Intolerance

Audience Reviews

View More

Jarrod R @RT27243469 03/14/2024 Spectacular. While some of the battle scenes were a little on the cheesy side by 21st century eyes, the serious nature and dramatic tension certainly roped me in. See more Matthew B @RT07450941 08/25/2023 For anyone repelled by The Birth of a Nation, D W Griffith's most famous and infamous film, then Intolerance, his follow-up movie, may come as something of a relief. The Birth of a Nation was notorious for its racism, but here is a film that promotes love over intolerance. Was Griffith seeking to atone for his work on The Birth of a Nation? Sadly it is not that simple. While Intolerance was made as a riposte to the accusations of racism which were justly levelled at his earlier film, Griffith was unrepentant. Far from seeing Intolerance as a form of apology, Griffith regarded himself as a victim of intolerance, a classic argument that racists have used throughout history. I am not a bigot for being racist. You are a bigot for calling me a racist. Intolerance indicates no change in Griffith's view of African Americans. He simply ignores the issue and addresses four other examples of intolerance. Since two of those involve intolerance towards people associated with Christianity, he is even advocating tolerance towards followers of his own belief system. Still despite Griffith's intransigent statements, he clearly saw Intolerance as a means of making a film with more conciliatory subject matter. Here was a film that promoted harmony and unity between different classes and religions. Griffith clearly took accusations of intolerance severely. He reshot the crucifixion scene in Intolerance in response to complaints that there were too many Jewish extras around the cross, and re-filmed it with more Romans. When talking about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the intertitles are careful to state that this only applied to some of them, and not all. The film simultaneously tells four stories at once. Griffith gave each story its own colour tint, but sadly many current prints (including the one I watched) are rendered in black-and-white or sepia, so the viewer is forced to keep a careful eye on the changing costumes and sets in order to keep track of which story is being shown. The stories compare and contrast different examples of intolerance set against examples of love and charity. Three stories end in tragedy. Only the fourth tale set in the present has a happier ending. This makes the film more palatable to the viewer, but it also makes the point that we can overcome the damage caused by present-day intolerance if we try. Acting as a link and unifying motif between the stories, Lillian Gish plays Eternal Motherhood. She is seen rocking a cradle. Her presence marks the passing of generations, and the essential similarity of the events: "Today as yesterday, endlessly rocking, ever bringing the same human passions, the same joys and sorrows." Another framing device is that of a large book on which the pages turn as we move from story to story. There are other linking factors. Each story has a figure or group who represents intolerance, usually an establishment figure. Each story has a more intimate portrayal of a victim of intolerance, usually a woman. At the end of three of the stories there is a race against time to save a city or a person. This leads to not one but four climactic scenes as the film draws towards an end. Few of the characters have names. They are called by sentimental appellations such as Mountain Girl, Brown Eyes, The Dear One, The Princess Beloved or Boy. These anonymous labels serve to reduce the characters to mere emblems of intolerance, victims of the system. Not that Griffith is above humanising his characters, and there are some comic moments. Consider the feisty Mountain Girl (Constance Talmadge) who is put on sale as a slave, but puts off potential male customers by threatening them and eating an onion. Even The Dear One is not so bland that she does not get to practise a sexy walk with which she catches the eye of the Boy. Later she will chase members of the Moral Uplift Society out of her house with a broom. Griffith's women may be symbolic victims, but they are given some flesh-and-blood characteristics, and they are certainly not weak and passive. Given the sheer range of Intolerance, Griffith handles the constant tonal and subject changes with remarkable command, moving easily between excitement, horror, comedy, tragedy and sentimentality. The battle scenes were filmed so realistically that the production's hospital tent was kept busy tending to wounded extras. Griffith had a range that many modern directors still lack. He was equally at home in a historical epic or a domestic drama. He dwelled salaciously on the more exploitative scenes. These include nudity, an orgy, and gory battle scenes with two beheadings. Yet he also seeks to educate people, adding explanatory notes to his intertitles, even when they are not strictly needed. He is not dumbing down to his audience's level. It has been argued that the intertitles often explain matters that are not clear from the images on screen. Surely that is the point of intertitles? We can also accuse Griffith of being guilty of occasional moments of kitsch. The occasional shots of Lillian Gish rocking a cradle, for example, or the final images of soldiers laying down their weapons, prisoners being Raptured, and angels appearing overhead. Intolerance is not exactly subtle in its message, which is reinforced constantly. If Griffith can find a way to put the word ‘intolerance' or its variants into an intertitle, he will insistently do so. However I doubt that we will find many films made in the 1910s that are noted for their subtlety. This was the infancy of film after all. The legacy that Griffith gifted us was a more fluid and exciting cinema, in which he showed a good grasp of pace, tone and visual splendour that has been imitated ever since. For this reason, Intolerance is one of the greatest movies of the silent period. I wrote a longer appreciation of Intolerance on my blog page if you would like to read more: https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2023/01/22/intolerance-1916/ See more Tyler G @tylergross121 01/28/2023 Art and film historians eat until full, but everyone else is better to avoid. Griffith is important in the development of film, but even his masterpieces are absolute slogs to get through for folks with more modern sensibilities and viewing habits. Compared to Birth of a Nation, at least this film lacked the extreme and obvious racism (even though the entire point is to play the aggrieved conservative about criticism of Birth of a Nation) and had the courtesy to break up the story into 4 smaller stories united by the theme of intolerance causing downfall. See more Eric P @RT06161622 05/16/2022 Intolerance tells four different stories throughout time about the men and women throughout history who have all encountered some form of intolerance. While the film's art direction and sets used in Intolerance are large, impressive, and very detailed, the film still had some factual errors and questionable editing at times. Also, Intolerance can be pretty bewildering at times, even for audiences whom are used to sudden scene shifts in films. Intolerance is honestly just an average film. See more 03/19/2022 Brilliant and groundbreaking for its time the film still holds up pretty well considering how old it is. It's a must see for classic film lovers. See more william d @acsdoug 07/12/2021 The stories still hold up after more than 100 years. The sets are very impressive and well populated - If Intolerance doesn't hold the title of "Most Movie Extras Employed" it's certainly in the top five. The one thing that bothered me was the overacting. I understand that when dialog is not available (as in a silent film) a certain amount of exaggerated gesturing is required to convey meaning, but the actors really overdo it here. See more Read all reviews

Intolerance

My Rating

Read More Read Less WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW POST RATING

Most Popular at Home Now