THE CRUEL HAND OF INTOLERANCE.Â
The premiere of D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation in 1915 must have been a hurtful experience for the director. The film’s portrayal of African Americans resulted in charges of racism and incited riots in several cities. The director felt that he was being treated unfairly, and one can’t emphasize enough how much it must have mattered to him. After all, who in their right mind would decide to immediately make another incredibly expensive epic just to point out in a rather confused way that people were being intolerant of his views? In Griffith’s world, he was the victim.
The film presents four different historical tales, told in parallel fashion. To a lesser degree, we follow events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Howard Gaye), and how religious intolerance between Catholics and Protestants resulted in the ghastly St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572. To a greater degree we are presented with the background behind the fall of Babylon, where a conflict arises between those who believe in rival gods.
There’s also a modern story. Set in America, it shows how greed and moralism combine to cause misery for two lovers; a campaign started by ”moral uplifters” leads to a workers’ strike that has devastating consequences.
Same approach as in morality plays
The two lovers are simply called The Boy (Robert Harron) and The Dear One (Mae Marsh). This approach, reminiscent of classical literary works such as morality plays, is used throughout the film to signify the key traits of each character. For instance, the most interesting person in the film is The Mountain Girl in the Babylonian tale, played with gusto by Constance Talmadge (who also plays Princess Marguerite in the St. Bartholomew’s Day tale); she’s an unruly character who can’t be controlled by any man and her name certainly transcends those vibes. On the whole, the women are more interesting here than the men, with Marsh more effective than Harron as the unfortunate Boy. Lilian Gish gets top billing even though she only has one scene, playing a mother rocking a cradle in a highly symbolic image used in cuts between the four tales. The movie wasn’t a great commercial hit at the time, but its reputation grew as it inspired later filmmakers. The way Griffith cross-cut between his tales was groundbreaking and the Babylonian sequences, with their immense sets and crowds, are astonishing, the highlight being a huge assault on the city featuring elephants, towers, warriors and very graphic violence, including decapitations!
As a whole, the film is very uneven. The story of the crucifixion and the religious massacre are pretty obvious, thus lacking in tension. The Babylonian tale has unrivaled splendor and many amusing moments, but also a few slow stretches. The modern story is fascinating because it attempts to capture sentiments in America at that time, giving it historic value… but it’s also unashamedly sentimental. The constant cross-cutting, throwing us from one story to another, makes it hard at times to invest fully in the project.
Still, it’s hard not to be in awe of a filmmaker so stubborn in his views that he managed to insult the entire African-American community and still saw himself as Christ on the cross. Hollywood’s Donald Trump?
Intolerance 1916-U.S. Silent. 178 min. B/W. Produced and directed by D.W. Griffith. Screenplay: D.W. Griffith, Hettie Grey Baker, Tod Browning, Anita Loos, Mary H. O’Connor, Frank E. Woods. Cast: Lilian Gish (The Eternal Motherhood), Robert Harron (The Boy), Mae Marsh (The Dear One), Constance Talmadge, Bessie Love, Seena Owen… Eugene Pallette.
Trivia: Alternative title: Intolerance: Love’s Struggle Throughout the Ages. Many different prints of the film exist, one of them running 208 min. Several future stars and filmmakers are said to have small roles, including Browning, Frank Borzage, Donald Crisp, Douglas Fairbanks, Wallace Reid, W.S. Van Dyke, Erich von Stroheim and King Vidor.
Last word: “A few years ago – which is a long while in the motion-picture business – I produced a picture for Biograph called ‘The Reformers’. In that two-reel subject I gave vent to some of my feelings on the matter of bigotry and carelessness of the true wellbeing of one’s fellow-creatures. The picture did not in any way resemble ‘Intolerance’ except in basic principles, but if you want the history of my new production you must go right back there, for ever since then I have been consciously and unconsciously collecting material for a portrayal, on as comprehensive a scale as possible, of the evil of intolerance.” (Griffith in 1916, “D.W. Griffith: Interviews”)
