User reviews

In 1915, D.W. Griffith's gave birth to modern cinema with "The Birth of a Nation", a giant leap that proved the remaining skeptics that the 20th century wouldn't do without the reel, that there was a time for Chaplin's gesticulations and a time for serious storytelling.

Of course, Chaplin's contribution is more valuable because he understood the universality of cinema more than any other filmmaker, let alone Griffith who made his film culminate with the glorification of the KKK. ¨People from all over the world would rather relate to the little tramp than any Griffith's character, but as I said in my "Birth of a Nation" review, without that seminal film, there wouldn't even be movies to contradict it.

And D.W. Griffith was actually the first to do so by making a humanistic anthology named "Intolerance: Love's Struggle Through the Ages", a three-hour epic relating four separate stories set at different historical times, but all converging toward the same hymn to intolerance, or denunciation of intolerance's effect through four major storylines: the fall of Babylon, the crucifixion of the Christ, the Bartholomew Day massacre and a contemporary tale with odd modern resonances. The four stories overlap throughout the film, punctuated with the same leitmotif of a mother "endless rocking the cradle", as to suggest the timeless and universal importance of the film.

The mother is played by an unrecognizable Lillian Gish but it's not exactly a film that invites you to admire acting, the project is so big, so ambitious on a simple intellectual level that it transcends every cinematic notion. It is really a unique case described as the only cinematic fugue (a word used for music), one of these films so dizzying in their grandeur that you want to focus on the achievements rather than the shortcomings, just like "Gone With the Wind" or more recently "Avatar". Each of the four stories would have been great and cinematically appealing in its own right, Griffith dares to tell the four of them using his trademark instinct for editing. Technically, it works.

And while I'm not surprised that he could pull such a stunt since he had already pushed the envelope in 1915, bmaking this "Intolerance" only one year after "The Birth of Nation" is baffling, especially since it was meant as an answer to the backlash he suffered from, it's obvious it wasn't pre-planned, so how he could make this in less than a year is extraordinary. I can't imagine how he got all these extras (three thousands), the recreations of ancient Babylon, of 16th century France, and still have time for a real story, but maybe that's revealing how eager he was to show that he wasn't the bigoted monster everyone accused him of, as if the scale of his sincerity had to be measured in terms of cinematic zeal. That the film flopped can even play as a sort of redemption in Griffith's professional arc.

But after the first hour, we kind of get the big picture and we understand that Griffith tells it like he means it. It works so well that the American Film Institute replaced the "Birth of a Nation" from the AFI Top 100 with "Intolerance" in the 10th anniversary update. But after watching the two of them, I believe they both belonged to the list as they're the two ideological sides of the same coin. But if one had to be kept, it would be the infamous rather than the famous, if only because the former is more 'enjoyable' in the sense that there's never a dull moment where you feel tempted to skip to another part. "Intolerance" had one titular key word: struggle, I struggled to get to the end, and even then, I had to watch it again because I couldn't stay focused. Indeed, what a challenging movie patience-wise!

This is a real orgy of set decorations that kind of loses its appeal near the second act, and while the first modern story is interesting because you can tell Griffith wanted to highlight the hypocrisy of our world's virtue posers, who try to make up for the very troubles they cause and use money for the most lamentable schemes, it might be too demanding to plug your mind to so many different stories. And when the climax starts with its collection of outbursts of violence, I felt grateful for finally rewarding my patience than enjoying the thrills themselves, especially since it doesn't hold up as well as the climactic sequence of "The Birth of a Nation". Or maybe we lost the attention span when it comes to silent movies, but there must be a reason the film flopped even at its time, maybe the abundance of notes and cardboards that makes the film look like a literary more than visual experience?

I guess "Intolerance" can be enjoyed sequence by sequence, by making as many halts as possible in that epic journey, but it's difficult to render a negative judgment for such a heavy loaded film. For my part, I'm glad I could finally watch and review all the movies from the American Film Institute's Top 100 and I appreciate its personal aspect in Griffith's career. Perhaps what the film does the best is to say more about the man than the director. His insistence on never giving names to his characters ("The Boy", "The Dear Guy"...) calling a mobster a "Musketeer" and all that vocabulary reveal his traditional and sentimental view of America, and maybe the rest of the world.

That's might be Griffith's more ironic trait, so modern on the field of technical film-making yet so old-fashioned in his vision, he's one hell of a storyteller and he handles the universal and historical approach of his film like a master, but when it comes to his personal vision, he struck me as the illustration of his own metaphor, like a good mother-figure endlessly rocking our cradle.

Four storylines are followed. The first is set in the modern world, where The Dear One (Mae Marsh) and her beloved The Boy (Bobby Harron) are struggling to survive. He loses his job due to union striking after a pay cut mandated so that the company boss can fund his sister's charity work. That same charity takes away the Dear One's child, citing neglect, as the Boy is sent to jail after resorting to crime.

The Biblical "Judean" story recounts how intolerance led to the crucifixion of Jesus. This sequence is the shortest of the four.

The third story details the events of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572 where Huguenot protestants were killed under orders of the Catholic royalty.

The fourth story is set in ancient Babylon, and deals with a religious struggle between different sects that leads to their conquest by the Persians.

Griffith's masterpiece is a marvel of narrative and structural complexity for the time, and the Babylon scenes are truly awe-inspiring in their scope and ambition. The story, in which instances of "intolerance" are illustrated throughout the ages, is a bit muddled and more than a little pretentious, but the visualization is second-to-none.

It's been put forth that Griffith made this as a sort of apologia for the racial insensitivity of his previous mega-hit The Birth of a Nation, but Griffith scholars disagree, and say that Griffith was never ashamed by the racist nature of his last movie, and that the intolerance that he was speaking out against was that which had been directed at him over that film (shades of our current political climate).

Regardless, this ended up being the most expensive film ever made up to that point, and was a major flop at the box office, from which Griffith never really recovered. The film now stands as a colossal achievement, and a precursor to historical epics to come. There are various versions in circulation.

I saw a four hour, ten minute version of this as the University of Chicago's Ida Noyes Hall in February, 1993 -- restored with stills and copyright photos, with a new score by Gillian Anderson, featuring the composer conducting the University Symphony Orchestra -- what an experience!

And where, oh where, is this restored version to be seen today?

Somebody get on the copyright owner's case to release the 4:10 version, with Gillian Anderson's score!

This fine film, possibly the quintessential Griffith, has been in the shadow of the notorious Birth of a Nation too long. (Of course, without Birth of a Nation's controversy, this might never have been made). Intolerance has more spectacle than Birth, far more "speaking" parts (if that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is!), and is far more PC -- but not in a negative way.

See it, in any form you can!

This silent film by director D.W. Griffith is well known to serious movie buffs and historians, but not to today's general public. I doubt that a lot of people these days would have the patience to sit through a film that contained three hours of silence. Nevertheless, the film's technical innovations inspired filmmakers in the 1920's and later, particularly in Russia and Japan. It also inspired filmmakers in the U.S., including Cecil B. DeMille and King Vidor. For this reason, and for other reasons, "Intolerance" is an important film.

The film's four interwoven stories, set in four different historical eras, are tied together thematically by the subject of "intolerance", a word which could be accurately interpreted today as "oppression", "injustice", "hate", "violence", and mankind's general inhumanity.

Griffith's narrative structure, though innovative, is uneven, because he gives more screen time to two of the four stories (the "modern" and the "Babylonian"). Equal time for three stories, thus deleting the fourth, might have worked better.

To me, the Babylonian story is the most interesting one because of its more complete coverage, and because of its elaborate costumes and spectacular sets. Even though there is no script, the viewer can easily discern the plot, which suggests that some of today's films might be just as effective, or more so, if screenwriters would downsize the dialogue.

What "Intolerance" offers most of all to contemporary viewers is a sense of perspective. Someone once said that despite the enormous advances in technology, society itself has advanced not at all. That may be true. In the eighty plus years since the film was released, technical advances in film-making have been obvious and impressive. But we are still plagued with the same old human demons of oppression, injustice, hate, violence, and ... intolerance.

"Intolerance" is D.W. Griffith's apologia for "The Birth of a Nation" mostly in that it surpasses its predecessor's epic scale, thus replying to his critics. "The Birth of a Nation" was a racist film, and nothing in "Intolerance" proves otherwise, but I don't think that's the point, either. And, while Griffith calls his critics hypocrites, it's just as easy to call Griffith one for his racism. Yet, I have no disagreement that his films are art despite their messages. "Intolerance" contains much more agreeable views than "The Birth of a Nation", anyhow: Christian pacifism; support of labor; moderated progressivism; and condemnation of intolerance, hatred and inhumanity throughout the ages.

The narrative structure of "Intolerance" was revolutionary and particularly surprising for a filmmaker who had cemented in cinema a traditional and theatrical form of linear storytelling with his previous work. In "Home, Sweet Home" (1914), Griffith linked four separate stories with a single theme, but with each story told in full before proceeding to the next. With "Intolerance", he employed parallel editing, thus continually crosscutting between time, suspending plots and commenting on stories with other stories, and I think it's ingeniously congruent considering the stories are supposed to run parallel in their morals, or messages on the general theme of intolerance.

The four stories include a modern story, which features a fictional representation of the Ludlow massacre of strikers and a progressive era foundation of busybody reformers that indirectly causes the massacre and directly applies suffering on the central characters. It was originally intended as a complete film in itself and was later released as such under the title "The Mother and the Law". Then, there's the Babylonian story, which was also released by itself, as "The Fall of Babylon". It almost seems to be more likely to have been directed by Cecil B. DeMille than by D.W. Griffith, for all its sex and exotic set design against a historical setting. A contemporary of Griffith, however, DeMille had not yet figured out that formula and may well have been thinking of the Babylonian sequences in "Intolerance" when he did; one of his early pictures and first attempts at an epic, "Joan the Woman" (1917), does demonstrate Griffith's influence on him. Additionally, the sequence features the best performance in the film by ingénue Constance Talmadge as the "Mountain Girl". She, too, seems out of place in a Griffith production, with her sexuality, impropriety and independence. The lesser stories of Christ's life and his crucifixion and the events leading up to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre aren't especially interesting in themselves, as many have panned. Yet, I don't think that's essential, as they don't stand by themselves, but are part of a whole where they comment on and run parallel to each other and the other narratives.

The stories are connected by explanatory, as well as moralizing and poetical, intertitles and by glimpses of Lillian Gish endlessly rocking the cradle (taken from Walt Whitman). Reportedly, tinting also separated the stories upon initial release. Nearing the climax, however, these separations and transitions evaporate for an ever more merging and rapider plot. "Intolerance" is the apex of Griffith's innovations and developments in editing--the culmination of his achievements in "The Birth of a Nation" and his last-minute-rescue pictures and other Biograph shorts. Along the way, it was usually James and Rose Smith who aided him in the editing room. Doubtless, these achievements, especially in "Intolerance", greatly influenced the Soviet and European montage filmmakers, as well as subsequent filmmaking in general.

With the astounding success of "The Birth of a Nation", Griffith had the opportunity to make almost any film he wanted, and with "Intolerance" having cost nearly $400,000 to make, he did. (The some $100,000 budget for "The Birth of a Nation" had been unheard of in Hollywood.) The film's failure financially ruined Triangle Studios and considerably altered and limited Griffith's filmmaking career from thereon. As "The Birth of a Nation" demonstrated to Hollywood and the world how profitable and popular cinema could be, "Intolerance" told another important lesson on the risks and limitations involved.

Consuming much of the film's budget were Walter L. Hall's Babylon sets, and they are spectacular. They're also surprisingly imaginative and elaborate for D.W. Griffith, whose stagy, open-air sets in previous productions were generally unremarkable--besides those in "Judith of Bethulia" (1914), which pale in comparison. The influence of "Cabiria" (1914) is very evident, but where that film failed to equal the brilliance of its sets with the filming of them, "Intolerance" succeeds. The legendary crane shots are standouts.

Throughout the film, cinematographer "Billy" Bitzer masks the camera lens--more extensively than ever before--creating iris shots, a moving iris shot within a stationary shot and small-scale widescreen effects. Griffith and Bitzer are very much in control of the images, establishing us as spectators. The Babylonian scenes where characters look down at miniatures of the city, I think, also add to this emphasis. And, "Intolerance" is quite a spectacle, especially the Babylonian scenes. Overall, the cinematography, such as some extreme close-ups, is innovative and advanced. Additionally, Griffith and Bitzer once again proved themselves masters of filming battle scenes.

"Cabiria" and the other Italian epics were a great impetus for Griffith to have embarked on his own two epic masterpieces, but the Italian epics were merely super-theatrical, with "Cabiria" as its apex and somewhat of a bridge to Griffith making the epic a cinematic art and a cornerstone of the industry. Moreover, from his pioneering short films at Biograph, to the epics "The Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance", and to a lesser extent, his work thereafter, nobody has had a greater influence on the course cinema would take than D.W. Griffith.

I put off seeing "Intolerance" for years, fearing that the bloated, silent epic would be more of a punishment than a reward. I was surprised by how intelligent and spectacular a movie it was. The parallels between the ages ancient, present, and in between are fascinating, and it's a shame to think that no filmmaker since 1916 has attempted a historical, epic, poem so grand. It would be easy to dismiss parts of the film, but that would be treason to its creator. It is a comment on the eternal struggle of goodness against it's adversary intolerance, a message to the future that we will never evolve without admitting this. Ninety years later,it seems that we haven't come that far, if we've made any progress at all. Some of the sights are remarkable: Babylon, the heavenly final sequence, the worker's strike, Christ, chariots... Too bad Griffith is mostly remembered for his vision of Klan and black culture in "Birth of a Nation".

"Intolerance" (Wark Producing Corporation, 1916), directed by D.W. Griffith, became an immediate follow-up to the director's previous effort, a civil war story titled "The Birth of a Nation" (1915), using many of the same actors including Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Miriam Cooper, among others. Of the two, I find "Intolerance" the most interesting, mainly because of its advance style in story telling. Yet, "Intolerance" did not become as successful nor controversial as "The Birth of a Nation" when first released.

"Intolerance" consists of four separate stories into one movie, but what's unusual about it is that the stories are not told episodically, but presented simultaneously in parallel action, linked together with Lillian Gish as the mother rocking her cradle. The stories consist of THE MODERN STORY, THE JUDEAN STORY, THE FRENCH STORY and finally THE BABYLONIAN STORY. Of the four, only THE JUDEAN STORY is the shortest and less detailed, featuring the life of Jesus Christ, as played by Howard Gaye. THE MODERN STORY, starring Mae Marsh and Robert Harron, finds the young couple getting married, followed by the husband resorting to life of crime when unable to find work, and later accused of a murder he did not commit; THE FRENCH STORY is set during the Middle Ages with Brown Eyes (Margery Wilson) and Prosper Latour (Eugene Palette) of religious intolerance under the regime of Catherine De Medici (Josephine Crowell); and THE BABYLONIAN STORY finds the Mountain Girl (Constance Talmadge) treated kindly by Belshazzar (Alfred Paget) when she is forced by the judicial system to appear on the marriage market, and falls in love with her prince. The battle scenes in this segment are well staged, considering the time of when this movie was produced. The Belshazzar's Banquet Hall set is the most famous sequence of all, shown many times as a film clip segment in several documentaries about silent films. The sets are lavish and the expense of this production shows. In spite of some hokey acting and title cards, which was taken seriously by 1916 standards, it's still a worthy viewing, especially for film scholars. Of all the actors who have appeared in this production, and there are too many to mention, the one who's most remembered long after the film is over is the one with less footage, Lillian Gish.

"Intolerance" is available on video in several different versions. Besides public domain videos with bad copies and no music score whatsoever, the three noted mentions include, (1) The former Blackhawk Video Company distributed it in the 1980s at 135 minutes accompanied with clear picture, an organ score and intermission. The opening titles of that print claims it to be the most complete copy, which includes the list of cast actors and their roles. (2) When Blackhawk merged with Republic Video several years later, it presented another copy, a shorter but almost clearer print running at 121 minutes accompanied with a good piano score and tinted picture, but minus the listing of the cast of actors and their roles. This was the copy used for the Public Television presentation of "The Silent Years" (1971), as hosted by Orson Welles. (3) Then there is another video copy, compliments of Kino Video, which runs at silent accu-speed, making it as long as three hours, color tints, accompanied with organ score, this version which can be seen on Turner Classic Movies. With several video copies currently available, it would certainly make a difference as to which one would make watching this movie enjoyable. On a personal level, I'd recommend No. 2, the Republic Video copy with the piano score.

"Intolerance" can almost be said to be the first all-star movie production. But for what it's worth, this epic should rank as one of the greatest of all silent films. It's amazing that it wasn't named as one of the 100 Greatest American Movies of the twentieth century by the American Film Institute. Maybe a proposed TV special on the selection of 100 Greatest Silent Movies of All Time will amend that (****)

"The Ulysses Of Film" ~Dave Kehr

"One of three most influential films and I think it is the best." ~Pauline Kael

Judging from these two quotes by highly respected film critics, there is no question that 'Intolerance' is one if the greats of cinema. You don't have to like it, but you will be impressed.

Fresh off his first blockbuster, 'The Birth Of a Nation,' Hollywood's creator-DW Griffith-wanted to make a movie more to people's liking and understanding in a bid to show that he his not a racist. 'Birth Of a Nation' May be over a hundred years old, but it remains a very shocking and unethical film. That is why I have a softer spot Griffith's next epic.

As far as I know, 'Intolerance' was the first film to use a bunch of different stories at once. This uses four from different time periods-a modern story about workers and unions; a story in Babylon; what led to St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre; and Jesus' crucifixion. Each of these deal with one underlying theme (the movie's title) that leads to the tragedy. Cut between them are transitions of a mother rocking her baby in a cradle.

Despite being made over one hundred years ago and countless technological upgrades since, 'Intolerance' is still a visually stunning film. For something being done in 1916, these HEAVILY elaborate sets (the Babylon having the best and most memorable sets) had to be made by hand. Mattes were too weak at the time and CGI didn't exist, so what you saw was real. The authenticity makes the sets extra appealing.

Obviously this is not a perfect film. The Jesus story should have ended better, which is one flaw. Another flaw, which some may find to be a strength, is that the two main stories (the modern and the Babylon stories) go by too fast. I totally hate slow films, but I never thought I would see something where the stories are too fast. I simply couldn't keep up. If this was a sound film, maybe using an extra sense would have made me digest the stories easier. But I plan on seeing this more. It deserves all the recognition it gets as cinema's first great film.

3.5/4

It's very hard to review INTOLERANCE today, as the film is so old fashioned that even comparing it to films made just a decade later is a problem. When it debuted in 1916, it was a technical masterpiece due to D. W. Griffith's insane spending habits--with the millions he sank into the film with these extraordinary sets, it couldn't help but knock the socks off the audience. The film featured live elephants (plus a few papier mache ones that were well camouflaged), thousands of extras and sets that even by today's standards are amazing. The huge walls of Babylon and the enormous statues are NOT matte paintings but were actually built for this amazing film. The problem, though, is that although people DID come to see the film, they never came in large enough numbers to recoup production costs and it was a huge box office failure. I think part of this might have been because while the film was beautiful to look at, the narrative was very confused (being made up of four separate films inter-spliced together) as well as extremely preachy AND sexy (now THAT's a unique combination).

A lot of these problems could have been avoided by simply making four separate films--or at least filming one or two of the best sequences only. Plus, two of the sequences (the story of Jesus and the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre) seemed too choppy and incomplete--like they were more afterthoughts of Griffith. The two remaining sequences, the Babylonian and the one set in 1916 had much more merit. While the Babylonian one was pretty silly in many ways, it was by far the most visually appealing and just overwhelms the viewer. The 1916 sequence had simple contemporary sets and had an excellent story that paralleled the stingy Puritanism of John D. Rockefeller--and this alone would have made an excellent film. But when all the films were combined with their tenuous and schmaltzy message, the overall picture really bogged down and is almost laughably bad in spots. What I particularly found interesting were scenes with Jesus appearing along with some very, very risqué scenes of practically naked dancing girls from Babylon! What this film DESPERATELY needed was a producer--not D. W. Griffith tossing in everything but the proverbial kitchen sink into an overblown mega-picture that couldn't help but fail.

In accordance with 'The Heritage Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language – International Edition', intolerance means '(1) the quality or condition of being intolerant.; (2) inability to withstand or consume. D.W. Griffith, the creator of the cinematographic narrative, extends this definition, presenting a masterpiece along four marks in human history. The first one is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Then, the fall of Babylon, though the betrayal of the high priests to the King Belshazzar and his beloved princess and the conquest of the city (presently Iraq) by Cyrus. This set was the largest ever built in Hollywood. The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Eve, in France is the third story. And a contemporary drama in 1916, with the story of the Dear One and The Boy and his involvement with The Musketeer's of the Slums, showing the fight between classes in the beginning of the Twentieth Century. In the end, a beautiful message of peace. The VHS copy I watched was restored and presents the music composed and conducted by Carl Davis and The Live Cinema Orchestra. An outstanding movie, recommended to those viewers who love cinema as art and mandatory for any collector. My vote is ten.

You have to give D.W. Griffith credit.There was so much expressed public dissatisfaction with his previous film,The Birth of a Nation,that he felt the need to right the wrong so he immediately went to work on this piece,a series of tales representing love's ever constant battle with intolerance and hatred.Four very well illustrated stories are compounded for the effort.Of the stories,I believe that the Christ story is the most significant,but that the most compelling as far as the entertainment value of the film is the story of The Dear One and The Boy,which contains one of the best "edge of your seat" climaxes that I have ever seen in a film.In fact,it probably would have made a great film on it's own without the other stories being intertwined with it.It's lengthy and jumps back and forth between stories.If you can tolerate these facts,you will enjoy.

DW Griffith did a fair share of fine work, feature and short films. Has everything that he has done been great? No. Saw 'The Birth of a Nation' recently, and while appreciating its importance and finding it extremely well made and acted the second part is so massively flawed and one can see why it's always been deemed offensive. 'Orphans of the Storm' and the best of his 1910s short films (i.e. 'The Mothering Heart') are fine examples of how great he can be.

Likewise with one of his most ambitious films, 1916's 'Intolerance'. It is a long film and sprawling, but the very meaning of a truly epic achievement in pretty much every sense. One of his best and one of the best silent films ever in my view, and there are many brilliant ones out there. Don't let the massive length put you off from seeing 'Intolerance', it wasn't a problem for me being used to seeing films with long lengths and it left me utterly transfixed in a way that not many recently seen films have as much.

'Intolerance' looks incredible, widely considered a visual and technical achievement and no wonder. The cinematography is not only amazing but the techniques and how they're used were revolutionary at the time and still maintains that quality. Even more striking are the huge and expensive-looking sets, the Babylonian sets have a spectacular grandeur, haven't seen sets this jaw-dropping for any film in a long time.

Griffith's direction is masterly and some of his most ambitious without trying to do too much. Carl Davis' score is one of the finest examples of all the films seen recently to have music that gelled so seamlessly to the mood and enhanced it even, also a perfect marriage of visuals and music in a way not seen since my viewing of Abel Gance's 'Napoleon'. It is also a fine score in its own right.

The story structurally was unique back then and over a century on it's still a contender for the best use of the multiple story/timeline structure on film. A rare example of all the stories working to some degree and where sprawling is still hugely transfixing and always coherent, also found many scenes emotionally powerful. It is at its best in the poignant modern day story and especially the Babylonian one, still astounding and really stirs the soul and emotions. The film is at its weakest with the slightly underdeveloped final days of Jesus story, but that is my one small complaint and that still manages to be intriguing and incredibly well made, directed and acted.

All the acting is great, notably from Mae Marsh and Contance Talmadge.

Concluding, far from intolerable. Instead, it's incredible film-making and an incredible film overall. 10/10

Ambitious in scope, impressive in design, Intolerance is a movie you have to see to believe. I am in awe that this movie was made in 1916. The sets are enormous, the costumes are elaborate, and there are so many extras. However, some of the storylines were less engaging than others, and the overabundance of title cards was a little distracting. Still, this is a landmark of filmmaking history.

I was kinda forced into watching this film having started reading through 'American Silent Film' by William Everson (a very good book, I hasten to add on, er, well the title says it all) and encountering an entire chapter on, first, 'Birth of a Nation' (which I duly watched) and, then, 'Intolerance'.

I was already a fan of the Silent Screen so I approached it with a great amount of expectation, especially as Mae Marsh and Lillian Gish were in it whose performances in 'Birth' I thought were two of the finest I'd seen in silent movies.

However, in my opinion, the film is as poor as 'Birth' is brilliant.

Sure, there are a great amount of high spots when you look at film technique (such as the moving camera in part two that zooms in over the heads of the crowds - and the grand sets of Babylon are stunning to say the least) but the film is a mishmash of ideas that are forced into employment as examples of 'Intolerance' when you could view alternate characters as equally displaying the trait.

The film started life as the 'Modern Story only' prior to 1916 which was then used as the basis to have the other two main and one rather sketchy story cut into it (the Jesus narrative is, to be honest, not a story but a series of excerpts from the life which support the other three stories at certain points). To me, it shows - it's just *too* chaotic a film to be enjoyable (even by 1916 standards).

A couple of other points - Mae Marsh's performance is semi-decent although there appears to be a bit too much over-dramatisation at points while Constance Talmadge's character (the Babylonian Mountain Girl) although sometimes implausible is a nice humorous insertion (I used to know a girl like that!).

Why Griffith gave Lillian Gish the sole acting role of rocking a cradle throughout the film with no other input, I can't imagine (there must've been some good reason for it) as her acting ability was, for me, the highlight of 'Birth'.

If you're a movie-buff, this film is a must-see. Don't miss it! But, like me, you may wonder 'Why?'.

One lighter point - did anyone notice that where the train stops is the same place that Keaton used in 'The Goat' for the shot of him riding the train?

Everything about this movie is fascinating, even its numerous flaws. It is as ambitious a movie as has ever been made, and if you adjust for the era, it might also be the most lavish, expensive, and painstaking. Even today the scope and detail stand out, despite the many technical limitations in its era. Likewise, the enormous cast list contains many names that silent film fans will recognize at once, with well-known performers even in some of the minor roles. Then, you could write many pages about the stories, which are filled with weaknesses, but which are also so interesting that you never want to miss what will happen next.

The concept behind "Intolerance" is as enterprising as it gets: no fewer than four complete, independent story-lines, with the movie switching back-and-forth among them, not necessarily in consecutive order but with a definite plan in mind, all in order to get across the idea suggested by the title - that is, that intolerance of others' beliefs or lifestyles has been a destructive force throughout history. It is generally understood that there is a strong dose of defensiveness behind this plan, since the ideas promoted in Griffith's previous film had earned for him some severe and well-justified criticism. This personal motivation could well explain why "Intolerance" is often so overblown, and it also is interesting in light of the stories chosen to illustrate the main themes.

The two most straightforward stories - the persecution of the Huguenots in 16th century France, and the persecution of Jesus Christ by the religious leaders of his day - are also the most believable, and yet they do not seem to get quite the screen time or the lavish detail of the other two. The contemporary story may have been the most important to Griffith, and it is a full-scale melodrama, full of heavy-handed developments and very unlikely coincidences, yet certainly a story that will hold your attention. The Babylonian story is at once the strangest choice, the most extravagant, and the most fascinating of all. As history, it is as distorted as (or more so than) any of today's movies. Trying to pass off Belshazzar of Babylon as a model of justice and tolerance is just weird, and the entire historical scenario is at best an imaginative embellishment of the truth. But the involved story that Griffith tells in this setting is so exciting and entertaining that you just can't take your eyes away from it.

Much, much more could be said, but anyone with an interest in silent movies or in cinema history will want to watch it and draw his or her own conclusions. Whether you want to analyze the vast array of themes, events, and ideas, or whether you just want to sit back and enjoy a fascinating spectacle, the three hours fly by very quickly, and it's a movie you won't forget.

Incredible that in 1916 Griffith embarked on a film with four different stories intercut to indeed present "love's struggle through the ages". This really is the ultimate epic film, no film before or since can really match it for ambition or scope. Lillian Gish believed it was ruined when Griffith cut it down from his original version, destroying the narrative flow but the extensive intercutting gathering speed and intensity towards the end was hugely influential particularly on the Soviets and directors like Hitchcock who liked to turn the screw with mounting suspense. Its not a film though to show a newcomer to the silents, it requires some experience of silent drama. People in 1916 were either amazed by the spectacle or baffled by it, one reviewer said they feared Belshazzar would be knocked down by an automobile at any second.

Just an amazing accomplishment, over a 100 years ago...the premise of these films is still extremely revelant now, more so recently! The scale of sets, costumes and running themes are so impressive.

Only CITIZEN KANE and 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY come close to the kind of originality in Griffith's silent masterpiece. All three were financial failures, unpopular when first released - even though they've acquired legendary status as the decades passed. They are the cinematic equivalents of novels like ULYSSES and MOBY-DICK, whose complexity and strangeness make them almost unreachable to the average reader. This is what happens when artists break into uncharted territory: they risk everything with such achievements - even their reputations. So, what we have here is a movie that for about 2 and a half hours juggles 4 different story lines that illustrate intolerance throughout history: religious warfare in Ancient Babylon; the story of Jesus from scripture; the persecution of the French Huguenots; and injustice in Twentieth Century America. Throughout this wild ride of a movie we sense we are in the hands of a brilliant film-maker using every bit of his resources to entertain and enthrall us. It is too, probably, simply showing off. There will always be those who cannot tolerate the shock of experiencing something new - poor things. One hundred years later Intolerance is as unique and new as it was the day it was made.

It surprises me that "Intolerance" was such a box office bomb when it first came out back 1916. Sure, it was especially complicated and hard to follow for the time, but the sheer spectacle of it feels like it would not only really attract audiences of that time, but even our time. The battle sequences are so exciting and suspenseful that it's hard not to love their intensity and well crafted nature.

"Intolerance" doesn't follow one simple narrative, but four narratives, each narrative from a separate time period, from the Babylonian era to modern day America. Instead of, more conventionally, presenting each story one at a time, D.W. Griffith cuts from one story/time period to another in an extremely influential way. It's clear that this makes the film horribly complicated for a 1916 audience. Heck, today the film still is pretty complicated!

Many people may say that the film is a bit melodramatic or-*GASP*-dated, but, to be honest, it's a film made 100 years ago! And, even if it is a bit corny at times today, there still is a lot of stuff in "Intolerance" that is still truly emotional and gripping to this very day.

If you hate "The Birth of a Nation", you still may love "Intolerance". It has the technical mastery of "The Birth of a Nation", but without the blatant and repulsive racism. So, if you feel like you should never give Mr. Griffith's work a chance after a film like "BOAN", please rethink your decision, because you sure will be missing out on an epic masterpiece!

Four stories are told: the fall of Babylon; Jesus Christs' crucifixion; a French revolution story and a modern day tale. They are all connected by the theme of intolerance and how it can destroy people and civilizations.

D.W. Griffith's film was a huge bomb when it was released in 1916--it's easy to see why.

Do we really need four stories about intolerance and does it need to drag out for THREE HOURS???? It could have been done in half the time with only two of the stories. My guess is that Griffith wanted to do some historical dramas and decided to cram them all into one movie. His making of the Babylon set has become a Hollywood legend.

The film is well-done, extremely well-acted and the battle scenes are still strong stuff--bloody and violent. But the film is too long and gets boring more than once. Still worth seeing for the cast, incredible sets and ground-breaking direction by Griffith--but you'll probably be satisfied after an hour or two.

If watching Birth of a Nation could be likened to ordering soup at a restaurant, appreciating the fine china bowl it's contained in but nevertheless sending it back because it lacked any warmth, D.W. Giffith's so-called "apologetic" follow-up is akin to the waiter coming back with something far more appetising. Often hailed as a film "you must see once", Intolerance I argue is a film you should not only see once, and from a reputable source (I cannot recommend the blu-ray highly enough, most of all for the wonderful presentation of Carl Davis' rigorous 1989 score) but also then treasure for the rest of your movie-watching days.

Telling four simultaneous stories that interlock with a despairing narrative throughout, the film cuts back and forth with tension, action, suspense and spectacle like nothing that had been seen before. Yes, more-so even than the much more widely lauded Birth of a Nation. The weakest and most superfluous of the stories, featuring the rise and fall of Jesus of Nazareth, is tepid and never really gets going. You get the sense that Griffith merely wanted a biblical bow to tie around the trimmings of his movie to give it extra moralist oomph. While he never quite succeeds in doing so, the segments are thankfully given very little screen time for us to really get frustrated over. The second of the bunch, a French Renaissance piece revolving around the lead up to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, has its moments, but again mostly plays second fiddle to the larger plays at hand.

The two centrepiece stories set in modern 1916 and Babylonian 539BC are where the film's real meat resides and exist to showcase the film's dualism in starkly contrasting two completely different eras of mankind's history which are plagued by all-too-familiar human flaws. Contrasting the huge sets of Babylonia with the small, claustrophobic rooms of modern 1916 whilst effectively telling the same story on different scales, Griffith strikes a firm balance between raw emotional storytelling and thrilling ideological battles fought with religion, money, power and morality. And while the two least interesting stories never really amount to anything revelatory on their own, in employing the same cross-cutting seen in Birth of a Nation's climactic sequences, Intolerance comes to a gripping and cohesive conclusion ripe with pathos and stark imagery thanks to their intricately interwoven nature.

While reports of Intolerance being Griffith's act of atonement for his previous effort are often regarded as folly, regardless there exists a warmth to it that was absent in Nation. Grander, more outward-looking in terms of scale and ideology, and most importantly presented with an artistry that propels the work further and with more lasting, readily- appreciated value. From the epic sets and casts of extras sprawling around each other in death and dance, to the smallest, most intricate moments of sorrow and inner-turmoil, Intolerance is not only the first truly great film in cinematic history, but to this day remains as a rare example of film existing as a form of classically-tuned art. Art with a pulse, a heart and a desire. See it once, sure, but I guarantee you'll be back for one more rock of the cradle.

Intolerance (1916) : Brief Review -

An Immortal Masterpiece. There's nothing in the entire vocabulary of Cinema world that hasn't been influenced by this. These are Orson Welles's lines about this film and i liked it so kept it. He also said one more interesting thing that, "Intolerance is way too complex for 1916 audience and it is still a very complex for today's audience". I agree. I am 28, have watched 1000+ Classic films made all over the World. I am done with all those complex stories told by Stanley Kubrick and current time sensation Christopher Nolan and then this 104 years old film comes, i start watching it and don't understand what the hell is going on. It took me almost an hour to understand the ongoings and characters of those parallel stories. Like Welles said, Intolerance has every single element of cinema like drama, romance, betrayal, history, devotion, tragedy, war and bla bla you name it and you find it right here. One of best line said by Welles was about getting the credit. You see, there are many classic films made in silent era and then talkies took influences from them so the credibility of those talkies was not there. Because every classic film of talkies era has been influenced by some film made way before it but Intolerance was made when there were no influeneces available. Hence, the credibility sticks to it, you can't just take it away. And like I said it has all the elements of cinema that means it has left influences for so many genre discovered after 1930s. Intolerance is not about one man or one time period, it tells four stories set in four different centuries, simultaneously. This intercut idea is brilliant because you stay with all four storyline at the same time as all of them run together, no one is left behind nor is kept ahead. The begining and ending of all four stories doesn't take place at different time, it all ends together. I don't remember any film being so clever in storytelling especially those having multiple storylines. Intolerance is undoubtedly the Greatest Storytelling I've ever seen in Hollywood. Apart from storytelling it has got huge scale and grandeur which is also without any doubt among the Biggest Cinematic Experiences ever. Perhaps, the Biggest Ever and not one of the biggest. I mean this grandeur was made in 1916, seriously how big it was for that time. And it was made without any VFX work, right? Then it's certainly BIGGEST EVER! I never imagined that watching great films from silent era, especially before 1920 would make me feel pity on talkies. This is my 3rd film from 1920s and I'm expecting more surprises as i continue watching more films from the same decade. Overall, Intolerance is an immortal masterpiece, the greatest storytelling in the format, poineer of almost all cinematic elements and the grandeur ahead by a century.

RATING - 9/10*

By - #samthebestest

`Intolerance' is likely D.W. Griffith's most ambitious film and, in the evolution of cinema, perhaps the boldest production ever assembled. In order to illuminate mankind's proclivity for intolerance, Griffith interweaves four separate stories from four very different time periods. I admire Griffith's gusto, but he aims too high. Although all four episodes address the same themes and occasionally add extra levels of significance to each other, only two are dramatically potent. The film would have benefited greatly had Griffith chosen to skip over his parables of Jesus' crucifixion and the French Revolution. He then would have had greater room to expand his commentary on modern injustice and to have more fun with his huge, elaborate Babylonian sets.

Rating: 7

I was greatly disappointed in this film after being greatly impressed by the powerful and moving "Way Down East" and the groundbreaking (though shockingly racist) "Birth of a Nation." Griffith felt that he needed to follow the epic "Birth" with something "important," but the result is an over-produced and pretentious mess. The only sequence which carries any dramatic weight is the modern sequence (which Griffith had originally planned to make up the entire movie, originally titled "The Mother and the Law"), but associates convinced him that such a modest project shouldn't follow "Birth of a Nation" so Griffith padded the project with three other episodes which are frankly nonsensical and boring.

Griffith's reputation as one of the most important figures in the evolution of film is well deserved based on such works as "Judith of Bethulia," "Birth of a Nation," "Broken Blossoms" and "Way Down East," but "Intolerance" is clearly an example of a man desperate to top a spectacular success without a cohesive idea of how to go about it.