FILMBRATS - REVIEWS

“Intolerance” is really four stories in one. In present day America (the film was released in 1916), a group of so-called social do-gooders attempt to bring aid to a young single mother’s child, inadvertently destroying her life. In 14th century France, the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre is explored. There’s the well-known tale of Jesus’ condemnation. And also, in Babylonia, a senseless battle emerges. All threaten to tear the delicate fabric of society widely apart, and the film would have you believe that such injustice is ongoing and by watching, realizations will be made and reforms put into action before its too late.

Really, what writer/director D. W. Griffith is trying to make you believe is that he actually knows the definition of the word “intolerance” when I’m not so certain. The modern day thread of the tapestry especially misses the mark. The social reformers aren’t actually intolerant of anything, they’re just heartless and stubborn. What causes them to hunt down and steal the baby away from the mother is not their intolerance for single parenting or injustice or anything – its just pure irrationality and failure to listen to reason. Here’s a quote: “When women cease to attract men, they often turn to Reform as a second choice.” So…they’re intolerant of people that call them fugly, so they have to wage a war against some fake enemy?

Well, I’ll tell you. I’m intolerant of movies that don’t have their act together structurally. The four stories are cut parallel to each other. That is we see part of A, then B, then C, then maybe A again, then D, B, etc. I don’t see one good reason as to why these shouldn’t be played chronologically. We as an audience wouldn’t have to struggle to remember where each piece left off when returning and the intolerance through the ages theme might even be a little more evident. I think the only reason they were cut together in this fashion was to make the film longer. Instead of watching four short films back to back, it’s all in one large, hard-to-swallow capsule (197 minutes for the record). If scenes from different time periods are to be joined together like this, at least have the courtesy to give us more immediate points of comparison. As it stands, the only real connection, besides the faulty central theme, is a beautifully composed, yet pretentious shot of a woman (Lillian Gish) rocking the metaphorical and literal cradle. If the storytelling were more effective, this connecting device would be completely unnecessary.

The movie isn’t all bad. In fact, a lot of it is surprisingly good, considering the dense (double meaning intended) presentation. The acting is actually very good. Most of the actors are surprisingly natural and take full advantage of their close-ups by getting the emotional requirements across without over-exaggerating their face or body. The one major exception is Mae Marsh as the Little Dear One from the modern story. I couldn’t tell if she was supposed to be extremely innocent or mildly retarded. She was just too excited and aloof.

This is grand epic. The costumes and sets are of the grandest scale as is the rest of the production. G. W. Bitzer’s cinematography shows us some amazing shots revealing great depth in terms of space. We’re also treated to some masterful and innovative crane shots that swoop down to the dance floor or moves in to an extreme-close up of Dear One coping with her recent loss. The battles look great, too, and are equally massive in scale (complete with decapitations). Just like with Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation,” the film looks amazing and the production value is awe-inspiring and breathtaking, but the storytelling and structure of the work remains a little lackluster and doesn’t quite convey the intended message.

respond to jon@filmbrats.com