Intolerance

Starring: Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Robert Harron, Sam De Grasse, Vera Lewis, Mary Alden, Miriam Cooper, Margery Wilson, Eugene Pallette, Josephine Crowell, Constance Talmade, W.E. Lawrence, Alfred Paget, Carl Stockdale, Donald Crisp (uncredited), Douglas Fairbanks (uncredited)
Directed by: D.W. Griffith
Rating: Passed
Genre: Drama
1916

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: The evil effects of intolerance are explored in four different time periods throughout history.

Review:

Tim: I still struggle with accepting the fact that Intolerance exists. It feels like a film out of space and time. In 1916, D.W Griffith created a 3 hour, 17 minute epic that tells four parallel stories that span 2,500 years of human history. These are told in an interweaving style, as we leap from period to period. The scope of the film is almost beyond belief. The ambition, the scale of what is depicted here is truly astounding. This movie is a fascinating oddity, a film that creates an almost desperate urge to know more about it. This is an incredibly influential film, but it stands up as a massive achievement on its own- this is a great movie.

I have to admit I'm not a fan of the central driving force behind Griffith's desire to make this movie. From what I've read, it was in response to the criticism of 1915's The Birth of a Nation, which has many troubling racial stereotypes and glorifies the Ku Klux Klan. To be completely transparent, I haven't sat down and watched that movie yet. It's been difficult for me to accept sitting down for 3+ hours to watch a silent, pro-KKK movie. I know I need to see it, but it's easy to push it off. From what I understand, that film was deserving of the criticism it received. So, making another film touching on the intolerance showed toward a racist movie isn't the best foundation upon which to start a discussion of this film. However, if you can detach Intolerance from that and look at the movie as a commentary on the evils of intolerance through human history, the movie feels like it delivers a much better message. Intolerance is indeed a bad thing (unless it's being intolerant towards racism, in which I love intolerance). Still, as much as possible, I tried to watch this film as ordinary viewers would have- they wouldn't necessarily have connected this film to Griffith's previous one. In that light, the film delivers a powerful message.

It was fairly amazing to see Griffith's ambition to tell four different stories in this epic. We get the ancient Babylon story from 539 BC, the Biblical story of Jesus from 27 AD, the French Renaissance story from 1572, and the "modern" story from 1914. It's really an impressive attempt. Each story is different, but touches on the theme of intolerance. I found it fascinating that the movie doesn't give each of these stories equal time. I was so curious about that. The movie is mostly concerned with the Babylon story and the modern one. It feels like the Biblical story is barely touched on, and we don't get much time with the French Renaissance one. It was such an odd choice. As the film progresses, we begin to develop a connection with the Dear One and the Boy from the modern story and the Mountain Girl from the Babylon one. I honestly kept forgetting about the Biblical one. It's so short that we never get invested in that plot. And that one involves Jesus! It was an odd decision. I wish we had more scenes from the Biblical story. The same issue comes with the French story. We get to know Brown Eyes a little, but until we get to the big, bloody climax of the massacre, not much of interest happens. As much as I was in awe of this movie, it seemed strange to me that with 197 minutes, Griffith wasn't able to give half the stories the time they needed. This did feel like a flaw in the film.

Now, the other two stories are much more engaging. The Babylon story was incredible for many reasons, but especially the scope of those sequences. The amount of money that was invested in bringing those scenes to life was a major contributing factor to the stunning investment Griffith made to finance this film. I have to say, my jaw continually dropped at the sets and the hundreds of extras used in those scenes. The scale was truly astounding. There was this dance scene on the stairs that felt like a nearly perfect sequence. The walls of Babylon were so high, there were so many extras- I can still close my eyes and see those scenes. It nearly gives me shivers to think about. The battles were stunning- they were filmed with this frantic sense. The movie didn't shy away from death and destruction- there's one quick scene of a beheading that I couldn't believe. Griffith really created something unlike anything else in the history of film. Those scenes are among the best of the film.

The modern story was really good, too. It is perhaps the most emotionally powerful of the four. You see two people who are continually victimized by intolerant "do gooders". Whether that is imprisoning an innocent man, or (especially) taking a baby away from a struggling mother- it was emotionally hard to watch some of these scenes. It was powerful because it accurately depicted something that has continually plagued humankind and still does today- the evils done by people who believe they work in Jesus' name. I thought it was perceptive of Griffith to address this in his film. Now, while a lot of this story feels slower and less epic than the other stories, we still get a fairly thrilling car/train chase and a last minute attempt to stop an execution. It was actually a really good thing to slow things down a bit and have this story focus more on the characters.

I thought the cast was good. It's hard to rate silent film actors sometimes because you're limited in assessing their performance and overacting was the rule of the day. I thought the cast as a whole did well. Constance Talmadge was probably the standout to me. She brought great energy to the role of the Mountain Girl. I had fun watching her. Robert Harron was mostly good in his role. I liked Mae Marsh as the Dear One, until the courtroom scene. I'm not sure what emotions she was trying to convey there, but the close up scene where she's signalling to the Boy made me cringe and laugh. Her performance there was just awful. Still, as a whole, the cast is quite good (and massive).

I have to say, movies from the 1910s have been a weaker area for me. This is actually only the second feature film pre-1920 that I've seen (I'm so embarrassed). The scope and ambition of Intolerance are nearly beyond belief. It's no easy feat to sit through a 3 hour, 17 minute silent film (I totally understand how audiences in the day were bewildered by this). But, the length of the film is just another aspect of its stunning scope. This film has to be seen to be believed. It's incredible.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 8



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: The Birth of a Nation (I guess I have to recommend this)