Watch Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages For Free

I love this movie so much

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Best movie ever!

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

This was an excellent film, though I think the version I watched was a shortened version (the one that anyone can watch on YouTube, coming in at 2 hours and 45 minutes or around there). It was a very good watch though I thought. Hugely entertaining and a terrific score to boot. It's not just a good silent film, but a great film in general. The only thing I didn't like was the Jesus story, not that I have anything against the person, just it felt like it was somewhat lacking and didn't really serve any purpose to the rest of the film. Also, everyone knows the Jesus story and it doesn't really help the movie to reiterate here what everyone already knows. Outside of that, I really liked everything else in the movie. Truly an epic picture, the battle scenes especially are top notch for its time. It's really too bad that this movie ended up bankrupting one of the greatest directors of all time, but really, what a film, for its time or any other.

The most remarkable thing about Intolerance while I was watching it was that I found myself engaging with it as I would a modern piece of movie-making. Sometimes, even often times, when watching silence cinema I try to take it on the context of when it was made: that the director and crew and actors were working back when storytelling was completely new with moving images, that the scenarios were a little rougher, and that the social mores and other things made it specific to that time and place. Or, to put it another way, at times it might be dated as far as the storytelling - in the worst case scenarios, in a word, creaky.Intolerance begins in the first half hour sort of un-loading its four different scenarios - stories set in the modern day (of 1916) around the world of a company Jenkins and a feminist group; the Babylonians and Persians and their battles and quests for glory; the 16th century with turmoil in France; and the story of Jesus in Nazareth - but once the stories get going, Griffith's editing and storytelling work more like how one might see in a movie today. To say he was sophisticated in advancing the art of filmmaking is an understatement.This does not necessarily mean that there aren't things about it that haven't dated; there are some beats that come off as sexist (one of the inter-titles actually says, "when women are no longer able to attract men they turn to reform as a second option," in the modern times story) and there are some points where Griffith ratchets up the melodrama so high that it becomes sort of hysterical. But that's something I just take as a given with his approach, and to be fair this isn't quite as hyper-WTF as Birth of a Nation... then again, what is? And what Griffith is after here is nothing short of creating storytelling as a kind of visual symphony, particularly in the last like 45 to 50 minutes as all of the stories reach their manic and highly dramatic climaxes all at one - all while that woman sitting by the crib (is that Lillian Gish, how about that) is there sort of like the unofficial God(dess) of these slices of the human condition.There's a lot that can be dissected here, but I think what's telling, and what may actually be a slight (but only a slight) detriment to the filmmaking, is how much Griffith clearly prefers to tell more of two of the four stories: the modern day story and the Babylon epic. He gets to stage what I imagine were, with not much to compare to at the time (maybe aside from, uh, himself with BOTN and maybe Cabiria), the most spectacular battles recorded on film, and to bring together this story of "The Dear One" (Mae Marsh, gosh she's delightful and so ready to go full throttle with her acting) in a way that shows a sort of culmination of the melodramas he'd been making for years at Biograph. I didn't keep count of the minutes, but I'm pretty sure that these two tales - and by the way, the Babylon story also features a force of f***ing nature with Constance Talmadge as 'The Mountain Girl' - outnumber the French/Hugenot and Christ segments by quite a lot, and for the latter it almost seemed as if that was more allegorical to what was going on anyway in the other stories, especially the Boy's plight.I wouldn't say those should've been cut down or taken out, despite the Babylon and modern time stories being stronger overall; it's more a question of pacing. A recent descendant of Intolerance's approach to multi-level storytelling is Cloud Atlas (and I'm sure Nolan is a fan of this as well, not a doubt in my mind), and while that film certain is more scattered and messy in the success of its segments, the pacing was actually an improvement at times as far as balancing all of the stories. But, again, this almost in an ironic way a compliment to Griffith, that I think of this epic in such a way that it's closer to what movies in the 21st century achieve as far as bringing a novelistic approach 100 years on. So while I might have wanted more of those stories in France and Nazareth, what I got was still very good.I think the quality of Griffith's direction is what makes this so strong, along with some of the key performances and how he simply mounted such massive sets that, in their way, are more impressive than what you get today in CGI; your mind knows that all those figures are fake in modern films, no matter how much detail is put in here. In Intolerance, when I look at the people all in that Babylonian decadence, and then when the battle breaks out against the mighty Cyrus, it *feels* intense and sprawling.Unlike Birth of a Nation, which has such an unpleasant and virulent 2nd half that makes me never want to see it again on principle alone, I could find myself coming back to Intolerance, perhaps getting into it a little quicker than I found on a first time (that first half hour takes a little time as I mentioned), and just to marvel at some of the acting which is both big AND small in equal measure. By this I should say that you can't help but see when actors really are milking the emotion for all its worth - Brown Eyes in the French scenes, or that female killer in the modern day story, where Griffith really gets to use his close-ups in such a way that must have changed movies forever - but there's subtlety when called for also. The more I think about it hours after watching it, the more it feels like a monumental (if imperfect) achievement. 9.5/10

There's a misconception surrounding INTOLERANCE, which states that DW Griffith made this movie in order to retract or apologize for the racism in BIRTH OF A NATION. This is not the case; in fact, much of the driving concept behind INTOLERANCE is Griffith's desire to assert his freedom of speech. Griffith tells four separate stories, at different points in man's history, that deal with the consequences of intolerance and repression. Here's my review.SCRIPT: The modern story (set in 1916 in a nameless American city) is by far the most emotionally involving. It revolves around the plight of a young mother whose baby is taken by interfering reformers, and her husband who is unjustly accused of murder. The Babylon story shows a rather tenuous grasp of history, affirming that treachery and religious intolerance was the reason for Babylon's downfall; however, it does present us with the Mountain Girl, who could rightly be called the first female action hero. The Christ story is really just used as kind of a commentary on what's happening in the previous two stories, using the apocryphal account which states "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (actually, this wasn't in the original writings), and the Huguenot story of religious persecution isn't really developed enough to be interesting, at least from what surviving footage we have (difficult to judge since there are so many versions available.) His grasp on what actually constitutes intolerance is rather shaky, affirming that intolerance is the reason for the troubles of the Dear One and the Boy in the modern story. Still, one central story would have allowed Griffith to more clearly develop his ideas – but juggling four at one time with this strained idea of intolerance results in something of a jumble. SCORE: 5.5/10 ACTING: There are at least three standout performances here. Constance Talmadge is wonderful as the Mountain Girl – charismatic, comedic, and lots of fun. Miriam Cooper delivers a soulful and restrained, modern performance as the Friendless One in the modern story, and Robert Harron is compelling in an understated way as the Boy, very naturalistic and expressive. Mae Marsh's performance as the Dear One was a mixed bag to me. Her incessant hypercaffeinated jumping around in the first part of the modern story got on my nerves (although this is likely Griffith's fault – Mary Pickford states that Griffith liked his heroines to behave this way and Pickford refused to do so). Once her character matures and settles down, though, her performance improves notably – her eyes are particularly demonstrative and vivid. As for other performers, Margery Wilson shows potential as Brown Eyes but doesn't get much of a chance to make an impression, and much of the acting in the historical segments falls into the stagy, overly emphatic style of the time. And there's A LOT of that, unfortunately. SCORE: 9 for Talmadge, Harron and Cooper, 7 for Mae Marsh, Margery Wilson, and the people in the modern story, and about 4 for everyone else. 6.5/10 CINEMATOGRAPHY/PRODUCTION: This is where the movie excels. There are some revolutionary shots and techniques here, most notably in the Babylon story, with the famous shot that descends upon the gate of Babylon. Visually, the film is marvelous, with tracking and panning, shots, close ups, and abundant use of tinting (of course, this depends on which print you watch. I watched the Kino version, which is available on Netflix's streaming service). The sets in the Babylon story are massive and exquisitely well photographed. You get bird's eye views of the scenery of Babylon, exciting shots in the modern story with the car chasing the train, and some beautifully illustrated title cards. Griffith's command of editing and cinematography compensate somewhat for the ideological weaknesses of the script. SCORE: 10/10 SUMMARY: INTOLERANCE is a very mixed bag. It does have fascinating moments and stunning cinematography and production. Some of the performances are outstanding, and some are rather dated. However, it does have historical inaccuracies. Perhaps its greatest flaw is that it ultimately bites off more than it can chew and doesn't really make its case against intolerance as strongly as it hopes because its concept of intolerance is very vague. It's also VERY long and probably more for film buffs than casual viewers. It has great moments, but perhaps just as many not-so-great ones. SCORE: 7/10

D.W. Griffith has bestowed on 21st century viewers a visually engaging historical artifact. The film is largely incoherent and ultimately lacks cohesion in its attempt to incorporate so many historical parallels. The four-hour extravaganza is a spectacle of excess in its every aspect. Of course it is critical to recognize that this film dates to 1916, predating the "modern era." Like most of the films from the early silent period, it's permeated with Victorian sensibility, and a puritan morality. Almost 100 years on, this makes for story lines reflecting a collective societal naiveté. Watching such a lengthy, moralizing melodrama is a tedious, wearying experience. I give it a "5" as an important example in the trajectory of the development of the movie industry both as popular entertainment and art form.