MovieChat Forums > The Sand Pebbles (1966) Discussion > Poor man's Lawrence of Arabia

Poor man's Lawrence of Arabia

posted 16 years ago by kkhsiivonen
11 replies | jump to latest

I started thinking few days ago, how there ae so many element taken from Lawrence of Arabia in this film. First of all it about a guy who does things his way. Secondly it's about a guy who, instead of exploiting natives, desides to mingle with them. Thirdly the hero got in to situation, where he had to shoot a man he earlier helped/saved. Fourthly it exploiting eastern exotic. Fithly, and most importantly, it a war epic set in 1900's, like all the movies that rode with the LOA wave.

Good film though

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kkhsiivonen 16 years ago

Yeah, I had it coming. I expected some people disagreeing. But I did expect better argument's than "oh it's so not like it". Really what your saying is "no character name or setting in the title = 100% original".

The Film isn't really that original even if it didn't have anything taken from the Lawrence Of Arabia. It's pretty basic war film for it's time. So it's not really that original. Also most films are poor compared to Lawrence Of Arabia.

But you now what - It's OK. It's still a good film. A film can be unoriginal and still be enjoyable. That's what The Sand Pebbles is. But still when I watch it, I can almost hear producers and the director saying "let's make a war epic like Lawrence Of Arabia". It's not a copy, I never said it is. But overall tone of the film, and those "two or three things" (actually four!!) are quite important things in the film.

BTW: Since you brought it up, there are actually only few desert movies that aren't ripping of Lawrence Of Arabia. LOA was just that big.

EDIT: After Second viewing, I actually spottet few more aspects almost directly taken from Lawrence on Arabia.

[–] jperez01 16 years ago

They're both about guys who do things their own way. Frank Sinatra? He did things his own way too. Holman wasn't based on him either. Lot's of other characters in films do things their own way. There' lots.

It's about a guy who mingles with natives instead of exploiting them. Holman befriended Po-han, one of the coolies that worked in his engine room, and Maily, a Chinese juicy-girl, after his best friend Frenchy fell for her. So he visited the bars where the other sailors hung out and befriended one of the laborers working aboard the ship. Not exactly mingling with the natives and not much to compare with the relationships T.E. Lawrence built with the Bedouin in the desert which went far beyond mingling with the natives.

The shooting of Gasim and Po-han - on that count I do give you some credit. If you were not familiar with either film and just decided to watch both scenes out of context both situations might seem similar. Except Lawrence actually saved Gasim by dragging him back from the Nefud and had to execute him to avert further tribal vendetta. It was ironic but also unsettling because we later find that Lawrence feels conflicted about killing people as he is privately exhilirated by the act of killing. Holman didn't save Po-han from anything but being tossed from the ship and losing his job. Even then he just coached him, helping him stand up for himself. Holman killed him as an act of mercy for a friend. It was very painful. He went against orders and rather than averting further violence it could have incited more.

The eastern exotic. Yes, the deserts of Arabia are in the eastern part of the world according to us in the so called west. So is China's Yangtze. So is the other half of the planet. The historical context is only similar in that both films are partially about people reasserting themselves after years of domination by greater imperial powers. I mean, the 20th century is 100 years of history. In either case it is just too broad a comparison. They're both about revolutions, so does that mean an American revolutionary war movie owes credit to Lawrence of Arabia because it was also about a revolution?

It's cool if you just really, really, really see something there, but personally, I don't see how.

[–] kkhsiivonen 16 years ago

Try to forget those few examples, since they don't really mean anything. What really counts in the fact that the whole film is done just enough different, so it wouldn't be too much like LOA, but the main influence is still quite obvious. Everything about the film screams "American version of Lawrence". It's almost like those Sci-Fi films from late 70's and early 80's, that are done because they really wanted to make something like Star Wars, but a bit different (though they never succeeded in the quality the same way The Sand Pebbles did).

[–] MAC-16 15 years ago

Sorry I think if anyone is basing their theory on a few examples it is you.

I am about to read McKenna's novel which while published in 1962 is about his experiences on a gunboat. If Wise's film detours from the book I will happily stand corrected.

Incidently I think Lawrence is the greatest film ever made, while The Sand Pebbles is my favourite film so I am defensive of both.

[–] sascha-17 14 years ago

There are parallels in subject matter (both films deal with war in exotic locales) and in format (both are long epics with a musical prologue, and an intermission). But that's where the similarities end, IMO.

"Lawrence..." is based on a real person, fighting in WW1 - Sand Pebbles is based on a historic quasi-war-episode of U.S.-foreign policy. "Lawrence..." has no love-story to speak of (unless of course you count the homoerotic undertones), "Lawrence..." doesn't even have a woman in a speaking role.

"Lawrence of Arabia" depicts war mostly from the POV of higher ranking officers, politicans and diplomats. Lawrence himself starts out as a Lieutenant, ends as a Colonel and mostly deals with generals, kings, tribal leaders and other high ranking individuals.

"Sand Pebbles" concentrates on the lower ranks' perspective and "just" uses the big picture as a backdrop for their stories. The only people we can really identify with and who are explored in depth are enlisted men. To me, even the boat's captain is a rather unexplored, one-dimensional character who simply wants to run his ship smoothly, follow orders and protect his country's interests in the region. To me, he "just" represents authority, not a truly developed character. Holman OTOH is shown as a much more complex person: Someone who doesn't really like the military (or war) but still joined the Navy due to his love of engines. Falling in love further complicates things for him, but I never had any problem understanding any of his actions.

Lawrence is much more mysterious to me. You never really know what his motivations are. Like when he quite firmly asks for reassignment to get away from war, death and his own sadistic tendencies and then happily declares "of course I'll go back" a few minutes later.

So in short: While there are some similarities (and there always will be between any two films - if you look hard enough), I never saw the two as really comparable.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joscco 14 years ago

I am about to read McKenna's novel which while published in 1962 is about his experiences on a gunboat.

I hope you like the book. I read it 35 years ago and remember I couldn't put it down at the time. In fact, I should probably give it another read since I can't remember how much it differs from the movie other than the anti-US imperialist spin Wise gave the movie. Even so, the movie is still one of my favorites as is McQueen's performance.

"I told you it was off." The Jackal

[–] rwsmith29456 15 years ago

'Poor man's'??? LOA was a wonderful movie, interesting story and fantastic cinementography. But I'd much rather watch SP.

[–] TheDistantPanic 14 years ago

I agree, all movies can be compared to another, that doesn't mean they're a "poor man's copy".

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]