Intolerance (1916)

02 May
this poster doesn't begin to capture the sheer ambitious scope of this film

this poster doesn’t begin to capture the sheer ambitious scope of this film

I’ve been on a serious silent movie kick this past week. There is something addictive about silent movies. According to author Scott Eyman, people watch silent films differently than talkies, with silent films putting our minds into something that resembles a hypnotic state. But whatever the cause, when I watch a silent film, I only want to watch other silent movies. The idea of someone actually speaking feels crass.

Often spoken of as one of the most highly influential, important and impressive silent films, D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance has been on my radar for some time and last week, with some trepidation, I finally saw it. My reaction was mixed, but my overwhelming impression was of Griffith’s colossal ambition. His theme is intolerance – which he never lets you forget for one moment – and he weaves together four separate stories in four separate historical times to illustrate his point.

I’m not sure he entirely succeeds, but it’s not from aiming too low. I don’t know if anyone could have done better. He practically out-DeMilles DeMille.

The four stories are set respectively during Ancient Babylon before the city was capture by Cyrus and the Persians, in Jerusalem at the crucifixion of Jesus, in 1572 during St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre when the Huguenots were slaughtered, and in the modern time of 1916. In each story, Griffith endeavors to show how intolerance has led to the suffering and persecution of the innocent.

There is a difference of opinion about whether or not D.W. Griffith made Intolerance as an apology for the racism in Birth of a Nation or as a defense against his critics. I fall into the latter category. He seems to have an ax to grind with progressive reformers (presumably those who called his movie racist) and his tone is more that of offense than defense. This is especially evident in the modern sequence of the film, where he makes the case that society’s ills are brought about by do-gooders, who are represented as frustrated old maids who cannot stand to see young people happy. Griffith lays it on so thick that he occasionally comes off as obnoxious.

Intolerance contains a massive cast, mostly made up of people he had worked with before while making short films at Biograph Studios. In the modern section, we have The Dear One (Mae Marsh) and The Boy (Robert Harron) trying to make a life for themselves in the face of interfering intolerance. His father is shot during a strike (brought about by decreased wages so the factory owner could have more money spent passing reforming laws). He goes to the big city and gets caught up in a gang, but falls in love with The Dear One and tries to reform. But reformers (and the gang) won’t let him reform and he faces prison while their baby is taken away from them. He is later accused of murder and there is a mad rush to save him at the end before he’s hung (involving a car chase and everything).

Lillian Gish as the mother who is eternally rocking - the image of her rocking the baby is shown between scenes from the different historical eras - that must have been the easiest job she ever had

Lillian Gish as the mother who is eternally rocking – the image of her rocking the baby is shown between scenes from the different historical eras – that must have been the easiest job she ever had

Both the Huguenot section and the Jerusalem section are actually given short shrift. I can understand why he didn’t dwell on the Jerusalem section (he uses it so he can cut to key moments to make a point – like cutting from disapproval of alcohol in the modern section to the miracle where Jesus turns water into wine), but it’s a little puzzling he didn’t better develop the story of the Huguenots, That is the one story he is telling that is genuinely about intolerance and his characters come to particularly bad ends in this one. But instead he lavishes his time and money on the Babylon sequence, which is pretty spectacular, but doesn’t exactly work as a warning against intolerance.

However, the story set in Babylon is probably the more entertaining story. The sets are huge! He out-DeMille’s DeMille in spectacle. The pageantry, an impressive battle and siege of the city (seriously, it is a really cool siege), priestesses writhing about half-clothed in the temple of Ishtar.

The hero of this sequence is The Mountain Girl (Constance Talmadge), who is such a free-spirited gadabout that her brother decides to sell her as a wife in the bride market. But the wise king Belshazzar (Alfred Paget) comes by and decrees that she does not have to marry if she chooses. Instead, she vows eternal loyalty to the king, going as far as to fight in the battle (it occurred to me that feisty heroines with bows and arrows is a surprisingly old movie trope that is enjoying a modern renaissance in films like The Hunger Games) and stealing a chariot to warn the king that he has been betrayed to the Persians by the jealous priest of Bel-Marduk (he’s jealous because everyone is worshiping Ishtar, which I suspect is because he doesn’t have any half-naked priestesses).

To be honest, the Babylon sequence really seems out of place in the film and could have stood on its own just fine. In fact, The Mountain Girl character was so popular that the Babylon sequence was released on its own and she was given a partly happy ending. As The Mountain Girl, Constance Talmadge comes across as the most vibrant personality in the film and it apparently made her a star. The modern sequence was also released as one film, but I found that story more uneven.

The first half of the film is rather slow, but things really pick up in the second half. As annoying as his preaching is (and his self-seriousness – he’s always putting historical footnotes at the bottom of the titles cards to assure us that he’s done his research), I had to admire his skill. He seems to have invented so many movie cliches and the way he juxtaposes all four stories in an exciting climax is quite thrilling. The ending left me feeling more charitable than I actually felt for most of the film.


Posted by on May 2, 2016 in Movies


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 responses to “Intolerance (1916)

  1. Sharon

    May 2, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    Great analysis. And also appearing in Intolerance was the Dark Lady of the Silents (the title of her very interesting autobiography), Miriam Cooper. Cooper had also appeared in Griffith’s Birth of a Nation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinawehner

      May 2, 2016 at 3:11 pm

      Thank you! Was Miriam Cooper the Friendless One who shoots the musketeer at the end? She was good; I wished there had been more of her story in the film, actually. She is an actress that I sadly do not know as much about.

      It’s been a very long time since I’ve seen Birth of a Nation (I must have been ten). I keep kicking it around, trying to decide whether to see it again or not, but I can’t decide. The more of Griffith’s Biograph shorts (and now that I’ve seen Intolerance) the more curious I become, but there was one short that reminded me of how naively racist he can be that put me off. But I think I do want to see it now that I’ll actually comprehend what I am seeing. 🙂


      • Sharon

        May 2, 2016 at 3:33 pm

        Yes, that was her. And I should have noted that I only mentioned her because she’s a personal favorite of mine–I didn’t mean to imply you “forgot” her or expect you to make mention of every actor in this movie. She appeared in a lot of those Biograph shorts and was married for a while to Raoul Walsh. In her autobiography she gives a good view of what it was like for her to work in those early pics then; she made it sound all very workmanlike and not a bit glamorous.

        Liked by 1 person

        • christinawehner

          May 2, 2016 at 4:41 pm

          No, I’m glad you brought her to my attention; I didn’t feel you had implied I’d forgotten her at all. I’ve actually been recently going through a number of the Biograph shorts, though so far they mostly they seem to feature Lillian Gish and Mary Pickford.

          I’ve been extremely curious what it was like to make movies in those days (especially since they were making so many so quickly) and it sounds like a fascinating and clear-eyed read.


  2. stephencwinter

    May 3, 2016 at 11:46 am

    Watching silent movies is a gap in my movie experience. You have prompted me to put that right. If you ever feel like writing a beginners guide to people like me with a few recommendations that would be great. This is a fascinating piece. Many thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinawehner

      May 3, 2016 at 12:32 pm

      And thank you! I’m actually somewhat new to silent movies, too, but have been learning a lot from another blog called Movies Silently:

      She does movie reviews, myth-busting, videos, history, trivia. I used to be somewhat intimidated by silent films because I felt like I ought to watch the official “classics” and she has shown that silent movies can be fun and entertaining, too.

      But I’ve been watching an increasingly larger percentage of silent movies and you have me thinking about what sort of films are great to begin with. You have inspired me! I think I’ll work on a beginner’s gudie for this week or next week.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. stephencwinter

    May 3, 2016 at 11:54 am

    And having just watched the trailer (I couldn’t at first as I was sitting opposite my daughter doing exam revision. She needs the encouragement!) I have to put in a word about the great Carl Davis! I have certainly heard more of his work in concerts and recordings than in the original context of a movie. Another gap to be filled!

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinawehner

      May 3, 2016 at 12:15 pm

      I love all Carl Davis’ silent scores!…though I’m not as familiar with his concert work (which I should really check it out because his music is always amazing).

      Unfortunately, I was not able to see the version that contained his score. I saw the Kino DVD release of Intolerance, which contains a different score, but the Cohen Production release of the DVD does have Davis’ score. I wish I could have heard his, though. I watched the trailer, too, and thought his music sounded incredible.

      I hope your daughter’s exam revisions go splendidly! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • stephencwinter

        May 3, 2016 at 12:56 pm

        Most of his concert scores are also his movie scores! They sound great in the concert hall too!
        As to my daughter’s revision, I hope it goes well too!

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Silver Screenings

    May 5, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    I’m impressed! I’ve had this on my Must Watch List for some time, but haven’t made the time available for a single, entire viewing. You’ve spurred me on, though.

    It does sound like this film does give a person a lot to think about, no?

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinawehner

      May 5, 2016 at 9:11 pm

      My guilty secret is that I actually watched it in two sittings, though I suspect it would have much more power watched in one sitting as you plan to do. 🙂

      It is a fascinating film! It was interesting how he reveals his own intolerance at the same time that he condemns intolerance…which I wonder is perhaps inevitable for anyone who takes on such a vast and universal undertaking.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Silver Screenings

        May 6, 2016 at 4:39 am

        I’m not so sure I can do it in one sitting… I talk a big game. But two sittings is still impressive!

        Liked by 1 person


What Are Your Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: