Editing Lawrence of Arabia (film) (section)

=== Representation of Lawrence ===
[[File:Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.png|thumb|left|[[Peter O'Toole]] as T. E. Lawrence]]
Many complaints about the film's accuracy concern the characterisation of Lawrence. The perceived problems with the portrayal begin with the differences in his physical appearance — the {{cvt|6|ft|2|in|m}} [[Peter O'Toole]] was almost {{cvt|9|in|cm}} taller than the {{cvt|5|ft|5|in|m}} Lawrence<ref>{{cite book |last=Orlans |first=Harold |title=T. E. Lawrence: Biography of a Broken Hero |publisher=McFarland |page=111 |date=2002 |isbn=0-7864-1307-7}}</ref> — and extended to his behaviour.

The screenwriters depict Lawrence as an egotist.{{citation needed|date=October 2023}} It is not clear to what degree Lawrence sought or shunned attention, as evidenced by his use of various assumed names after the war. Even during the war, [[Lowell Thomas]] wrote in ''With Lawrence in Arabia'' that he could take pictures of him only by tricking him, although Lawrence later agreed to pose for several photos for Thomas's stage show. Thomas's famous comment that Lawrence "had a genius for backing into the limelight" suggests that his extraordinary actions prevented him from being as private as he would have liked, or may suggest that Lawrence made a pretence of avoiding the limelight but subtly placed himself at centre stage. Others{{who|date=October 2023}} point to Lawrence's writings to support the argument that he was egotistical.

Lawrence's sexual orientation remains a controversial topic among historians. Bolt's primary source was ostensibly ''Seven Pillars'', but the film's portrayal seems informed by [[Richard Aldington]]'s ''Biographical Inquiry'' (1955), which posited Lawrence as a "pathological liar and exhibitionist" as well as a homosexual. That is opposed to his portrayal in ''[[Ross (play)|Ross]]'' as a "physically and spiritually broken recluse".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Weintraub |first=Stanley |year=1964 |title=Lawrence of Arabia |jstor=1210914 |journal=Film Quarterly |volume=17 |issue=3 |pages=51–54 |doi=10.2307/1210914}}</ref> Historians like [[B. H. Liddell Hart]] disputed the film's depiction of Lawrence as an active participant in the attack and slaughter of the retreating Turkish columns who had committed the [[Tafas massacre]], but most current biographers accept the film's portrayal as reasonably accurate.

The film shows that Lawrence spoke and read [[Arabic]], could quote the [[Quran]] and was reasonably knowledgeable about the region. It barely mentions his archaeological travels from 1911 to 1914 in Syria and Arabia and ignores his espionage work, including a pre-war topographical survey of the [[Sinai Peninsula]] and his attempts to negotiate the release of British prisoners at [[Siege of Kut|Kut]], [[Mesopotamia]], in 1916. Lawrence is made aware of the [[Sykes–Picot Agreement]] very late in the story and is shown to be appalled by it, but he may well have known about it much earlier while he fought with the Arabs.<ref>cf. Jeremy Wilson, ''Lawrence of Arabia: The Authorised Biography of T. E. Lawrence'' (1990), pp. 409–10</ref>

Lawrence's biographers have a mixed reaction towards the film. The authorised biographer Jeremy Wilson noted that the film has "undoubtedly influenced the perceptions of some subsequent biographers", such as the depiction of the film's Ali being a real rather than a composite character and the highlighting of the Deraa incident.<ref>{{cite web |last=Wilson |first=Jeremy |url=http://www.telstudies.org/discussion/film_tv_radio/lofa_or_sid_1.shtml |title=Lawrence of Arabia or Smith in the Desert? |publisher=T. E. Lawrence Studies |access-date=9 July 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150723003651/http://www.telstudies.org/discussion/film_tv_radio/lofa_or_sid_1.shtml | archive-date=23 July 2015 | url-status=live}}</ref> The film's historical inaccuracies, in Wilson's view, are more questionable than should be allowed under normal dramatic licence. Liddell Hart criticised the film and engaged Bolt in a lengthy correspondence over its portrayal of Lawrence.{{sfn|Morris|Raskin|1992|pp=149–156}}