Clocking in at over three hours, “Intolerance” is the very definition of a spectacle. Notable are the massive walls used for the Babylon segments – so large that, after filming had finished, Griffith left them standing, letting them fall into decay for years. Creating “Intolerance” was so expensive that he no longer had enough money to take them down.
That’s a good metaphor for the movie as a whole: an overinflated colossus that ultimately threatens to collapse under its own weight. The narrative conceit, juxtaposing four separate stories against one another by virtue of their shared theme, gave me a sense of whiplash, as the perspective slingshotted back and forth across the centuries, jumping to a breakneck pace as the film reached its climax. At the same time, I’m admittedly a sucker for extravagant art, and it was fun to let “Intolerance” pull me along on its ridiculous ride.
The four action-packed endings – the fall of Babylon, the slaughter of the Huguenots, the crucifixion of Jesus, and the race to save the Boy from being executed for a crime he did not commit – are all juxtaposed together. But the Mountain Girl is too late to warn Prince Belshazzar of the High Priest’s betrayal; Prosper is too late to save his beloved Brown Eyes from Medici’s mercenaries; and, predictably, Jesus does in fact get crucified. Only the Boy, in the modern day, is spared just moments before his slated hanging.
This is followed by a montage in which the narrator pleads for an end to intolerance. The message of the arrangement seems to be that in this modern, more enlightened age, we can look back on the evils in the past, learn from them, and try to break the cycle.
It’s a noble message, but it’s awfully rich coming from Griffith, especially after he doubled down on his previous film’s anti-Black racism. “Intolerance” has quite a bit to unpack, but it also isn’t exactly free from bigotry, to say the least.
In one example, the teetotaling female “uplifters” who work to ban alcohol, public dancing, and ultimately snatch babies out of poor mothers’ arms are dismissed with common misogynistic tropes, as being unhappy because men aren’t attracted to them. One title card makes it explicit: “When women cease to attract men they often turn to Reform as a second choice.”
One cartoon from Griffith’s pamphlet.
“Intolerance” directly compares these uplifters to the Pharisees who, in the Bible, helped betray Jesus to the Romans. There’s definitely a strain of antisemitism in that portrayal – further compounded by how the uplifters’ work is exclusively financed by Mr. Jenkins, a wealthy business magnate, to keep his workers obedient and efficient.
I’m reminded of fringe conspiracies that claim feminism, LGBTQ rights, and other boogeymen of the far-right are being propped up by a nebulous “elite” to control the social order. (Also, I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least mention the cartoons in Griffith’s pamphlet – many of which depict Intolerance as an old man in a suit with a distinctly long nose, reminiscent of common antisemitic caricatures.)
The peculiar part is that “Intolerance” seems very aware of social injustices – but only insofar as they apply to white people. The contemporary story’s inciting incident is Jenkins slashing wages for his mill workers, leading to a strike in which many workers are brutally gunned down by the state militia.
The Boy turns to crime largely as a result of the economic uncertainty that follows. This has a cascading effect on the rest of his life – when he tries to clean up his act to raise a family, his boss plants contraband on him, and his previous criminal record is cited as a justification for his imprisonment. Without his support, his wife is left impoverished. Her poor living conditions, along with the aforementioned criminal record, are used by the uplifters to justify taking their baby into custody.
This is a real phenomenon that happens to this day. Low-income families are disproportionately likely to have run-ins with Child Protective Services, often through no fault of their own. But crucially, Black families are even more likely to be the victims of this, due to the compounding effects of both economic disparities and racial bias.
But to Griffith, the “works” of Black people are “evil and open to condemnation.” How can someone preach tolerance, love, and peace, but refuse to recognize when he himself is being intolerant?
There’s an oft-cited adage commonly called the “paradox of tolerance,” coined in Karl Popper’s 1945 book “The Open Society and Its Enemies.” The book states, “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” To summarize, blindly promoting universal tolerance allows intolerance to flourish.
This idea seems lost, perhaps willfully, on modern conservatives, and far-right Christian nationalists in particular. In a recent example, in response to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) cataloging and documenting the extremist actions and rhetoric of Christian conservative groups, the “New Tolerance Campaign” released its own map branding the SPLC and others as “agent[s] of hate.” And conservative pundits such as Dennis Prager, Charlie Kirk, and others have made careers out of spreading hateful rhetoric on college campuses, and then complaining about protesters trying to “silence” them.
It seems that even today, the hypocrisy exemplified by Griffith lives on in the American right.
The Boy and the Dear One embrace after he is spared from an unjust execution.
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=66fda87302e14cf8a2e9277e1faff88e&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoloradotimesrecorder.com%2F2024%2F10%2Freview-what-a-silent-film-from-1916-can-teach-us-about-far-right-hypocrisy-today%2F64778%2F&c=4593303973270344258&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2024-10-02 06:53:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
