"Intolerance" (1916)

Rank on the AFI List: #49

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it was a silent film, and the oldest movie on the AFI list.

AFI Synopsis:
[D.W.] Griffith's monumental exploration of intolerance is told through four different but parallel stories from ancient Babylon, to the time of Christ in Judea, to Paris in 1572, to social reformers in contemporary America. A milestone in filmmaking, each story was tinted in a different color (but the version we watched didn't have the tinted colors).

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was the second silent film I've ever seen (the other one being Sunrise), and I'm really glad I had something to compare "Intolerance" to (and a movie I'm now able to compare "Sunrise" to), even though they were made 11 years apart.

With being one of the earliest major movies ever made, it was a different kind of experience. The film begins with the audience literally being told the plot, the theme, and the reason the movie was made (which I found to be a little annoying because I like watching a movie and coming to those conclusions on my own). There were several times when a "note" was included to give historical background - or even information about the set - for the upcoming scene. And watching this movie didn't really bring out any emotions for me (except for one small feeling of suspense toward the end). Again, it was just a different experience, but I'm really glad I watched "Intolerance" to help broaden my horizons.

Something that shocked me quite a bit was how graphic this movie was. There was a beheading and other violent acts like people being run-through with swords (these "special effects" were actually quite impressive considering when this movie was made). But even more shocking was the nudity: several shots of boobs hanging out, and I think I saw a rear-end in one scene. I always thought there was a strict forbiddance of nudity in film until maybe the 1960s. Apparently "Intolerance" was made before censorship came upon the film industry.

So how does it compare to the other silent film I've seen? Without a doubt, I liked "Sunrise" more. To me, "Sunrise" has more of a timeless quality, and it did an amazing job at telling its story by conveying feelings and emotions using little to no words or explanations. "Intolerance" didn't really do that, but it did tell its story on a much grander scale (keep reading to find out what I mean).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
For a movie made in 1916, it was pretty impressive. The term "epic" is perfect, too, because there were battle scenes, four different stories interweaving between each other, over 16,000 extras (I don't even want to think about how many of them were either injured or killed during filming), and the largest set ever made in the history of film (watch the Babylonian scenes and you will be amazed by just how grandiose the sets were). And the entire movie cost about $2 million to make.....in 1916. I found an "inflation calculator" online and was surprised that that's the equivalent of only $39+ million in 2008. But still, that's a ton of money, people, and resources for one film. And I read in several places that the way the four stories were told in spurts and bounced back and forth between each other was groundbreaking and changed the way stories were (and continue to be) told through film.

Complaints:
One could argue that, by today's movie-making standards, this was a bit of a "rough cut". The story-telling wasn't the sharpest, the flow of the movie wasn't that smooth, and a lot of shots didn't seem to be very relevent. Of course, it was 1916, so the art of telling a story through film probably hadn't really reached the fine-tuning stage yet.

Another small complaint of mine: the four stories didn't relate all that well to the definition of intolerance (or even to each other). It was like D.W. Griffith saw everything in life through the "intolerance lens". Even if it didn't really apply to a situation, intolerance was what he saw, and to me, that made some of these stories weak because they weren't really about intolerance. I think "hate" and "greed" are better descriptors of what all four stories are about.

LET ME SUM UP...
"Intolerance" is a very different movie experience. I never really had any sort of emotional investment in any of the characters, and I didn't like how the movie bluntly describes the plot and themes that come up. However, I was very impressed with the grand scale of this movie. And 1916 was such a different time for film that I can't fault "Intolerance" for the weird little peculiarities that make it so different from modern day movies. So with that, I'll say that I think this was a good movie and I'm glad I've now watched it, but I wouldn't say I liked it.

MY RATING: 5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 60