“It’s Pretty Much Made Up”: 61-Year-Old Epic Movie Reviewed By Historian

Decades after its release, Lawrence of Arabia’s accuracy is reviewed by a historian. Released in 1962, Lawrence of Arabia tells the story of English officer T.E. Lawrence who united and led warring Arab tribes during World War I in the fight against the Turks. The movie won seven Oscars in its time, including for Best Picture, with Lawrence of Arabia widely considered one of the best films of all time.

Years later, military historian Dan Snow reviews Lawrence of Arabia for accuracy. Speaking with History Hit, Snow begins by breaking down the “foundation myth” of Lawrence of Arabia: the attack on Akaba, which was actually on the sea rather than in the desert.

Snow goes on to break down many different inaccuracies within the film, including battle details about Lawrence’s camel, and the underrepresentation of the efforts of his “Arab colleagues.” Check out the full breakdown from Snow below:

This is Lawrence of Arabia’s foundation myth. This is the attack on Akaba. It was an important Turkish base. But it’s main defenses were all pointing out to the sea, and Lawrence attacked it from the desert with his Arab tribesman.

Now this scene looks incredible, but it’s pretty much made up. In fact, Lawrence brilliantly shot his own camel in the back of the head in real life in this scene. That is not portrayed in the movie.

Interestingly, as trench warfare mechanized warfare industrial slaughtering had taken over in the First World War in many other fronts, here in the Middle East, there was still mobility. There was still the ability to launch cavalry charges, camel charges, go on horseback, strike when the enemy was weak. And that was seen as quite attractive in world of muddy trench line battlefields. This is one of the reasons why Lawrence becomes so glamorized in the Western media. Because there is still the ability to launch these kind of attacks. It still looks like warfare from a previous era.

You see that machine gun there? That is capable of firing 100s of rounds a minute. A lethal, lethal weapon. Had they been expecting the attack, as this movie suggests, they would have been able to mow down that cavalry charge, as many cavalry charges have been mowed down on the Western front. But Lawrence attacked with the benefit of surprise, both tactical surprise, i.e. they just turned up and attacked. But also strategic surprise that no one was expecting an attack to emerge from the desert. They were expecting the attack to come from the sea.

And this was a huge success. Akaba could now act as a base through which the British could feed supplies to this Arab revolt. And they get one of the heavy guns with armor-piercing shells pointed out to sea, waiting for a British naval attack that never came. It was a nightmare to shoot. Famously, it took longer to produce than Lawrence spent with the Arabs during the First World War. It took years. And when the director went to locations in some parts of the Middle East to shoot, he could still see the rusting carcasses of Turkish trains, wagons, supplies left there in the desert.

Lawrence wrote in his account later “by my orders, we took no prisoners for the only time in the war.”

They were enraged by the Turkish treatment of a village just south of Damascus, where men, women, and children have been slaughtered, women have been horribly mutilated, and Lawrence says he was so enraged they fell upon a Turkish detachment and killed everybody.

What I like about this scene is you do see the people on camels and horseback, but you see the logistics. You see sheep, you see wagons. The Arab army was capable of surviving long periods of time in the desert. They were experts at surviving in this appalling, unforgiving landscape. You see that Turkey is trying to mount machine guns but rapidly that Turkish column are surrounding. It’s interesting use of weaponry here, we have modern rifles and pistols, probably supplied by the British, but you get edge weapons as well, you get the swords, probably supplied by the tribes.

Lawrence of Arabia is one of the epics of all time. One of the most classic movies ever made. I don’t think it’s particularly accurate, it’s not particularly historic, in terms of the details, and the role of Lawrence himself whose celebrated in this movie above the role for example of his Arab colleagues. But I think as a depiction of war in the desert, of striking railroads, of living and fighting in a hostile environment, it’s fantastically realistic.

Why Lawrence of Arabia Is Still a Huge Cinematic Achievement (Despite Its Inaccuracies)

For a film that took so much time and effort to make, it is somewhat surprising that Lawrence of Arabia is riddled with such inaccuracies. Still, it seems that the film’s departures make it such that it engages in “why Lawrence becomes so glamorized in Western media.” That is, Lawrence of Arabia embellishes details in order to make Lawrence into a cinematic hero.

That said, the cinematic feat of Lawrence of Arabia cannot be ignored. Whether all the battle scenes are accurate or not, the film remains ahead of its time because of its inventive use of the 70mm camera. This wide-lens camera allowed director David Lean to capture the sweeping landscapes, largely on location, for which Lawrence of Arabia remains martyrized.

Even Snow recognized this achievement in his review of the film, despite the inaccuracies he acknowledges as a historian. The historian mentions that Lawrence of Arabia took so many years to make that some claim that “it took longer to produce than Lawrence spent with the Arabs during the First World War.” This fact, along with the review footage of the film, clearly shows what an odyssey of the cinematic art form this movie was. Snow concludes his Lawrence of Arabia critique by recognizing the film’s status as “one of the most classic movies ever made,” which certainly remains the case.