The book "Oriental Studies" was written in 1978, the film "Lawrence of Arabia" was released in 1962, and the book was written earlier. To use Said to evaluate Lawrence is a bit like using the sword of the current dynasty to kill the officials of the previous dynasty, so let's write it for the moment.
The first type of Orient is the Orient in the eyes of traditional British people, and it is the Orient that best fits Said's description. This derogation, undisguised, can be found in the early part of the last century, and is largely incognito in this century—but not that it doesn’t exist. There are some comrades in some of our departments (in fact, I am not worthy to say us, but I can't find a suitable hidden name), when they mention the Middle East, Arabia, Africa and other third worlds, they do not hide their condescending tone, The caliber is mutual benefit and win-win, but in fact it is the face of the neo-colonialists.
The second kind of Orient is Lawrence's Orient, which is also the main point of view taken by the film. The first question, I want to call it "patronizingly evaluate" (this term is the creation of Zizek), artificially create differences between the East and the West, even if these differences reflect the so-called good and kind side of the Eastern peoples, It cannot hide the fact that it is Western-made, out of touch, and stereotyped. The second question, the so-called progress or success, is essentially success from a Western perspective, and success under the rules of the Western game. Parliament, state, sovereignty, politics, and even Arabia, were not these concepts brought to the East by Lawrence? Why must these concepts be good, correct, in line with the historical direction, and modernized? Why must tribes be pre-modern, and must there be no way to achieve dignity without changing the way of life and production? The third issue, more centered on the film itself, is the attempt to portray Lawrence as Jesus. Worse than being made a god - God has only divinity and people fear him; Jesus has humanity and divinity and people love him. It's hard for me not to think like this: A white Jesus, and only a white Jesus, came to save the Arabs!
The third kind of east is my east. When judging Lawrence, I repeatedly asked myself: who am I to judge? I can criticize, but I am an even less qualified hypocrite. I have never been involved, I have no understanding, and it is difficult to give up a part of my time - or my life, Or an opportunity - to see the East where you are. I am from the East, but I still see myself reflexively through the lens of the West. If you ask why this is the case, it is a question of agenda and discourse power. It has completely separated from the film and entered the field of political science, which is not shown here.
Right and make a small summary of the idea from this point of view, do not expand, stop here.
View more about Lawrence of Arabia reviews
