Intolerance (1916)

Written by D. W. Griffith, et al.

Directed by D. W. Griffith

1998 List Ranking: NA

2007 List Ranking: 49

If I was hesitant about watching The Birth of a Nation, then I was downright leery of watching Intolerance, especially after watching that first film. If you read my review of The Birth of a Nation, you’ll know that I despised that racist film, a film that has no modern value, except perhaps MAYBE as a lesson for history students (U.S. history, not film history). So, seeing as this film is D. W. Griffith’s response to the critics of The Birth of a Nation, I was certain that this film was going to be just as cringe-and-rage-inducing as its predecessor.

In reality, it’s not completely terrible. As a film, without context, it’s actually got some really great aspects to it, and some advancements that might be groundbreaking. The film is definitely an epic, and without the controversy that Birth generated, but when taking the context of the film into account, it falters and becomes, if not as equally problematic as the film it responds to, a film that was made for all the wrong reasons.

“The Eternal Motherhood”…who pops up initially as a transition between segments, then just suddenly at random by the end of the film

As I mentioned, Intolerance is largely epic in its storytelling and scale. The film follows four storylines: a modern-day (at least, for 1916) story, a story in France in 1572 (the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, which I admit I might have heard of previously but couldn’t tell you anything about), a story centered around Christ and his crucifixion, and the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. That’s a span of over 2,450 years; their only link? The concept of intolerance and how it ruins…everything. The four storylines are intercut between each other in a way that feels far too advanced for its time, and sometimes to the film’s detriment: in such a primitive stage of cinema, there just isn’t enough to properly convey what each segment needs without it devolving into a confusing mess, particularly near the end (and the increasingly-random shots of Lillian Gish as The Eternal Motherhood which become downright laughable)

For some reason, there are very few high-quality pictures of this storyline on the internet

Each of the four stories is epic in it’s own way, although the modern-day story is probably the least among them: it’s epic-ness comes from a thrilling chase between a train and a car, both barreling down towards a prison where an innocent man is on his way to the gallows. The story itself is generally very narrow, focusing on the man and his wife, their child, and his being on the wrong side of a local mob-boss. The intolerance here is a group of women looking to purge all bad things from the area, steam-rolling over anything in their path. It’s not the least interesting sequence, but not a whole lot happens here.

“I…am Jesus.”

The Christ storyline fares even worse, retelling a story that everyone generally knows, but not doing it particularly well. It’s paid the least amount of attention within the film, to the point where, when the film would cut back to it, I’d say, “oh yeah…Jesus is in this film too”. The idea of intolerance here is probably the most obvious, and its epic in that it depicts the crucifixion (albeit from very far away). The French story begins in much the same fashion, starting slowly and building to a more thrilling climax. In this story, I was confused for the first portion: I understood the idea of the intolerance of the different religions, but what was the point? It wasn’t until the massacre was explained and enacted that I understood.

Just ONE of the epic Babylon sets

Of the four sections, the Babylon section is the most epic, and is probably the best remembered portion of the film. There is a literal cast of thousands inhabiting massive, gargantuan set pieces. The intolerance here was probably hardest to follow (something something other religions or something?), but the sheer epic-ness of the segment almost makes the viewer not care. It’s also shockingly graphic: during the major battle scenes we see multiple people fall from great heights and land on the ground and one man even gets his head cut off, on-screen! Compared to 1930’s All Quiet on the Western Front, which depicted the violence of war in a more artistic, subdued way, this film feels like a snuff film sometimes.

The beginning of the French sequence

So what’s the deal with this film? There are a lot of things that, to modern audiences, seem ridiculous (the melodramatic acting, for example). I don’t really have a problem with this: it’s the style of the time. The joy of a list like this, like the Academy Award for Best Picture, is watching the growth and development of the cinematic medium. Out of context, there is a lot of good in this film.

However, once the viewer learns that this film exists SOLELY because D. W. Griffith basically felt picked on for his racist beliefs that he expounded on in The Birth of a Nation, this film feels…gross. It feels like a director going out of his way to say “You guys are so mean for calling me out on my awful beliefs! LOOK AT WHAT THAT SORT OF INTOLERANCE DOES THROUGHOUT HISTORY!” as if that makes it all okay. No, D. W. Griffith, you’re racist, and that’s not a good thing. It’s almost humorous the way that Griffith COMPLETELY misses the point that he himself is trying to make, and I really hope that SOMEONE in 1916 saw this film and just facepalmed so, so hard.

Intolerance, when disconnected to its sister-film, is mainly known for its epic scale, and in that regard, I think the film generally succeeds, even if it feels way ahead of it’s time. In context, however, the film is uncomfortable, a folly that drove its director to bankruptcy. It’s a bit of retribution that sadly probably wasn’t appreciated by its receiver.

FINAL GRADE: D