It's very hard to review INTOLERANCE today, as the film is so old fashioned that even comparing it to films made just a decade later is a problem. When it debuted in 1916, it was a technical masterpiece due to D. W. Griffith's insane spending habits--with the millions he sank into the film with these extraordinary sets, it couldn't help but knock the socks off the audience. The film featured live elephants (plus a few papier mache ones that were well camouflaged),thousands of extras and sets that even by today's standards are amazing. The huge walls of Babylon and the enormous statues are NOT matte paintings but were actually built for this amazing film. The problem, though, is that although people DID come to see the film, they never came in large enough numbers to recoup production costs and it was a huge box office failure. I think part of this might have been because while the film was beautiful to look at, the narrative was very confused (being made up of four separate films inter-spliced together) as well as extremely preachy AND sexy (now THAT's a unique combination).

A lot of these problems could have been avoided by simply making four separate films--or at least filming one or two of the best sequences only. Plus, two of the sequences (the story of Jesus and the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre) seemed too choppy and incomplete--like they were more afterthoughts of Griffith. The two remaining sequences, the Babylonian and the one set in 1916 had much more merit. While the Babylonian one was pretty silly in many ways, it was by far the most visually appealing and just overwhelms the viewer. The 1916 sequence had simple contemporary sets and had an excellent story that paralleled the stingy Puritanism of John D. Rockefeller--and this alone would have made an excellent film. But when all the films were combined with their tenuous and schmaltzy message, the overall picture really bogged down and is almost laughably bad in spots. What I particularly found interesting were scenes with Jesus appearing along with some very, very risqué scenes of practically naked dancing girls from Babylon! What this film DESPERATELY needed was a producer--not D. W. Griffith tossing in everything but the proverbial kitchen sink into an overblown mega-picture that couldn't help but fail.

DW Griffith did a fair share of fine work, feature and short films. Has everything that he has done been great? No. Saw 'The Birth of a Nation' recently, and while appreciating its importance and finding it extremely well made and acted the second part is so massively flawed and one can see why it's always been deemed offensive. 'Orphans of the Storm' and the best of his 1910s short films (i.e. 'The Mothering Heart') are fine examples of how great he can be.

Likewise with one of his most ambitious films, 1916's 'Intolerance'. It is a long film and sprawling, but the very meaning of a truly epic achievement in pretty much every sense. One of his best and one of the best silent films ever in my view, and there are many brilliant ones out there. Don't let the massive length put you off from seeing 'Intolerance', it wasn't a problem for me being used to seeing films with long lengths and it left me utterly transfixed in a way that not many recently seen films have as much.

'Intolerance' looks incredible, widely considered a visual and technical achievement and no wonder. The cinematography is not only amazing but the techniques and how they're used were revolutionary at the time and still maintains that quality. Even more striking are the huge and expensive-looking sets, the Babylonian sets have a spectacular grandeur, haven't seen sets this jaw-dropping for any film in a long time.

Griffith's direction is masterly and some of his most ambitious without trying to do too much. Carl Davis' score is one of the finest examples of all the films seen recently to have music that gelled so seamlessly to the mood and enhanced it even, also a perfect marriage of visuals and music in a way not seen since my viewing of Abel Gance's 'Napoleon'. It is also a fine score in its own right.

The story structurally was unique back then and over a century on it's still a contender for the best use of the multiple story/timeline structure on film. A rare example of all the stories working to some degree and where sprawling is still hugely transfixing and always coherent, also found many scenes emotionally powerful. It is at its best in the poignant modern day story and especially the Babylonian one, still astounding and really stirs the soul and emotions. The film is at its weakest with the slightly underdeveloped final days of Jesus story, but that is my one small complaint and that still manages to be intriguing and incredibly well made, directed and acted.

All the acting is great, notably from Mae Marsh and Contance Talmadge.

Concluding, far from intolerable. Instead, it's incredible film-making and an incredible film overall. 10/10

Although the messenger is a product of the 19th century, D.W. Griffith's film techniques developed in Birth Of A Nation and Intolerance have certainly stood the test of time. In four separate stories Griffith brought home a very simple message, why doesn't everyone just leave everyone else alone? I for one agree with that completely, he was talking about diversity to use a term currently in vogue.

Having concurrent story lines is now an accepted technique of film making and fans who've enjoyed such modern work as The Godfather Part II, The Hours, and American Graffiti, II can thank D.W. Griffith for pioneering this in Intolerance.

Some stories are a bit stronger than others and all of them could have been motion pictures on their own. Some like the Judean story which has been a film on its own several times over. The way Griffith tells it is directly and simply not anything like the blockbuster spectacles King Of Kings both versions or The Greatest Story Ever Told. The character of Jesus going to the cross for spreading some radical new ideas about loving one another is the universal standard that the rest of the audience could immediately identify with and draw the inferences from the other three stories.

If Intolerence is mentioned today the first thing that usually comes to mind is the Babylonian story. Some biblical scholars will come down on me for this, but I think Griffith said there was a lot in common with the Christian message and the Babylonian story of live and let live. According to Griffith though the Babylonians gave way from liberty to just plain license and had not the real will to defend their civilization. When one set of pagans won't tolerate the worship of another pagan deity and they're willing to force the issue, Babylon is doomed. Still those sets are positively awesome and you can see the influence D.W. Griffith had on Cecil B. DeMille.

By the way when I say pagan it's not a pejorative term just people who follow older religious traditions than the dominant Abrahamic monotheist religions that pushed the others out sooner or later.

Nobody's living and let living in France in 1575 either. This story revolves around a French Huguenot family who is prosperous and the daughter is being courted by an open minded individual. But this is the century of the Reformation and the Catholic Church is as much a political entity as a faith. For this and the next century Europe is torn apart as religion is added to the geopolitical components already there. The ruling House of Valois in France has no problems aligning with the Ottoman Turks in foreign policy, but Protestants at home is another matter. Queen mother Catherine De Medici orders a general massacre of known Protestants and her puppet son King, Charles IX always does as mother says. The result is the infamous St. Bartholomew massacre. And remember everyone here says they are following the teachings of the protagonist of the Judean story.

Finally we have a modern (1916) story where two young working class people are torn apart by the meddling of self proclaimed moralizers. The small town where the two protagonists come from is a one company town where the local mill owner won't pay a living wage, but will fund his spinster daughter's obsession with the moral welfare of all the people that are in the town. Their group the Uplifters is the root cause of everyone's problems.

There are some memorable performances in all the stories. Howard Gaye is a simple and stoic Jesus enduring all the mockery of the Pharisees for his universal message. In the Babylonian story Constance Talmadge who becomes an unwitting pawn in the religious intrigue as does Elmer Clifton who is kind of a pagan evangelist if that's not a mixed metaphor will not be forgotten easily. Talmadge heavily made up and under pseudonym is also seen as the haughty and fanatical Catherine DeMedici in the French story and I can hardly believe a slim and trim Eugene Palette as the young lover. Hard to believe he's the same guy 20 years later who is the harassed father of Carole Lombard and Gail Patrick in My Man Godfrey. And in the modern story Mae Marsh and Robert Herron as a Romeo and Juliet like young couple will linger with you as will Vera Lewis the young rich daughter head of the Uplifters and a repressed lesbian if I ever saw one. Those Uplifters were something else, during the sound era you could see them again in such films like Dodge City with the Pure Prarie League and Lee Remick's temperance followers in The Hallelujah Trail.

Griffith's device for connecting the story was the universal symbol of motherhood as portrayed by Lillian Gish, his favorite player. She's innocence personified as you see her rocking the cradle of mankind and hoping the next generation of kids gets it right.

Intolerance is a film still dissected and analyzed, it's structure makes it impossible to resist. It may be arcane, but in some instances its message is still timely.