 | |
List Price: $6.98 | | Label: Alpha Video
Salesrank: 39316
Released: November 18, 2003 |
| Our Price: $3.53 |
| Used Price: $3.11 |
|
MPAA Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
After Birth of a Nation, what do you do for an encore, especially after said film has branded you a racist? D.W. Griffith, the silent era's "king of the world," mounted this melodramatic spectacle of "Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages," four stories that illustrate "how hatred and intolerance have battled against love and charity." Critic Heywood Broun, upon the film's release, probably said it best: "Quite the most marvelous thing which has been put on the screen, but as a theory of life it is trite." But what's on the screen is dazzling!
Griffith interweaves the four parallel stories set, respectively, in the modern era (fuddy-duddy reformers and a workers' strike), Jerusalem (Christ's crucifixion), 1572 Paris (a "hotbed" of persecution against the Huguenots), and ancient Babylon. No collection of silent films is complete without this landmark, awe-inspiring epic, which really does boast a cast of thousands (the most memorable of which is Constance Talmadge as the spunky Mountain Girl). The fall of Babylon ranks with one of the great action set pieces, complete with racing chariots, a nifty decapitation (at the hands of Elmo Lincoln, the man who would be Tarzan), and falls from what appear to be incredible heights. The edge-of-your-seat climax to the modern story, a race against time to save an innocent young man from the electric chair, is another bravura sequence. --Donald Liebenson
Intolerance Reviews:
Intolerance 
2009-10-03 - I did not have any problem with this item. I would buy from Amazon.com again. It was an Alpha Video and in the past about 75% of Alpha Video's have one or both problems in the video production and in the audio. I just received an order containing two Alpha videos and I will be returning both because the video quality is very poor and the audio is not much better.
One of the Best movies EVER made: An absolute MUSE see 
2009-07-01 - Intolerance is an incredible masterpiece. It truly deserves a detailed description/commentary to encourage viewing, for it is a movie that should be required viewing for all educated people, not just film enthusiasts, and should be ranked amongst the TOP five movies ever made in America. It has been compared by critics to masterpieces in other arts, as it should, because it is the work of a creative genius and a true work of art.
It should also be watched several times, as it is not only very enjoyable on further viewings, but necessary in order to fully appreciate the complexity and beauty of the film. There are also several versions aside from this one, which I have not seen, but would be curious to explore, as they may have additional or different footage.
Griffith was heavily influenced by two movies that preceeded his creation, an Italian production form 1914 "Cabiria" and "The Last Days of Pompeii" (Caserini version, 1913) Both had excerpts in this disc under the special features, which I watched after the movie and found most helpful in understanding Griffith's vision.
"Intolerance" encompasses four different stories tied together by the theme of intolerance, with first place given to religious intolerance. From the beginning, the film jumps from one to the other of the stories (and this was one of the great innovations that it introduced) with the interlocking image of a woman by the cradle representing the passage of the generations (Lillian Gish). I have read that the original footage was eight hours long and that Ms. Gish said it should have been shown as was. After seeing this version, which is almost three hours, I would agree to say that it would be probably an interesting experience, but not as effective an impression.
The stories are in historical order: 1-The Fall of Babylon to Cyrus the Great 2-The story of Christ, concentrated to some highlights 3- Massacre of St. Bartholomew in 16th Century France 3- A Contemporary story of class struggle and injustice.
The most developed is the Contemporary tale which is a full feature, followed by the Babylonian tale which is almost a full feature and then the more reduced Huguenot and Christ stories.
What is incredible about this movie is how well it holds together, given the daunting task of four different plots, that even today after almost a full century of movie-watching experience, remains extraordinary.
However the difficulty in maintaining a strong story line is what probably accounts for the film's commercial failure.
Even in our age of text messages and video clips there are not that many people out there comfortable spanning and understanding four totally different time periods simultaneously. Needless to say, even with the notes that were interjected in the titles, it would also be very hard to follow the Babylonian and St. Bartholomew plots without some background information. The Christ story would be daunting for non-Christian viewers as it is very barely sketched and assumes the viewer knows it well.
The amazing discovery for me was that as far as historical films is concerned, we have been decaying since, as I have never seen anything that approximates his evocation of the times depicted here. In the case of the French court, it is almost as if Griffith had ressurected the players from portraits, so strong is the resemblance between actors and historical figures. The extraordinary refinement in understanding the decoration and costumes is without precedent in American cinema, for it shows how the court integrated elements from the past (medieval tapestries for instance) in their living interiors, and it is these elements that disappear completely form later Hollywood historical movies when period films meant going into that particular epoch at the expense of all others and exclusively showing 'the historical' present, at best, and at worst recreating the period in an exagerated or ridiculous manner that made no sense at all.
The attention to detail is unsurpassed, particularly in the Babylonian scenes where the recreation of architecture, interiors, war scenes an elaborate crowd coordination is baffling. Not all of it is accurate, granted, (the elephant columns for example) but the general effect most definitly is, to the point where at times we almost feel we are witnessing a documentary.
The film is also very progressive and advanced for its time in many unsuspecting ways, and it also points out how contemporary mores are actually more provincial that we would like to acknowledge: The harem scenes in Babylon would probably get an X-rating today, for although there is nothing shown that is lewd, there is certainly a strong erotic languor and an accurate depiction of physical desire that is strongly suggested by the actors and actresses in their half nakedness. These would get at least an R now, and it makes one clearly understand how film rating is really a vestige of an archaic censorship that is completely out of place in contemporary society.
More importantly, the depiction of a pagan universe is accurate in portraying a lack of prejudice for gay sexuality, is also suggested here in harem scenes between the beautiful women of the king. Furthermore, the parting kiss between Belshazzar and his general, close to the end of the invasion scene, would be unthinkable in a popular blockbuster of today,where producers would be worrying endlessly about the loss of revenue that could occur from possible criticism. Yet in the film it is not only totally natural as a farewell salutation, but charged with a powerful homoerotic beauty that is an integral part of the pagan reality that Christian culture has been trying to obliterate, distort or hide for centuries.
The movie is amongst many things, an excellent attack on religious hypocrisy and fanaticism, and as such it is no wonder it would be controversial. To paraphrase the great Moliere, who discovered so many centuries ago, when he staged his Tartuffe, a play about a pious hypocrite, and found out how powerful and malicious this crowd could be, he proceeded to note in the introduction to the published edition "hypocrites are most prone to furiously attact my play, because they will lose their jobs if they are exposed" This exposé on hypocrites, is best illustrated in the contemporary tale, where a group of hideous and obviously frustrated and embittered women set out on a mission to "elevate" the poor and are effective only in diminishing their quality of life, and also in causing lower pay for the workers, strikes and other negative effects, not to mention taking away the child of our heroine and confining the baby to an institution, for no other valid reason than their inaccurate, yet prejudiced perception of her. Griffith had the courage to attack this vermin and shows he is a master at depicting the shades and nuances of these creatures that destroy while trying "to do good" which is to them, mostly an entertainment and/or an outlet for their perverse energy and vanity.
I disagree with those who consider Griffith sentimental. He depicts affection and feelings accurately within the conventions of his time, which were still for the most part, those of stage actors in the 19th Century. Part of the greatness of the movie is precisely in opening the window to the complexity of human existance at any point in history through the way those feelings are depicted.
There is as much tenderness and love in the relationship between Belshazzar and his princess as there is hatred and ambition in the High Priest. The malice of the intriguing French court is contrasted with the purity and innocence of the young girl "Brown eyes', and the vice and criminality of The Musketeer of the People and his love interest, who shoots him in a fit of jealousy, is a strong contrast to The Boy and The Dear One.
Finally it should be noted that Griffith was prophetic in his understanding of social tendencies in America. Within three years of the release of the movie, America entered the fiasco of prohibition, which never eradicated alcoholism or its societal effects, yet was extremely successful at enriching, developing and promoting organized crime.
A Contradictory Landmark 
2009-07-01 - D. W. Griffith established the parameters of success and failure in commercial cinema. If "The Birth of a Nation" represented the pioneering director's breakthrough, "Intolerance" (1916) was his undoing - a costly epic with limited box-office appeal. Griffith's flawed masterpiece influenced the Russian cinema of Eisenstein and Pudovkin through its innovative use of editing and montage, yet unknowingly paved the way for Hollywood filmmakers to create their own "delusions of grandeur." Though uneven, "Intolerance" proved a visually stunning and, at times, fascinating achievement. In terms of spectacle, "The Fall of Babylon" segment was a work of art. "The Mother and the Law" also succeeded as a contemporary, humanistic drama reminiscent of "A Corner in Wheat." If Griffith focused solely on the two stories, "Intolerance" might have surpassed "The Birth of the Nation." Unfortunately, he did not comprehend that less is more. The undeveloped Christ and Huguenot segments could have been jettisoned, thus resulting in a tighter and more controlled drama. Worse still, the director's unnecessary reliance on pretentious, flowery title cards hindered the narrative flow and upset the film's visual rhythm. Griffith now seemed out of touch with his initial audience, who were lukewarm in their response. The contradictory landmark of "Intolerance" encompassed the ambition, excess, folly and occasional triumph that became Hollywood.
Worth a Watch
2009-01-22 - This movie is long. I'll say it...it's like Titanic long, but without all the glitz and glam of Titanic. Well it did have the glitz and glam, but not in the same manner. Griffth's work is the answer to the critics who critized his most well known worth Birth of a Nation.
Intolerance follows four different story lines. A modern one concerning "do-gooders" and the poor, the fall of Babylon, The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, and the trial and crucifixtion of Jesus. All of these based somehow on the theme of intolerance for something, most notably that of religious differences.
This movie is not for those who need a lot of plot to keep them interested. It's fairly straightforward. And since it's a silent silm many may be bored by it. But it's something to give a change. It's a classic that shouldn't be missed.
One of the most historically significant movies of all time
2009-01-18 - D.W. Griffith's 1916 Silent Film is considered the most prolific film of ALL TIME. This film is LOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGG!!! It is comprised of four parts:
1. The "Babylonian" period (539 BC) depicts the fall of Babylon as a result of intolerance arising from a conflict between devotees of different Babylonian gods.
2. The "Judean" era (circa 27 AD) recounts how intolerance led to the crucifixion of Jesus.
3. The French Renaissance (1572) tells of the failure of the Edict of Toleration that led to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.
4. Modern America (1914) demonstrates how crime, moral puritanism, and conflicts between ruthless capitalists and striking workers helped ruin the lives of Americans.
NOW, if you watch it one part at a time and play your own music to it, its fantastic. I found that it works particularly well with Coheed & Cambria and Nirvana. I actually watched it on my computer and listened to music from Pandora Radio. I tried watching it the first time silent and I fell asleep...
Any way you cut it though, this is one of, if not THE greatest film ever conceptualized and put down on film.
