characterizing history: Lawrence of Arabia as a step between metaphorical and historical

The historical scope of Lawrence of Arabia remains magisterial and ethereal. It commands not only the visual screen but the emotions of war, character and history. It's a testament to careful, nuanced, political, historical theatre, and cannot be missed because of it. Yet, there is no doubt that historical inaccuracies abound. How might we read these changes, as they create a story rather than a pure history?

The choice to focus on the character development of the cinematic man T.E. Lawrence might indicate a choice to mythologize, but also to assess the character of the white English soldier in foreign lands. In other words, I wonder if this film should be take as a metaphorical journey, one intimately tied to a metaphorical character rather than a historical one. What do I mean? I mean simply that Lawrence of Arabia might be seen as a representation of the tortured psyche of a man when confronted with the horrific facts of colonial violence. The impossibility that the film presents this character -- his desire to give the Arab people (his friends and allies) Damascus such that they could establish a free Arab state confronted with the reality that political hacking of territory will happen regardless of his actions -- might be seen as a conflict contained at the heart of any colonial regime, one that this film depicts through careful characterization. The seeming inevitability of it -- "it is written" -- should feel immensely heavy, and should describe, to some extent, the immense challenge, if not the downright impossibility, of de-colonial action.

Furthermore, I think the historically inaccurate character of Lawrence says more than we might want it too, namely the two faced relationship westerners have with their colonial subjects. On the one hand, the character has a desire to help, a passion for justice and a deep respect for the people. On the other, the masochistic realities of war, the satisfaction Lawrence ultimately felt in the murder of the Arabian people, should indicate to us the nearly a priori glorification of violence against the Other; we might find that Lawrence's satisfaction in killing represents an aspect of colonialism so inherent that it's impossible to shake. There is a lust for violence (a near sexual satisfaction), at the heart of white, western, male culture... Historians repeatedly highlight this same contradiction in character of the colonial venture: it's superficial desire to help -- politically, economically, spiritually --  backed with an subconscious assumption of violence. We might even take this further: perhaps it is that the desire to help itself is a violence desire, that those that want to help most, are those that are able to commit the most violence attempting to bend those around them to their will. In depicting Lawrence in this way, the writers manage a nuanced and intelligent metaphor for the whole colonial project; the actions of the film become microcosm for an understanding of the white psyche in the face of colonialism. 

Finally, Lawrence also depicts him as an egoist (a character trait discredited by actual accounts of his historical character), a historically inaccurate trait which becomes meaningful again within the colonial context. The white man's assumption of superiority, the assumption that they can save these people... Lawrence seems to characterize that attitude. And again, we might note that this superiority complex is at odds with the rest of his character: at times, he feels unimportant, at other times he feels like he is the only one that can help the Arabs, at other times he wants to escape, at other times he is the Christ-like figure that blesses these people, dressed in white. The character ultimately, is a hyper-contradiction, a contradiction that historians (I think) have identified with the historical psyche of those attempting, justifying, carrying out, and benefiting from colonial practices. Importantly, this colonial trait also compounds with violence: superiority gives one the right to kill what was seen as "subhuman". Superiority justifies violence, which completes the violence cycle of colonialism, completing, ultimately the seemingly written reality of colonial history....

The more historical aspects (and inaccuracies) of the film should absolutely be taken into account as well; this essay is not attempting to explain away the historical inaccuracies, as we still have a responsibility to the history being told here. Furthermore, the character described above should not be taken as an exemplification of "all white people" or a general understanding of colonialism; specificity is important when creating the historical narrative and for that this film might be seen as a weaker example of historical media. Yet, I still think that we must respect the film as a character study, a metaphor, a careful cinematic analysis: it utilizes (mythologizes, enhances, characterizes) a fascinating historical character to show a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the white colonial venture. In this way, we might see the film as the bridge, the step, from metaphor to history, as a way to synthesize and conceptualize colonialism as a historical practice that manifests within specific characters, actions, places and ideas. The metaphor at work here is a powerful one then, in understanding not just the what happened of history, but perhaps the more philosophical and literary why of situations, the sneaking subconscious destruction rooted in the heart of the white psyche one that still haunts us to this day.