Intolerance (1916)

After Birth of a Nation, what do you do for an encore, especially after said film has branded you a racist? D.W. Griffith, the silent era's "king of the world," mounted this melodramatic spectacle of "Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages," four stories that illustrate "how hatred and intolerance have battled against love and charity." Critic Heywood Broun, upon the film's release, probably said it best: "Quite the most marvelous thing which has been put on the screen, but as a theory of life it is trite." But what's on the screen is dazzling!

Griffith interweaves the four parallel stories set, respectively, in the modern era (fuddy-duddy reformers and a workers' strike), Jerusalem (Christ's crucifixion), 1572 Paris (a "hotbed" of persecution against the Huguenots), and ancient Babylon. No collection of silent films is complete without this landmark, awe-inspiring epic, which really does boast a cast of thousands (the most memorable of which is Constance Talmadge as the spunky Mountain Girl). The fall of Babylon ranks with one of the great action set pieces, complete with racing chariots, a nifty decapitation (at the hands of Elmo Lincoln, the man who would be Tarzan), and falls from what appear to be incredible heights. The edge-of-your-seat climax to the modern story, a race against time to save an innocent young man from the electric chair, is another bravura sequence. --Donald Liebenson Amazon.com essential video

Decadent, Dazzling

First things first: I love this film. I love its unevenness. I love its drenched decadence and splendor. I love its inability to stay on a single track. I love that it avoids the bigotry of _The Birth of a Nation_. I love its weirdness.

I am bringing a postmodern sensibility to this 1916 film, but although this film frustrated viewers when it was originally released (film historian David Cook suggests that audiences found its four separate story lines too hectic to follow), it seems right in line with today's multi-tasking world. Is this a flawed film? In some respects yes. The film takes place in four different eras but is really only interested in exploring two of them (the present day and ancient Babylon). There are plenty of intertitles but they're not always helpful. Griffith's notion of _Intolerance_ doesn't seem very stable, and halfway through the film one realizes that Griffith himself perhaps didn't exactly know what he wanted to say. And then there's Griffith's stubbornness. Too many people wrongly read this film as Griffith's apology for the brilliant but bigoted _The Birth of a Nation_, but that is untrue. _Intolerance_ is Griffith's thick-headed, angry response to the critics who (rightly) attacked _Birth_ as bigoted. Despite these flaws, however, _Intolerance_ is a dazzling film. I am not at all surprised that _Intolerance_, more than _The Birth of a Nation_, inspired early Soviet cinema pioneers like Eisenstein.

My favorite moment: an extreme long-shot of the stairs of Babylon, which closes in to a full shot of funky dancers performing a choreographed version of "Walk like an Egyptian." Enjoy! September 5, 2008

I bite my thumb

That's to stop my jaw dropping like a brick. The line comes from the Babylon story. The Mountain Maid (Daisy Mae?) also says she'll slap her girdle. Not a saying I'm familiar with. I have to be frank about this creation. The division into 4 parts is a help. I've only watched two, so far, Babylon and the Huguenots, and am giving the rest a rest for the time being. Also, I seem to have picked up the worse of the two versions: my disc lacks the coloured tintings. The visual vision is gob-smacking, as everyone agrees, but the rest is unbelievably naive. Considering the kind of literature that was being written during this decade, DWG seems hardly out of infant school. So you have to honour his achievements, without admiring them for their narrative sophistication. Everything in the Babylon story hovers uneasily between the comically bad and the overpowering. Allowances must be made, I suppose, but there's a limit to tolerance: not everything is acceptable.

After sitting through the next two stories: the Judean and the Modern, I revise my opinion upwards. The Judean is mercifully short, and makes its few points fairly effectively. There are one or two nice shots. Some inspired by the pious paintings of Victorian artists. The Modern story is quite coherent, and quite well-paced. The plot is fairly well conceived, and there's quite an element of suspense. Will the wrongfully convicted man get suspended, or will he be saved? These stories could have made 4 reasonable shorter separate films. They don't really mesh together too well. I can't quite face sitting through the whole lot from beginning to end. You have to acknowledge, however, that DWG certainly set the pattern for a lot of later film-making: I kept getting reminded of other movies that were made much later. January 6, 2008

A larger than life epic

This epic film is larger than life. The film maker D. W. Griffith was trying to make a major statement about the human condition. How successful was he? Each viewer will have to decide for himself or herself. This movie came out after the well-know "Birth of a Nation," which put a positive face on the Ku Klux Klan and exhibits racist sentiments. This movie has a far different orientation, suggesting that intolerance has been the bane of human existence from early on.

He attempts to support this claim by juxtaposing four distinct episodes, in each of which intolerance is at the heart of conflict. The earliest (chronologically) is set in Jerusalem and focuses on the crucifixion of Jesus; next was a stunning portrayal focusing on ancient Babylon (one can scarcely imagine the lavish sets constructed for this scene); persecution of the Huguenots in 16th century Paris; the most recent episode occurs in his era and focuses on labor-management strife.

The scenes are separate, but he cuts between them. Sometimes this can be confusing; sometimes it is powerful.

Intolerance tends to win out more often than not, but the emotional impact of the various stories is considerable.

This is a sprawling story, somewhat overblown, probably too optimistic about defeating intolerance. But, all of that said, it is a powerful cinematic statement by D. W. Griffith.
December 22, 2007

Intolerance

Stung by accusations of racism after the debut of his "Birth of a Nation," Griffith decided to assuage his detractors and at the same time top his previous masterpiece with this lavish meditation on cruelty and persecution. With colossal stages, a vast universe of extras, and some of the most jaw-dropping images ever recorded on film (check out the fall of Babylon sequence!), "Intolerance" is a masterpiece of epic melodrama and set-piece grandeur. Among the cast, Harron (as the contemporary hero), Lillian Gish (as the symbolic Woman Who Rocks the Cradle), Mae Marsh (as the "Dear One" in the modern tale), and Constance Talmadge (as the Girl From the Mountains) are especially striking. And the brilliantly innovative parallel climax of all four stories is a feat of ahead-of-its-time editing technique that may still take your breath away. June 18, 2007

Truly one of the world's great films

D.W. Griffith's "The Birth Of A Nation," filmed the year before "Intolerance," is a much better-known film, but this depiction of four stories, illustrating the intolerance of people for those unlike them throughout history, cuts a wider swath. In many ways it is one of the most remarkable films ever made.
I believe that the oft-repeated bromide that Griffith made "Intolerance" to "atone" for the perceived anti-black prejudice and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan in "The Birth Of A Nation" is simply wishful thinking on the part of many liberals. Griffith in fact saw nothing inaccurate or unfair about the earlier film, and made the 1916 blockbuster as an answer to what he perceived as the intolerance of his critics.
The acting in "Intolerance" is, of course, somewhat dated (affer all, the film is 91 years old), but the movie nevertheless packs an emotional wallop.
Most visually appealing is the Babylonian story, with sets that are jaw-droppingly huge and impressive representing the walls of the ancient city, and various statutes and other structures. The actors in those scenes literally look like ants in the master shots, totally dwarfed by the sets which rival the tall buildings existing today in many cities.
As a matter of fact, the Babylonian sequence alone would justify the colorization of this film. It would have to be done with great care, of course, to guarantee that copies of the original black and white work were preserved. But re-photographing every frame of the film to produce a brand-new negative has been done before on other movies. It would be quite a job, but it would be possible. The Babylonian scenes are awe-inspiring in black and white. In color, done properly, and with the new negative cleaned digitally to remove dirt and scratches showing from the old prints, it would be of almost unbelievable grandeur.
I hope someone undertakes this project. The world's viewing public deserves it. March 11, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...