#intolerance 1916

This will be the only time that I will be introducing and reviewing a film in a single post. The next film on the AFI Top 100 was the oldest and most difficult to watch film of the group, Intolerance (1916). It is a rather famous D.W. Griffith production that was so expensive and poorly received that it ruined the man financially. It did not win any awards as none existed for film at the time. There is some lore to the purpose of the film, but I will give you a brief run down of the plots (yes, with an s) first. No spoiler warning needed, the film is 100 years old and a synopsis still won’t spoil anything. By the way, the entire movie is silent with tons of confusing transitions and constant dialogue cards so this is just my best guess/interpretation:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story #1: A boy and his girl clear out of a city because the boss at his work gave all the workers a pay cut. The workers went on strike and it was shut down by a posse, so many of the striking workers (including the boy) were run out of town. In the new location, she lives in a slum and he turns to crime for money. The boy makes enough money to marry his girl, but he is suddenly framed for a theft that he didn’t do courtesy of his old boss. The couple has had a child who is suddenly taken away and the boy is sent to prison. Upon eventual release, the boy returns home to find his ex-boss trying to rape his wife and the ex-boss is shot (I think by the boss’s wife by accident?). The wife escapes, but the boy is sentenced to hang. The wife meets a cop who then helps to find the real killer and set the boy free. 

Story #2: There is something about a religious story and the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of Protestants by Catholics. It is very short and involves a lot of murder in the streets. 

Story #3: There is a really short sequence about Judas and the eventual crucifixion of Jesus.

Story #4: A really big budget war sequence about the fall of Babylon. There were a lot of very long ancient names that were flashed up on cards very quickly and it is extremely difficult to tell what is happening. The scale of the Babylon palace and all the fighting is impressive. There is also a lot of pyrotechnic aspects that could not have been safe with all the extras. No way that at least one extra didn’t die during the making of this film. 

There is a pretty funny underlying story about a guy who is sick of his sister and takes her to court for being a pain. He then tries to sell her on the market, but she is so poorly mannered that they can’t pay people to take her away. The prince walks by and pronounces that she need not be married so no man will be saddled with her. 

The stories are split up by moments of a mother rocking a cradle, which I am pretty sure is supposed to represent time. I am not sure about this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the kind of artsy movie that turns off modern audiences from seeing older interpretive film. The main story of the boy in the city is pretty interesting, but the constant cutting in of other things really diminishes the overall message. The exploration of intolerance doesn’t need to cover 2000 years of history in a single film and it pushes what could have been a great 90 minute story into something that lasts into the range of 3 hours. 

Admittedly, the film has a lot of influence on the way that films were cut and battle scenes were shot, especially in early European film. The film was a giant step forward for cinematography at the time, especially the giant battle scenes in Paris and in Babylon. It is considered by many to be D.W. Griffith’s greatest film. It really doesn’t make it any easier to get through, however. My dad only made it through about half an hour. He didn’t fall asleep, he just up and left.

It should be noted that none of the non-historical characters were given names, which became a standard for early film. The boy was literally just called The Boy and his wife was called The Dear One. There was a woman in the massacre portion called Brown Eyes with parents named Brown Eye’s Mother and Brown Eye’s Father. Historical figure Prince Belshazzar was named while a female warrior was just called The Mountain Girl. 

I had read a very old article that called this film an apology for the previous film of Griffin (Birth of a Nation), but it turns out this was mostly written before the previous film was released. Also, Griffin said on many occasions that he felt no need to apologize for Birth of a Nation. He felt that he could tell a story from a perspective outside his own and he should not be held responsible for offense that is taken. A large part of his legacy is attached to promoting racist stereotypes, but his film techniques are widely applauded even when his opinions and subject matter are not. 

A good influence that Griffith had was that he used his money to produce his own films and made close to 500 films. He pushed for directors to have control of their own interests and step away from the commercial studio system. He also backed many of the great early directors like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Douglas Fairbanks, and Hal Roach. Other famous directors that praise the work and contributions of Griffith include Alfred Hitchcock, Cecil B. DeMille, Victor Fleming, and Stanley Kubrick.

The one aspect of the film that can be clearly appreciated is the attempt at complicated story telling through juxtaposition and music. The fact that you can tell four overlaying stories with very little dialogue, even if they are convoluted, is an accomplishment in itself. This truly is a lesson in visual storytelling and allowing the soundtrack to move a story. For this I give it credit and appreciate as student of the medium.

Sennett in Two Memories (1909)

In 1916's Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages, Griffith linked Prohibition to feminism by inserting the intertitle “When women cease to attract men they often turn to reform as a second chance,” depicting feminists as a villain who take babies away from “unfit” mothers. He also shows the young women meeting men in back-alley (bootlegging) saloons shortly after Prohibition passed.

In 1913's The Reformers; or, The Lost Art of Minding One's Business, while their parents are out doing social reform work, the son gets drunk and the daughter falls for a friend who brings them alcohol. I guess that Griffith wanted to show that people resist social reform in one way or another. As in Intolerance, The Reformers shows the bootlegging trade flourishing soon after the passage of Prohibition.

In 1912's The Lesser Evil, Blanche Sweet helps the leader of the bootleggers who kidnapped her escape when he is surrounded by police, and 1909's Two Memories shows a group of young men and women marching, all with champagne in their hands.

그리피스는 1916년작 Intolerance에서 '성적 매력을 잃은 나이든 여성들은 주변을 뜯어고치려고 하게 마련이다'라는 인터타이틀을 삽입해 금주법과 여성주의를 연관시키면서 여성주의자들을 '적합하지 않은' 어머니에게서 그들의 아기를 빼앗아 가는 파렴치한으로 묘사한다. 그리피스는 또한 젊은 여자들이 금주법이 통과되자마자 뒷골목(밀주거래)술집에서 남자들을 만나는 모습을 보여준다.

1913년작 The Reformers는 부모님이 사회개혁 활동하러 나간 사이에 아들 술에 취하고 딸은 술을 가져온 친구에게 반해 버리는 내용으로, 그리피스는 사람들은 어떤 식으로든 사회개혁에 저항한다는 걸 보여주고 싶어했던 것 같다. Intolerance에서처럼 The Reformers에서도 금주법이 통과되자마자 밀주 거래가 성행한다.

Interesting discussion of Intolerance’s reception throughout the last century.