# Lawrence of Arabia - 2008 release?



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

While browsing through Columbia House today, I was looking up a few movies that I still have to add to my collection. When I pulled up Lawrence of Arabia, I noticed a pre-order, so I clicked it to investigate. It calld it "Enhanced, Widescreen" and says "Release Date is 01/29/2008". Does anyone know anything about this? A quick google didn't find me much material and I'm wondering if this will be a release worth waiting for. I'm certainly not in a huge rush, and I'd like to know some more about this new release.

Note: I am looking at the standard DVD (I think), not a hi def release.


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

I don't know what version they will be re-issuing on that date. In terms 
of the previous DVDs, the only one worth purchasing is the Super Bit edition supervised by Bob Harris who restored the movie. The other versions were 
not supervised by him and the color is off. It's a tricky film to transfer 
since all of the night scenes were shot day for night and have to be tinted carefully. Let's hope they let him supervise the high definition version in 
the future.


The 1989 re-issue which was labeled "Director's Cut" looked sensational 
in 70mm and six track magnetic stereo sound. However, it's not my 
favorite cut of the film. There were four versions. The British Royal 
Premeire ran 222 minutes which was erroneously listed as the
official running time from then on even though that's the only venue 
that exhibited that cut. Immediately afterwards, David Lean trimmed 
the film to the 202 minute version which was what US audiences saw 
and won all the Oscars in 1962. In 1971 Columbia asked Lean to trim 
the film for the television network premiere which he did. That version 
ran 187 minutes and it's my favorite cut of the movie. It moves faster 
and has slicker editing. Ironically, they ended up re-issuing that cut 
of the movie in theaters. New 35mm dye transfer Technicolor mono 
anamorphic prints were made. The color was more vibrant than 
the 202 minute 1963 prints and in my opinion, those were the best 
looking 35mm prints of the film. There was an extra scene included 
in the 1971 release that was not in the 1962 version. It was the
sequence in the fireplace when Allenby asks "Do you think he's gone 
native, Harry?" When the film finally premiered on ABC, they showed 
the 202 minute version rather than the 1971 cut which illustrates how 
disorganized distribution practices were at the time. In the pan/scanned
television print Reel #2 was accidently flipped and all of the actors were
facing the wrong way.


In 1988, Bob Harris began the restoration process with David Lean. 
The original goal was to restore the 222 minute Royal Premiere 
version which they did by finding alternate takes of the cut scenes 
and incorporating the fireplace sequence from the 1971 version. 
It's fortunate that Columbia saved all of the out-takes for use as 
stock footage. Some of the soundtrack was missing so they had the 
original actors re-dub their tracks. After looking at that cut, Lean 
decided to trim the film again to the final 3 and a half hour version 
that's called the director's cut. It is but so were the other versions. 
As I said, it looked spectacular in 70mm but less impressive in home 
video formats. It helps if you project it on a DLP on an eight foot wide 
screen (any wider and you'll see the pixels). 


As much as I enjoyed seeing the movie in 70mm, I think that some of 
the tighter editing in the shorter version worked better. There is always
a compromise between content and pacing. The 1989 version has more
detailed characterizations but is very slow which is not objectionable on
a large theater screen since you're absorbed in the 70mm imagery but
tends to be ponderous on home television screens. For example, 
in the original cut Omar Sharif says "You are Mad English" and then 
there's a great cut to the camels trotting off into the desert. 
In the new version there's an extra scene where Feisal asks Lawrence 
where's he's going and under who's flag he's flying. An interesting bit 
of character nuance but it wasn't necessary for the story and ruined 
a great cut. I also didn't like the extra footage of Lawrence tripping 
over furniture before seeing Allenby. Nothing else in the story suggests 
he's clumsy so why introduce it in the beginning? On the other hand, 
the shot of him painting the map in his first scene (missing
from the other versions) was important to set up what he did at 
headquarters and why he was able to navigate the desert. 



The ultimate "Lawrence of Arabia" DVD would be one that included all three versions of the 
movie for audience consideration. The last director's cut along with the 1962 and 1971 
versions using the same restored source material. The Royal Premiere should probably be discounted since Lean was 
rushed into it to make the deadline and continued fine tuning it after that engagement.


----------



## Mitch G (Sep 8, 2006)

Thanks Richard for another great bit of movie history. 

Mitch


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

Sure. I was very lucky to be able to meet Lean, the cinematographer Freddie Young and editor
Anne Coates either during the restoration or at the AFI premiere at the Ziegfeld theater. I 
briefly corresponded with Young who had retired to England and was painting. I was going to
purchase one of his paintings before he died. Young was certainly one of the greatest 
cameramen of all time. He used to say he 'painted with light' on film. Later 'New Hollywood'
directors and DPs rejected this 'look' which they associated with 'Old Hollywood'.


Well you can appaud or condemn the direction that New Hollywood took cinema into (they
politicized the medium) but it's difficult to argue that Old Hollywood was superior in terms
of craftsmanship. For example, the way Young would light "Lawrence of Arabia" was to put on a polarizing filter and expose for the bright blue skies. This made the faces too dark so he brought out a huge arc light into the desert and lit the faces which generated a f.22 exposure with infinite depth of field. It almost looked three dimensional, especially in 70mm. New Hollywood cinematographers would expose for the faces and let the skies get washed out. In fact, what generally happened in the late sixties and early seventies was a de-saturation of color for most films (i.e. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kidd", "McCabe and Mrs. Miller", "The Landlord" etc.). I know the critics raved about this 'new look' but in my judgement it was just bad photography. Anyone can just point and shoot with high speed stock and minimal lighting. The end result was excessive grain and washed out colors which called attention to themselves and distanced you from the narrative as I see it. This especially applies to DVDs which exagerate any flaws in the photography. If the movie was grainy on film it's going to
look extremelly grainy in the digital format. 



I know there are many who disagree with me and will claim that the 'new look' (post-sixties) was more 'realistic' or post-modern. My arguement is that film does not photograph what the human eye sees so realism isn't a factor. It exposes a different color spectrum and depth of field compared to your vision. Since film doesn't shoot what you see, you have to light it appropriately (paint with light) for maximum impact. So why not make it look aesthetically pleasing to watch rather than grainy and washed out? I guess the 
opposing viewpoint is that some people prefer the de-saturated look over the classic studio look.
Fair enough but it's very difficult to claim that a New Hollywood movie like "Midnight Cowboy" looked as good as "Lawrence of Arabia". I saw the 'restored' version of the latter and it was pretty grainy
and ugly looking. I suppose it fit the sordid story but it wasn't pleasant to watch from a visual
standpoint. 


In any event, it would appear that cinematographers like Young took their secrets to the grave
and I'm not sure a contemporary cameraman would be able to replicate his visual style any more. 
It's sad because the spectacular imagery of a movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" was one of the 
reasons it was worth seeing movies in cinemas as opposed to your home screening room.


----------



## Mitch G (Sep 8, 2006)

I'll be honest, I'm not an expert in movies. I know what I like and Lean's movies are movies I'll always watch when they show up on TV (TCM mostly). And, I can't think of other movies with the same style and look as Lean's. Were there other directors/dps like Lean and his crew? I never thought of their style as being a trend (old hollywood as you called it). I just assumed they were special movie makers who would never be matched regardless of the movie making culture. But, you seem to be indicating that they were part of a general trend of that time.


Mitch


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

Mitch G,

Yes, there was a specific look for color movies over the decades. In general, most color movies
made between 1935 and 1968 could be categorized as the 'classic studio look'. In other words,
color was vibrant, dramatic and the lighting was high key. This applied to big budget productions like
"Lawrence of Arabia" and low budget films like Corman's "Pit and the Pendulum". Both had vivid color
and were very sharp. Fleshtones were vibrant and the color was saturated. Depth of field (sharpness between foreground and background) tended to be rich since they used a lot of light to illuminate the set or location. When you used high
key lighting your exposure would be in the range of f.5.6 or f.11 which would
generate a razor sharp, fine grain image on screen. When you underlit
the film and shot wide open at f.2 (like many seventies' DPs) you would have a shallow depth of field and the dark areas of the frame would get grainy and murky. Classic studio directors used color very dramatically like Hitchcock, Powell and Lean. The best lab was Technicolor also known as "Glorious Technicolor". However, the other Eastmancolor labs tried to simulate that look the best they could even though their release prints faded over the years. (Technicolor prints didn't fade).



In the mid to late sixties, a new generation of filmmakers began to dominate the industry which
is generally known as "New Hollywood". Many of them were film school graduates. Corman was a crossover director making studio type
films like the Poe series then switching to counter-culture pictures with "The Wild Angels".
It's interesting to note that his later films looked very cheap and cheesy compared to his earlier
Poe movies (which is what his reputation is based on). Many of the New Hollywood directors got their start with Corman.

There were notable differences between Old Hollywood (pre-sixties) and New Hollywood (1966-1975).
I won't get into the thorny subject of politics but will note that New Hollywood films
didn't look anything like classic cinema. They preferred to shoot on the streets or on location rather
than on sets. Rather than 'paint with light', they shot off the cuff (cinema verite) with natural light or very little light on high speed stock. Some advocates would say the grainy and underlit cinematography was appropriate for films like "Taxi Driver" and in the case of that movie I would agree. However, this
'look' began to be adopted by other filmmakers for all types of features making the early seventies one of the worst eras
for cinematography, as least in terms of what I consider quality imagery. Even later
directors that followed the demise of the counter-culture movement tended to keep their colors muted compared to those of the past. In the interim,
the classic studio cinematographers died off as did their techniques. For example, Robert Burks,
Hitchcock's brilliant cinematographer (North by Northwest, Vertigo), was killed in a house fire in 1968. Ted Moore who shot the stylish Technicolor Bond movies died in 1987 and so on. The cameramen that replaced them had a different aesthetic
and a great deal of craftsmanship was lost as a result. 


An example of a New Hollywood cameraman would be Gordon Willis
who is often called 'The Prince of Darkness'. He shot the two Godfather films with very little light on set and whole portions of the frame completely black.
I guess it worked in those movies since the dye transfer Technicolor prints
helped fill in the grain but he used that technique in most of his other films
even if the subject matter didn't warrant that look. On DVD his movies are 
noticeabley grainy compared to the Technicolor prints. 


I guess the most notorious example of this 'look' would be "Heaven's Gate"
which I would classify as the worst looking movie of all time. As critic, Roger
Ebert noted in his review, the image was so grainy and murky you wanted
to clean the screen with windex. Another film that was muddy looking
was "Farewell, My Lovely" which was a pretty good remake 
but looked so fuzzy it was an eyestrain to watch. "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" 
was drained of color and had blobs of ameoba like grain floating on the screen. 



I suppose it's a matter of taste. I really admire and prefer the look of pre-1970 movies. The color was an integral part of the narrative. You can analyze the cinematography in films like "Thunderball" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" and discover something new with each screening. I really can't say the same thing about most contemporary movies. I think many cameramen use color functionally 
now. New Hollywood fizzled out after 1975 but some of their filmmaking techniques had replaced the classic studio method of shooting and continue
to this day.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Wow, I had no idea I was going to learn so much when I asked my original question! Richard, thanks for the great info, it's really nice to have someone around with so much industry knowledge. I think I might wait to see what happens with the new release, and if it looks questionable I'll grab the Superbit.


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

Owen,

You're welcome. If you just want to see the other cuts and know some people who collect
obsolete equipment, the original laserdisc release of the film contains the 202 minute 1962
version and reportedly the Selectavision CED disc has the 187 minute cut. I can't confirm
the latter but used to have a copy of the early laserdisc. The visual quality is poor but you 
can see how Lean structured it compared to the 1989 director's cut.


----------



## Mitch G (Sep 8, 2006)

Richard: I think I need to go and pick up a copy of your book .
Thanks again for the info.


Mitch


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

Mitch,

Both are available on line through the publisher's link www.mcfarlandpub.com

There are some controversial aspects of both books since I took a different
approach to what might be called 'conventional wisdom'. I've read numerous 
texts that claim New Hollywood 'saved' cinema. I decided to ask...save it from what? The content of post sixties films resulted in a 
decrease in weekly attendence which was a trade off very few writers have
studied. Today most movies are PG-13 but in the early seventies there
were more restriced films (R or X) than general releases which caused the
movie palaces to fold like dominoes. Theater owners needed general
audiences to fill up their 1000 seats or else they would go out of business. 
Did New Hollywood 'save' the industry or hurt exhibitors? It makes for an 
interesting debate.


----------



## santora (Jul 31, 2007)

Lawrence of Arabia is one of my all time favorites. I even remember seeing it for the first time in New York City at Radio City Music Hall in 70mm. It was breathtaking. First time I actually remember going "Oooooo" during a movie. I was five. Hopefully I'll have picked up a blu ray player by then. Or at least a PS3.


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

Santora,

The curious thing about Radio City Music Hall is that they didn't set up their theater for 70mm until
1970 for "Airport". It was never a great cinema for sound since the cavernous ceiling tended to echo
or distort the audio. After "Airport" they played 70mm re-issues until their demise as a first run
(four wall) theatrical venue in 1978 with "Crossed Swords". I attended that movie which was a
disappointment as it's swan song. I did later see special event screenings of "Napoleon" (which
had a live orchestra and 3 panel climax) and "A Star is Born" in 35mm Technicolor and four track
magnetic sound.


Prior to that, the only films I saw there with my family back in the sixties were poor. "The Glass
Bottom Boat", "The Singing Nun" and "Inside Daisy Cover" were all pretty bad films but the stage
show was entertaining.


One of the major problems that Radio City had in the post-Code era (after 1968) is that there weren't
enough quality G or GP (PG) movies to book there to fill up the 5000 plus seats in the house. Theaters
like that were designed for mainstream family audiences rather than targeted audiences.


I'm sorry I missed the 70mm films that played there including re-issues of "Lawrence", "Gone with the
Wind" and "Doctor Zchivago". I doubt whether the 70mm projectors are still there much less the
three projectors used for the climax of "Napoleon". They still have 35mm projectors for the occasional
film showings.


----------

