any attempt to discover one’s identity. Lawrence is using the Arab dress both as an
expression of his affinity with Arab culture, which he studied and liked, as well as a
concealment of his true British identity as an English spy attempting to influence the
course of historical events for the benefits of the British Empire.

Ironically, later in the film, it becomes clear that Lawrence identity is no longer defined
by his masquerade. It is defined by the mirror itself – not the reflection; but by the very
dagger that reflects. As Lawrence’s blood-lust reaches feverish levels, he takes another
look at his reflection in the same dagger. This time the dagger is drenched in the blood
of retreating Turkish soldiers that he had just massacred.

11
He is now defined not by his chosen drag, but by his Sado-masochistic tendencies that
mushroomed into a full-blown blood lust. The newly-revealed identity seems to be
Lawrence’s true identity: He is no more than a Macbeth on the sand.

12
Damascus:
Damascus is portrayed as the manifest object of desire in the film. It is the ultimate goal
that Lawrence and the Arabs as well as the British forces led by Allenby seem to be
seeking. Capturing Damascus seems to be the ultimate prize. When Lawrence wanted
to remind his countrymen of his role, he proclaimed: “I am going to give them
Damascus”. The film as a whole may be seen as a march towards Damascus. One
system of transportation after another is carrying caravans of men heading towards
Damascus. The only military map we see in the film is one with all arrows (yet another
phallic symbol) pointing to Damascus. “Pound them, pound them hard”, Allenby says.

Damascus – Dimashq… The city of my youth, the city I love… is being hit on by every
pervert and conqueror. Damascus, with its jasmine-perfumed gardens, with its fragrant
Damascene rose, its winding alleys that lead nowhere to the amateur lover and lead
everywhere to the disciple, the running water fountain in the middle of the Hacienda
(temporarily usurped by Allenby and company), the almond tree and the grapevine at
my grandmother’s house, the smile of my first love, the pale color of the sky as my
plane left the ground for the last time. This Damascus, this glorious epiphany of a city,
the oldest inhabited city, becomes for the film less than the CENTER of desire, it is the
OBJECT of desire. The film makes it clear that, once Damascus was conquered, in a
way lost its virginity, it became of no interest at all. Was the drive to Damascus simply a
case of rape? We know that no sooner than the British conquered Syria and installed
their ally, Feisal, King of Syria, the only such monarch in modern history, that they
withdrew and handed off Syria to the French. Were we supposed to have foreseen
Damascus – on the road to Damascus – in the raped and pillaged bodies of Arab
women left behind by the Turkish army, a yet another conqueror?

13
If Damascus is only the manifest desire in the film (grapes given to Lawrence as an
indexical sign of Damascus as paradise) – could the object of desire be the act of
making the journey itself? The act of conquering? Rape? One is reminded that Saint
Paul’s revelatory ‘road to Damascus ended up in his blindness. Could Damascus be so
glorious that his sight could not bear its beauty?

The interesting part is that the vision that blinded Saint Paul led him to the conviction
that he needs to bring Christianity to ‘gentiles’ throughout the world. His first target was
to reverse his trip and spread the gospel in Arabia. Lawrence’s memorial and bust, as
we see at the beginning of the film, were staged at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. In
parallel to Saint Paul, Lawrence, in Deraa, on the road to Damascus, is raped and
discovers the depth of his sadomasochism with its lasting effect throughout his life.

14
Drag:
Lawrence attempts to identify with the Arab as the ‘Other’ by masquerading in Arab
drag. His Arab clothes seem to announce less his alliance with the Arabs than his
desire to actually be taken for an Arab. At many points in the film he seems convinced
that others will actually believe that he is an Arab. In all cases he fails culminating with
his fateful encounter with the Turkish commander in Deraa – which leads to his
discovery, flogging and rape. At the moment when he first dons his pure white Bedouin
dress, dances with the dagger to be witnessed by Auda Abu Tayi and his young son,
the child immediately recognizes the clothes as belonging to Harith Tribe, and
specifically the ‘fashion’ of al-Sherif. Clothes clearly serve as a precise identifier – if you
know how to read the sign. To the child, it was clear that Lawrence was “English” in
Arab drag.

Ironically, the only time that Lawrence passes for an Arab is towards the end of the film
at the Turkish Hospital in Damascus. An Englishman mistakes Lawrence (who has his
face covered and only his blue eyes showing) for a “filthy Arab” and strikes him in the
face – to Lawrence’s laughing amazement and satisfaction.

Lawrence’s disguise not only indicates his ‘apparent’ identification with the Arab and his
functional role as a spy, but on a different level reveals his identity as a homosexual
who is quite excited about putting on this costume in a world of men.

15
Espionage:
Essentially, this film is a story of lies, deception and espionage by an imperialist
superpower lusting for hegemony. The ‘Arab Bureau’, which clearly directs the course of
events in the film, is nothing more than an intelligence center. In fact, Lawrence and
others working on concocting the ‘Arab Revolt’ scheme were no more than military
intelligence officers posted in Cairo. In the world of espionage, what is manifest often
hides latent truths kept as a source of power. Lawrence’s masquerading in an Arab
Bedouin robe is meant not as a sign of solidarity, but simply as a cover for his activities
as an English spy. Lawrence presented himself as an ally of the Arabs whose goal is to
help the Arabs achieve their national aspirations of independence and statehood, only
to be found out later as a spy/ traitor who, in reality, only serving the interest of the
colonizers.

This relationship has been repeated on innumerable occasions by foreigners with a

good deal of knowledge of and passion for the Arab World (Richard Burton, Gertrude
Bell, John Philby, Freya Stork, and many others), but who in fact operated as spies for
Britain’s colonialist ambitions. In the Middle East, this long, confirmed, history created
an indelible general distrust of foreigners, who are often viewed as spies. The ruthless
wave of barbarous killings of foreigners in current day Iraq, under US military control,
can be seen as a reverberation of the set of expectations left in the area by this recent
history of deception of Lawrence and company.

16
Fly:
In an early scene in the film, Lawrence is shown coloring a map of the Middle East, as if
he is already re-drawing the mapping and geo-political realties of the area. The close up
shows a relatively large, black, fly flying and buzzing around his hand and map. The fly,
normally associated with being a filthy, unwanted nuisance, is somehow operating
outside of his control and desires. In the following major scene, at General Murray’s
office with all its venerable artillery and weaponry imagery, we see a type of oriental fly-
swatter laying flat on his desk along with other military artifacts.

In a world where the British takes hold of the Middle East with weapons and power,
could they merely view the Arab as a dark, filthy fly that is bothersome and insignificant
to their global aspirations? After all, despite all the action in the film, we’re being
assured that this Arab Revolt business is a “side show of a side show”, as described by
the general. The true battle is being fought with the Germans in the trenches, he
declares. Could the Arab Revolt, Arab identity, be no more than the fantasy of a fly, in
its significance, consequence and scale?

17
Garland:
After the Arabs (led and inspired by Lawrence) take-over of the port of Aqaba, Sherif Ali
and Lawrence take a nice horse ride by the beach at sunset. With this romantic setting,
Sherif Ali brings Lawrence flowers, which he throws at him, saying: “a Garland for the
conqueror”. On the one hand, this scene with its romantic allusions does show a greater
intimacy and admiration between the two men that is clearly overflowing outside the
realms of camaraderie. However, the use of flowers as a garland somehow serves
suddenly as a Brechtian alienation effect – it just does not fit, it defamiliarizes the event.

For an Arab, flowers are never used as a garland in the way it’s presented. In fact, the
concept of garland is more Roman than Arab, and thus plays, more than just a misuse
of cultural imagery (of which the film abounds), but as a contrast between the film-
makers idea of romantic relationships between two men at the moment of triumph and
the anthropological reality of handling these issues in Arab culture.

18
Homoeroticism:
The film creates an exclusive world of men where all kinds of emotions are played and
inter-exchanged within this world. Relationships among men are subtly stretched
beyond non-sexual tension. In his first scene with General Murray, Lawrence acts
somewhat effeminately, which, he tells the General, is just his ‘manner’. When Sherif Ali
has his first encounter with Lawrence, he seems to be love-struck from first sight. He
decides to drink from Lawrence’s cup because it was used by Lawrence. The
relationship between Lawrence and his two boy-servants, Daud and Farraj, is also
alluded to be more intimate than shown.

The Middle East has always been viewed, for many reasons, as a sexual haven for both
the homosexual and the heterosexual alike.

In his autobiography, Roland Barthes writes: “Consider the Arab Countries. Here certain
rules of ‘good’ sexuality are readily transgressed by an open practice of
homosexuality…”( Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes, University of California Press,
1994, p. 133).

Similarly, Bernard Lewis notes in his book: The Muslem Discovery of Europe (Norton,
2002) that homosexuality was a common and almost accepted in Arab culture (Lewis,
pp. 290-291).

Could it be that this Arab world constituted a homoerotic universe, which the West
considers not only a field of pleasure but an instrument of subjugation and control?

19
Could it be that the British Intelligence found in Lieutenant Lawrence as a fair-skinned,
feminine-looking gay man a lure by which to hook the Arabs into their imperialist
interests? Could it be that the same logic of sexuality of man on man, sex as a sadistic
instrument of pleasure and guilt was also applied at Abu Ghraib prison by the American
occupying army?

But what kind of system of sexual relationships was truly intended? On the surface, it
seems that the British plan worked quite well. Virtually every Arab that met Lawrence
seems to have fallen in love with him:

Ali’s love for Lawrence seems one sided. We see Ali wait in anguish when Lawrence
leaves the caravan in the blistering heat of the desert sun with no water to rescue Farraj
who had fallen off his camel on the way to Aqaba. We see him scold Lawrence as a
forlorn lover when Lawrence leads the massacre at Taffas. And, we see him cry when
Lawrence decides to abandon the Arabs after the capture of Damascus. But we really
never see Lawrence romantically moved as much. More than anything else, he has a
role to play.

As a primitive people with obliging instincts, the Arabs are presented with a sexual lure.
The ultimate goal, however, seems that they were to be exploited emotionally and
sexually, and be sodomized politically and culturally.

20
Horizon:
It’s been noted that many viewers of Lawrence of Arabia, although enjoying the movie,
have difficulties remembering the plot. Mostly, what remains in memory is the epic
cinematography and music. Many attributed this to weaknesses in the Robert Bolt
screenplay (based on an earlier version by Michael Wilson). After careful and repeated
viewings of the film, I actually came to a similar conclusion. The movement of the plot is
not dramatically rich. Many of the main historical events (capture of Damascus,
machinations of war and politics being hatched, etc. are absent from the movie).What is
there are those expansive shots of the desert horizon, images of Arab mobs, large-
scale architectural structures, etc.

That is - until you realize that the actual meaning of the film is actually presented not in
plot, not in dialogue, but squarely in cinematography. More specifically the film relies on
the use of full-screen, cinemascope, horizons as a persistent sign-vehicle of
signification.

At first glance, horizons may be seen simply as aesthetic presentations of the beauty of
the desert / a romantic viewpoint to an exotic object of desire for the Westerner.
However, as we are showered with one horizon shot after another, one is forced to think
if this does play a role of greater profundity. Furthermore, the repeating image is always
peppered with another element that seems to fleet from the logical boundary of the
horizon.

21
At that point, one starts to see the use of horizons in the film as a binary system of
separation: Arab and Western, desert and city, military and cultural, male and female,
straight and gay, black and white, life and death … all bridged by an exception: the loan
figure in the horizon.

22
Lawrence is presented as the sole agent of progress that shapes the desires and
direction of the Arabs and the Arab Revolt. More than a catalyst of the operation, he is
the driving engine. Almost any aspect of the film is presented as one half of a
dichotomy: The general’s military-decorated office versus the head of Arab Bureau
culturally-decorated office, Allenby versus King Feisal, Lawrence versus Sherif Ali.
Horizons may be read as a binary system of oppositions: men- women, straight-gay,
military-cultural (intelligence), Arab-British (Western), desert-city, East-West, life-death;
all bridged by an exception: the single or multiple figures on the horizon.

More specifically, the sharp contrast between the world of male network of Arabs and
the male network of the British is linked through the presence of Lawrence, who seems
half way between British and Arab, between male and female, between military and
cultural.

23
Intercultural Signs:
Intercultural signs, in a film –or any other text, for that matter, present problematic
issues of mere literacy. The intercultural sign used in a text can either be well used,
abused or misused. However, this use also presents a third-meaning connotation as
described by Barthes: a banner rolled vertically (as if it’s in Chinese) as opposed to
laterally; the use of wicker chairs, uncustomary in the Middle East, but associated with
other exotic locales; incorrect presentations of geography, etc.

The significance of such misuses is not merely one of dramaturgical sloppiness. In a

film whose central theme is the role of British intelligence in shaping the modern Middle
Eastern, this third signification clearly communicates reductionalism, cultural superiority
and lack of respect.

Another flagrant example of this inability to comprehend and communicate intercultural

signs is when Lawrence shares his first meal with his Bedouin guide. He stretches his
left hand, takes the food and eats. For a Bedouin that would have seen as a grave
insult. A Bedouin would use his left hand only for dirty deeds, and will only eat using his
right hand. The real T. E. Lawrence, an Arabist, who was very familiar with Arab
customs, would have known better. The fact that the actor, Peter O’Toole, and his
dramaturges did not pay attention to this detail, communicates their disinterest in getting
to a finer level of detailed depiction of their story.

24
Journalism:
The film is centered on a series of lies, half truths, deceptions, etc., as the nature of
covert warfare and espionage seems to necessitate. With this backdrop, the story of the
Arabs’ aspiration for freedom and independence and the role played by Lawrence in this
struggle is communicated to the world by American Journalist Jackson Bentley of the
Chicago Courier. Like everyone else in the movie, Bentley is there for his own personal
reasons – which are not necessarily the manifest, confessed reasons.

Bentley’s motive is to write a ‘big story’. “I made that boy a hero”, he says of Lawrence.
He seems to think that he’s created the myth of Lawrence. Even at that early stage of
media power, the journalist is just another link in a network of lies and deception. The
role of the media is clearly a tool in the hands of the military and the colonizer. In many
ways, Bentley is ‘embedded’ with the British troops and Lawrence’s campaign, reporting
live from the battlefield. Nevertheless, the produced story seems to serve only to
confirm the expectations and aspirations of his Western readers of a Western hero (a la
Bush and Tommy Franks) bringing freedom and civilization to barbarous and backward
Arabs, whom without that intervention are otherwise incapable of attaining, or worse,
comprehending, notions of freedom and democracy.

25
King Feisal:
King Feisal is portrayed as this anachronistic, feudal lord of a horde of barbarous
Bedouins. He does not seem to exert any considerable power on any discernable
following. Although he is presented as this haughty, aloof, royal-like character, he is not
much more than a stereotypical, cartoonish, presence. Even towards the end of the film,
when he discusses Lawrence, being a “two-edged sword, that maybe necessary to get
rid of”, he is only conducting petty, small time, global politics. He is no more than a petty
Lord of a petty and greedy mob. Even at that table with Allenby, he’s sitting at the
smaller chair in the audience side, while Allenby is clearly holding the authority and the
upper hand.

King Feisal seems to be the model of numerous later Arab leaders reared to be puppets
of Western interests, as has continuously copied and imitated not only in the House of
Saud (Arabia) and King Feisal’s decendants at the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan, but
also with many other puppet regimes in the Middle East that seem to get their cues from
External powers.

An interesting comic parallel is the media attention to President Bush walking and
holding hands with the Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah earlier this month. Is it sexual? Is it
political? Is it the same?

26
Lust:
Desire in Lawrence of Arabia is incontrollable and inevitably leads to pure lust. The
British are lusting for power and control over the resources of the Arab World (oil?), the
Arabs are lusting for loots in the battle, Sherif Ali and the Turkish commander are lusting
for Lawrence, Lawrence is lusting for greatness and eventually for blood.

In the course of his travels and adventures, Lawrence discovers his blood-lust, a sado-
masochistic desire that seems to exacerbate almost to a level of madness. He first
confesses to General Allenby after executing a man he’d saved from death (in a genius
trick to avoid tribal warfare) that he’d “enjoyed it”. Then as he leads the massacre at
Tafas, he crashes with a bloody dagger, with an almost insane sadistic after-sex
satisfaction and exhaustion.

We know from the outset of the film with Lawrence antics of putting off lit matches with
his fingers that he has a tolerance for pain. He tells a fellow soldier who attempts to do
the same trick only to realize that it is painful, “the trick is not minding that it hurts”.

However, only later, after his rape and flogging by the Turkish commander in Deraa,
that we realize that Lawrence not only does not mind pain, but he actually seeks and
enjoys it. In fact, the real T. E. Lawrence is noted to have ordered at least 11 times in
his later life the administration the same type of flogging he’d received in Deraa.

27
This sadomasochistic fetishism and its connection to Arabia is not merely biographical,
however. It is central to the nature of relationships between the West and the Arab
World. In the lust for oil, international superpowers seem to be always eager to
administer disproportionate exercise of military might to clearly define the relationship of
power. It also underlines the paradoxical course reversals in the bait and switch game
of global politics.

28
(A) Miracle – A Merica:
Colonel Brighton tells King Feisal, at the outset of the film, that to get out of their
predicament and win their freedom and independence, what the Arabs need is a
miracle. Lawrence agonizes over the situation all night and finally devises a plan to
cross the desert and liberate the port city of Aqaba using only fifty men. Lawrence
gleefully announces that he’s brought to the Arabs their miracle, as only a true
Westerner can.

With the T. E. Lawrence story carried over to the world, seemingly exclusively, by an
American Journalist, were the Arabs needing ‘a miracle’ or is it ‘America’?

29
Money:
Money is continuously used in the film as an exercise of power. Unlike artillery with its
sexual connotations, money of various forms is easily handed over to Lawrence to pay
off his collaborators. It seems that most of the Arabs participating in the Arab Revolt,
exemplified by Auda Abu Tayi, are only interested in the cause advocated by Lawrence
because of the amount of money or spoils they can make from it. Even worse, the
Arabs are so stupid that when Auda discovers boxes of paper cash after the capture of
Aqaba from the Turks, he screams that he does not want paper, and negotiates with
Lawrence to be paid in gold only.

Money does not only reinforce the efficacy of the intelligence role played by Lawrence in
recruiting thousands of collaborators, but confirms the sexual nature of the relationship
between East and West. The use of money as inducement is no different than that
between a paying customer and a prostitute.

30
Nomads:
As the film employs a viewpoint that decisively employs a binary version of the world, it
actually presents a finite number of stereotypes to communicate the nature of people
and events. In the same manner as the British are presented primarily as male,
colonialists and soldiers, the Arab side is exclusively Bedouin.

The movie does not present a single image of a civil Arab, a city dweller, a true
politician. Even when we are no longer in the desert but in a Middle Eastern metropolis
like Damascus or Cairo, the film remains focused on the Arab as a nomadic figure,
unsettled and uncivilized.

31
Otherness/ Whiteness:
In a film that clearly associates the Arab with the ‘Other’, whiteness is a system of
signification adopted completely by Lawrence. In his desire to be taken for an Arab, by
wearing Arab clothes and living like an Arab, Lawrence could not have been more
different.

This difference is highlighted by the fairness of his skin, the blueness of his eyes, but
also in the absolute and pure whiteness of even the Arab clothes he wears. In one
scene after another and contrasted against the Otherness of Sherif Ali, Lawrence’s
identity is reaffirmed by an element of whiteness that betrays his camouflage. Lawrence
gets raped after being stripped and sexually admired by the Turkish commander
because of his fair skin.

When he wanted to explain ‘difference’ to Sherif Ali, as the reason he can not go on with
the Arab Revolt, Lawrence, bears his chest and asks: “what color is this?”

32
Whiteness, thus, constitutes the fundamental divider between the Westerner and the
Arab as ‘the Other’. It also envelops and affirms the notion of sexuality as system of
tension and control. When all else fails, the only battle spoil that Auda Abu Tayi finds
“honorable” was a pure white horse, which he proudly and powerfully rides to show off
his conquest. With Lawrence wearing a bright white Arab dress, an allegorical
connection may be inferred between the two.

33
Photographs:
Photographs are introduced to the film through the work of American Journalist Jackson
Bentley, who has a clear sense of history-making. He realizes that taking pictures of
Lawrence leading the Arabs will make a “good story”. The idea communicated here is
that the story is manufactured to make interesting journalism and not necessarily as a
reporting of the truth as it happened.

Auda Abu Tayi, the Ali Baba-like, rogue Arab leader, destroys Bentley’s camera (he
conveniently had another one handy) after asking: “am I in this?” For no clear reasons,
Auda is acting in a manner reminiscent of Indians in Hollywood Westerns (a lot of the
movie seems like a cowboys and Indians Hollywood flick) in refusing to have his picture
taken. “He thinks that by taking his picture, you’re stealing his virtue”, Lawrence
explains to Bentley.

34
Quran:
We encounter a recitation of the Quran at the tent of King Feisal. Lawrence completes a
verse started by King Feisal to flaunt his mastery of the language and culture (which we
never encounter first-hand since the conversation is filmed in English – but the
assumption is that Lawrence has conversed in perfect Arabic). The Quran presents a
text than not only explains the world for Muslims, but which is also a reflection of
another text in which destiny is written for each human.

“It is written” is the contested statement between Lawrence and his Arab companions.
When Farraj falls off his camel, the Bedouins try to convince Lawrence not to go back
and search for him, because that was his fate, as is written. When Lawrence proves
them wrong by rescuing Farraj, he gains the Bedouins’ admiration (and most particularly
Ali’s). He counterpoints: “It is written - in here”, as he points to his head.

Less than a true contrast between Islamic fatalism (al-Qada wal-Qadar) and the
philosophy of free-will, this view on life presents an intriguing perspective that treats life
as a text that is as infinite as it is personal. It can be interpreted and treated for its
literary value. It may be worth noting that the first Quranic holy word delivered by
Archangel Gabriel to Mohammad, who was meditating at Cave Hera, was the
imperative word: “Read”. Mohammed was an illiterate man. So, it was obvious that what
he needed to read was a text of a different sort, albeit a magnificent and infinite one.

35
Roads:
Much of the film is related to travel and transportation. Only part of the transportation is
done on regular roads. These roads constitute clearly defined directions for reaching
from point A to point B and do contrast with the Arabs’ navigating the desert with no
clearly identified roads. It seems that the Arab relies on a different set of indicators or
guides that show him the way, the right path.

When Lawrence first embarked on his ‘roadless’ journey, he was careful to carry a
compass with him to get his sense of direction. Sherif Ali made fun of Lawrence’s
reliance on the compass as a guiding tool (as if he’s already had an internal compass to
guide him). Later and as he becomes more acculturated in the ways of the Arabs,
Lawrence loses the need for the compass and can navigate the desert without it.

It is interesting that at the entrance and exits to Damascus, a make-shift road definition
is done for military vehicles. Somehow ridiculous-looking stone markings are used to
define this part of desert as a ‘road’. In this sense, roads may have been used as a
manifest symptom of civilization, but latently denoting a lack of direction and reliance on
external aids for one’s sense of direction.

36
Quite significantly, Lawrence’s last decision, before he crashed and died in his
motorcycle accident, was to take the wrong direction on the road back to his house in
the English countryside. As he takes the direction clearly marked: “Warning – Danger”,
he comes across facing traffic that he was unable to safely maneuver around leading to
his crash and death.

37
Stereotypes:
The film successfully follows the descriptions noted by Edward W. Said of the
Orientalist’s generalized view of the Arab or the Arabs as having “an aura of apartness,
definiteness, and collective self-consistency such as to wipe out any traces of individual
Arabs with narratable life histories.” (Orientalism p. 229). The Arabs in the film are
almost entirely presented as a collective horde of greedy, Ali-Babish thieves driven by
the mad desire of an imperialist agent who’s gone mad, with no capability of either
discerning the meaning of the events around them (they needed Lawrence to plan and
lead their revolt), or to operate without this leadership (Sherif Ali believed that the Revolt
will collapse without the presence of Lawrence). In other words, although the Arabs
were motivated, mostly with money and personal gain, to riot against the Turkish
occupation, it is evident that the Arabs are in no position to self-govern, and that the
leadership of the Whiteman is necessary for their survival. Even at the moment of their
victory after the capture of Damascus, Arab leaders were fighting among themselves,
leaving Lawrence to single-handedly manage all their problems, including issues like
electricity, telephones, water, health care etc.

Lawrence assumes an almost a Messianic figure spreading the gospel of Western

civilization in backward Arabia. At one point, Lawrence confidently asks his Arab
companions: “Who will walk on water with me?” When Auda doubts his ability to cross
the Sinai desert by himself, Lawrence responds: “Why not? Moses did”.

The film painstakingly provides a confirmation of a confirmation of the necessity of

Western control over Arab resources and life. In a scenario that seems to have
repeated itself with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq with the declared purpose of
planting freedom and democracy, the film offers a clear case for the necessity of the
presence of the Westerner in the Arab world to guide the faceless, directionless Arab
masses into a better state of civil consciousness that they otherwise lack.

38
Suez Canal:
The Suez Canal, built by a Westerner in an Arab land for the benefit of the West,
literally drags the East into Europe. In the film, Lawrence travels on foot through the
desert with his two young servants, manages to kill one of the servants in quicksand,
and when he arrives at the Canal - which bridges desert and ocean (a representation of
the binary system echoed in the horizon as the film’s favorite image), his protrusion into
the two cultures (Arab and British) has become too defused. He has extended himself
not only into the culture but actually into his companions as well.

The British military man on the other side of the Canal looks at Lawrence and yells:
“Who are you?” – scene ends.

At the crossroad of continents/ civilizations, the link is at risk of losing identity.

39
Transportation
The film starts with Lawrence’s last moments riding a motorcycle to his fateful, high-
speed end. It ends with him in a car leaving Damascus. As his driver speeds up passing
a camel caravan of Arab travelers, they also drive by a military truck and are passed by
a fast motorcycle. The final scene in the movie shows all modes of transportation used
in the film. In many ways, the film is about this notion of transportation. As remarked by
Edward Said, T. E. Lawrence’s journey is one of a reverse pilgrimage. Instead of
heading towards the Muslim Holly sites in Arabia, he undertakes a trip in the exact
opposite direction – exactly as he did on his last motorcycle ride which led to his death.

This journey is portrayed in the movie as a state of non-stop travel – which makes the
film in many ways a travelogue of sorts (had it not been for the espionage mission
carried out by Lawrence). He and his fellow Arabs seem in constant state of travel and
movement throughout the film – a state necessitated by the life style of the Bedouins as
well as foreshadowed in the constant rotation of the ceiling fans in military buildings –
when Lawrence was not traveling.

Many Orientalists, like Richard Burton and Edward William Lane, were primarily
travelers and explorers – who got entangled in the business of espionage by virtue of
their vocation. On the contrary, Lawrence was an imperial agent with an army rank who
got engaged in travel for the sole purpose of completing his military assignment.

40
Umbrella:
During the Arab loot of the Turkish train, the rebels seem to walk off with anything and
everything they could carry off the train. The scene is somewhat reminiscent of the
Baghdad lootings after the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s regime by the American
military. With everything that Auda Abu Tayi, the most powerful man of the battle, could
walk away with, he takes a broken large black umbrella which he admires almost
foolishly and ridiculously.

Aside from its direct utilitarian benefit to the desert dweller, the umbrella seems to
denote some kind of relevant technological wonder that Auda is fascinated by. It does
not take long for Auda to abandon the broken umbrella for a broken clock.

The inference here is that Auda, and by extension all Arabs, are not technology-worthy,
since they will not be able to put technology to any meaningful use. In this sense, the
umbrella plays a role that echoes other signs in the film that relegate the Arab to a
backward position out of which he is incapable of benefiting from progress without the
mediation and assistance of the Westerner.

41
Victory:
The film provides a made-up world where things are not what they seem and the main
event is a “side show of a side show”, as General Murray remarks (using a quote by
Lawrence in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom). This whole production seems to be a
charade, the king is a puppet, the Arab Revolt is anything but spontaneous (historical
realities notwithstanding), and ultimately any potential victory is unreal and insignificant.

Although the film seems to follow the tracks of Lawrence as he makes his way for a
victory of the Arabs over their Turkish occupiers, what constitutes victory is not an easy
question.

As Lawrence returns to Cairo with news about his capture of Aqaba, he’s being treated
as a victor, complete with Military marching music, and a promotion in rank. His follow
up is a promise of another victory: “in 13 weeks, I can have Arabia in chaos”, he tells
General Allenby and Dryden. To the Arabs, on the other hand, he promises Damascus,
as the ultimate prize. When Damascus is indeed taken, we never see any true victory or
its subsequent celebration. In fact, the Arabs seem quite disinterested in their new state
of affairs, except for the negotiations on the part of King Feisal over what seems to be
municipal matters.

That victory, seemingly meaningless and inconsequential, is clearly juxtaposed by the

Sykes-Picot treaty which, not only ignores the victory of the Arab Revolt in driving away
the Turks, but literally divides the Middle East countries among the true victors of the
First World War, Britain and France (with some gestures towards Italy). Interestingly
enough, the apparent victor in the film, King Feisal, would soon be ejected by the new
French rulers of Syria. The very victory sought in the film is nothing but an illusionary
part of a global scheme by the world’s superpowers to further their national interests at
the expense of peoples of the world. This last realization is a cynical mantra that has
remained for decades as the prism through which many Third World, post-colonial,
cultures viewed their relationships with the West.

42
Water / Well:
In the desert, water is a very valuable possession. Much of the movie is built around the
concepts of deprivation and satisfaction, yearning and attention, with water as a literal
and figurative representation. Lawrence’s first guide is killed when he takes water out of
a well that belongs to an opposing tribe, and the Arab campaign to liberate Aqaba is
attacked for the same reason.

This anthropological inaccuracy in the description of how an Arab would share water
with travelers – where hospitality is synonymous with honor for a Bedouin, offers the
film an ideal forum to portray the ruthless greed of the Arab.

On a different level, with the movie soaked in sexual ontology where artillery represents
the essence of power for the British Imperialist and the water well represents essential
subsistence and power possession for the Arab, the phallic imagery of the canon barrel
is matched by the almost gynecological imagery of the well as vagina/ anus in the
following, slow shot followed by the dropping of the water bag in into the well.

43
Women:
Women are conspicuously absent from Lawrence of Arabia. Not only that they’re
excluded from the Arab part – we do not even see any woman on the British part or any
other culture for that matter. The only image of women in the film are either background
walking women at the Lawrence memorial, cheering Arab supporters far in the distance
when the men are off to war, and lifeless, raped and killed women massacred by the
retreating Turkish soldiers at Tafas..

The deliberate exclusion of women in the film emphasizes its homoerotic clarity.
However, it also obliterates the instrumental role played by a very powerful woman at
the time, Gertrude Bell, who was a close advisor to King Feisal, a collaborator of
Lawrence’s (actually working with him out of the same office in Cairo) and was
nicknamed as the uncrowned queen of Iraq. It is interesting that Bell’s role had already
been ignored by T. E. Lawrence in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

44
Xenophobia
In the world of early 20th century Middle East, one is expected to witness a wide-spread
xenophobia and mistrust on all sides. However, it is interesting that the film shows no
xenophobia of the Westerners of any kind. Lawrence and other foreigners are
recognized and accepted as such, and in fact admired and followed almost slavishly.

On the other hand, we almost never see any direct interaction between the British and
the Arabs, with the one exception of Lawrence bringing his boy servant after their desert
crossing to the military headquarters. Instantly, everyone in the building seems to be
outraged at the sight of this dirty, dusty Arab in their midst, screaming to Lawrence to
get that “filthy Arab out”. The role of the colonizer seems to separate themselves from
the native while administering and guiding him to higher and more civilized stages. The
moment the colonizer comes face to face with the native on a personal level, he is
tripped into a xenophobic position.

45
Yallah
The presence of the authentic Arab, outside of the two main characters of Sherif Ali and
Auda Abu Tayi, is a generalized and faceless horde of greedy thieves. Outside of
facilitating the fulfillment of Lawrence’s mission, the Arab presence is cartoonish and
stereotypical. Even the use of language is absent. In addition to a misused repetition of
the Arabic greeting ‘salam’ (as opposed to the correct Assalamu Alaikum), the only
Arabic word that is used with frequency in the film is the token use of the Arabic
exclamation ‘Yallah’, which is an all-encompassing word of encouragement that is
ubiquitously used throughout the Arab World.

The throwing around of this Arabic expression only serves to remind us of the absence
of the authenticity in the film, from language to characterization to history.

46
Zionism
Lawrence of Arabia covers an adventure that everlastingly defined international
relationships throughout the globe: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the
establishment of the geographical boundaries of many Middle Eastern countries, the
installation of ruling dynasties, the entrenchment of the conspiracy theory in the psyche
of the Arab (and by extension Third World) ordinary citizen, and most visibly the
question of Palestine. This last issue is flagrantly visible in the film by virtue of its
complete absence.

At the very time the events of the film were taking place, the Zionist movement was in
high gear for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. Even
before the Sykes-Picot agreement (which divided the Middle East mostly among Britain
and France and granted Britain a mandate over Palestine), there was the Balfour
Declaration, in which Britain promised to establish a homeland for European Jews in
Palestine. The film not only ignores these seminal events, the machinations behind
which as well as their obvious effects, continue to plague world’s political and cultural
life to this day. Even when the film events take place in Jerusalem, it is completely
devoid of political significance. It may be worth noting that the real-life, Lawrence, did
conduct a meeting with Jewish leaders in Palestine at the time of his presence of
Jerusalem.

47
Final Thoughts

The intent of this paper is not to present an in-depth analysis of the political history of
the Middle East and its ramifications on current world events. Although allusions and
references to contemporary topics may have been made in the course of reading the
David Lean film as text, it is not the intent of the author to make any conclusions or
analyses of the impact of the period covered by the film on today’s political environment

However, as I was preparing this paper, I realized that I was making numerous
conclusions that felt and sounded too generalizing and over-simplistic. Many of the
assertions, comparisons and analyses I found myself making made me feel as if I was
making a dogmatic, single-side reading of the events that took place during T. E
Lawrence’s time and the ramifications that ensued thereafter. I started dividing the world
into powerful colonizers and victimized colonized – with no discernible complexities that
may indicate any complicity of either side in understanding the other side, or
undermining an established assertion of any kind.

Since this last description does not represent my true vision on current geopolitical
issues, I found that the form provided by Barthes, when done from a personal stated
situatedness will render fragmented responses and analysis that can be a) contradictory
and b) as simple or complex as the text under consideration. Since the film provides a
generalized presentation of the complex historical issues of its subject, it seems that my
reading and commentary were of corresponding not comprehensive nature. It may be
possible that a secondary, and longer reading, will analyze the reading (analyze the
analysis) and will offer an adequately complex and less repartee-ish outcome.

48