Tweet D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance " questions

Greetings,

I finished watching "Intolerance" from the Griffith Masterworks set from Kino. But I recently read online about how the Image DVD contains footage not on the Kino Video release and reading Robert K. Klepper's "Silent Films 1877-1916", the Museum of Modern Art has a restored print which is inaccessible to the public.

Since the book was written over a decade ago, has their been an updated on this restored print and plans for a new release with the complete 3hrs., 30 minutes.

And I haven't really checked but was there a release of "The Fall of Babylon" or "The Mother and the Law" on DVD?

And with so much spent on the production of this film, for those who researched the information, whatever happened to the set, all the costumes. Were they re-used or bought (in pieces) by another studio or simply destroyed?

Last question, was the color tinting shown on the Kino version used in the original theatrical screening? I notice that the Eureka DVD version do not have the color tinting.

The Babylonian set stood for years.

I've also asked about The Fall of Babylon, which was apparently available for a time on VHS? No idea about The Mother and the Law, which was actually filmed before Griffith made Intolerance. I assume neither has ever been available on DVD.

William Everson says, "The huge Babylonian set sprawled over more than 250 acres ... at the junction of Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards--a landmark later partially taken up (in the twenties) by the Charles Ray Studios, which eventually became the Monogram/Allied Artists Studio...."

This DVD had an extra feature that would allow to play each episode separately:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intolerance-DVD ... B00005225L

THE MOTHER AND THE LAW is on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6UK-iN41TA

From what I understand, MoMA used stills and title cards to substitute for the missing footage. And not to open this Pandora's box, but advertising a silent film's increased running time is meaningless. I could transfer Intolerance at 12 fps and get a running time of 4 hours. Even if more footage could be added from Mother and Babylon, Intolerance is one of those films where more is not necessarily better.

[silentfilm]

If you are really interested in Intolerance, you should get William Drew's book D.W. Griffith's Intolerance.

This DVD had an extra feature that would allow to play each episode separately:

Really? I've never heard of this kind of "extra." The ad says it's Euro region....

I don't know if it's ok to quote someone else, but I'm not sure how to direct the original poster in this thread to another thread. Sorry if it's "not done" this way. It's just the most concise answer to this question that I've ever seen.
Spiritus

"Good material exists both for THE MOTHER AND THE LAW and for THE FALL OF BABYLON. Film Preservation Associates has both but we have not used them so far, although I think THE MOTHER AND THE LAW (by itself) is one of Griffith's very best films. It is the only one he was able to re-think and re-shoot over a five year period.

Quite a bit of material was reshot in 1919 for the separate release of THE MOTHER AND THE LAW. With all the reshooting of the 1914 film also required as INTOLERANCE took shape, some of the sets were put up and taken down three or four times, and sharp eyes can spot the differences. Still, until the end, D.W. couldn't decide whether the baby should live or die and both endings exist.


THE FALL OF BABYLON was never meant to stand on its own as a separate film, and the surviving version is a short five reels, impressive mostly because of sheer scale. There was a cursory re-shoot of the end, and some titles were rewritten; but when it was originally shown, live sequences on stage were interpolated into the film sequences to make the thing somewhat more intelligible (not a unique practice at the time).

After the 1919 release of the two separate films, their negatives were taken apart and INTOLERANCE was reconstituted in order to fill foreign print orders. Some of Griffith's re-editing (but none of the reshooting) were incorporated into the later prints of INTOLERANCE, which accounts for the differences between Kino's DVD of INTOLERANCE (an early version) and the later editions (Griffith was re-editing INTOLERANCE as late as 1933, and this last cut has become the 'standard' edition circulated in 16mm by The Museum of Modern Art and subsequently much duped).

We have a much improved version of INTOLERANCE which has not been released due to our contract with Image Entertainment, but we'll probably do it some day and perhaps include MA AND LAW at that time.

David Shepard"

For me, the original ending of Intolerance with Constance Talmadge taking an arrow and dying is just perfect. It's a great moment and a fitting end to the superb Babylonian arc. I cannot imagine a happy ending to this story.

Still, I would love to see the 1919 redo, The Fall of Babylon and would also love to see a DVD of The Mother and the Law.

Everson is quite enthusiastic about this latter film and praises the acting of Mae Marsh and Miriam Cooper. Robert Harron was no sluch either.

This DVD had an extra feature that would allow to play each episode separately:

Really? I've never heard of this kind of "extra." The ad says it's Euro region....

Well, I own it, and the extra is there.

We have a much improved version of INTOLERANCE which has not been released due to our contract with Image Entertainment, but we'll probably do it some day and perhaps include MA AND LAW at that time.

David Shepard"

Thanks Spiritus. Curious, how long is the contract between Milestone and Image Entertainment going to last? But would be curious to know more about this improved version they have but this great information.

Thanks again everyone for their comments.

Like Rob Farr I have no wish to open Pandora's box, but it should be understood that that MoMA "restoration" generated a lot of controversy when it was unveiled in 1989. William K. Everson responded with a strong article in the January-February 1990 issue of Films in Review, detailing the problems. Sometime later, Russell Merritt -- THE authority on Griffith -- wrote a much longer article in Film History, Vol. 4 no. 4, titled "D.W. Griffith's Intolerance: Reconstructing an Unattainable Text." Both articles are recommended, and the second not only puts the MoMA version in perspective, but provides a much more comprehensive account of the film itself than is available from most other sources.

Like Rob Farr I have no wish to open Pandora's box, but it should be understood that that MoMA "restoration" generated a lot of controversy when it was unveiled in 1989. William K. Everson responded with a strong article in the January-February 1990 issue of Films in Review, detailing the problems. Sometime later, Russell Merritt -- THE authority on Griffith -- wrote a much longer article in Film History, Vol. 4 no. 4, titled "D.W. Griffith's Intolerance: Reconstructing an Unattainable Text." Both articles are recommended, and the second not only puts the MoMA version in perspective, but provides a much more comprehensive account of the film itself than is available from most other sources.

Are these online anywhere?

Like Rob Farr I have no wish to open Pandora's box, but it should be understood that that MoMA "restoration" generated a lot of controversy when it was unveiled in 1989. William K. Everson responded with a strong article in the January-February 1990 issue of Films in Review, detailing the problems. Sometime later, Russell Merritt -- THE authority on Griffith -- wrote a much longer article in Film History, Vol. 4 no. 4, titled "D.W. Griffith's Intolerance: Reconstructing an Unattainable Text." Both articles are recommended, and the second not only puts the MoMA version in perspective, but provides a much more comprehensive account of the film itself than is available from most other sources.

If I remember the articles, Everson complained that MoMA's practice of inserting a still or explanatory text for every missing shot or sequence eviscerated the film that Griffith wished to present to the public; an academic exercise that effectively ruined Griffith's rhythm and pacing. Merritt pointed out that there was no definitive Intolerance to restore in the first place since it was constantly in flux from the opening night.

Kindy,

There are much better prints of INTOLERANCE than what Kino used. The Thames Silents version is superior and it has a Carl Davis score. Arte Network unveiled a newly remastered and re-scored version in 2007 that hasn't found it's way across the pond. David Shepard mentioned a newer version that He produced awhile back, some months ago as well.

The Babylonian set stood for years.

I've also asked about The Fall of Babylon, which was apparently available for a time on VHS? No idea about The Mother and the Law, which was actually filmed before Griffith made Intolerance. I assume neither has ever been available on DVD.

William Everson says, "The huge Babylonian set sprawled over more than 250 acres ... at the junction of Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards--a landmark later partially taken up (in the twenties) by the Charles Ray Studios, which eventually became the Monogram/Allied Artists Studio...."

The set did not occupy anything like 250 acres--probably not more than five acres. Although parts of the set stood for several years, the top layer of the Great Hall was taken down fairly early (probably so it wouldn't fall over in the wind). The remains of the set were torn down ca. 1920, and the Vista Theater was built on the site. The theater opened in 1923.

Up until at least the early 80's there was a storefront very near the Babylonian site that had the designs of the winged gods (forgive me for not knowing the names) as part of the store's exterior design. It was around Sunset and Vermont, possibly on Hyperion.
I would be very surprised if that building were still there.

Not trying to advertise the product, but, I purchased a rather sad book entitled 'Hollywood Babylon' a while back. It has a couple of stills from Intolerance, plus a couple more, as the set slowly falls apart. Huge plaster pachderms still in attendance. There are a few words about it all as well, plus lots more besides....

Kindy,

There are much better prints of INTOLERANCE than what Kino used. The Thames Silents version is superior and it has a Carl Davis score. Arte Network unveiled a newly remastered and re-scored version inj 2007 that hasn't found it's way across the pond. David Shepard mentioned a newer version that He produced awhile back, some months ago as well.

I have searched in vain on the internet for the HBO/Thames version
on VHS or LaserDisc (if issued) to no avail.

The technical drawback to this version is a crackling noise on the
soundtrack that seems more a transfer issue than a failure of
local playback equipment.

The episodes presented separately may give better focus,
but the power comes, IMHO, in the mixing of them together
and letting them play off each other.

Like Rob Farr I have no wish to open Pandora's box, but it should be understood that that MoMA "restoration" generated a lot of controversy when it was unveiled in 1989. William K. Everson responded with a strong article in the January-February 1990 issue of Films in Review, detailing the problems. Sometime later, Russell Merritt -- THE authority on Griffith -- wrote a much longer article in Film History, Vol. 4 no. 4, titled "D.W. Griffith's Intolerance: Reconstructing an Unattainable Text." Both articles are recommended, and the second not only puts the MoMA version in perspective, but provides a much more comprehensive account of the film itself than is available from most other sources.

I would agree with J.B. that Russell Merritt's article is a must-read for anyone interested in the evolution of "Intolerance." The primary points of interest, for those who have not read the article, are:

1) "Intolerance," from its first preview screenings until today, even though it exists in several slightly variant versions, has always been about three hours long (give or take). There never was an 8 hour version (as Lillian Gish claimed) or another cut that was substantially longer than what we have today.

2) Griffith did not irretrievably destroy the film when he cut it into the component pieces "The Fall of Babylon" and "The Mother and the Law." Rather it was a relatively straightforward process to put "Intolerance" back together by following the lab roll assembly instructions.

3) The MoMA version (not really a restoration, but a reconstruction of the film at a presumed--with scant evidence--moment in time, ie. the speculative "opening night version") is hardly authoritative, and probably eliminates footage that was actually in the opening night print and at the same time includes freeze frames of images from the copyright scrapbook for "Intolerance," which was submitted sometime before the film was released and may contain images that never appeared in any publicly screend version of the film.

4) The "Standard" version of the film that MoMA has circulated for years derives from a 1926 re-cut that Griffith prepared for an intended 10th anniversary reissue that never happened.

5) The Blackhawk Films/David Shepard version derives from a 1917 print, and is probably closest to what 1916 opening night audiences saw--although it is mising some minor pieces. I know I duped and added a one-minute section from the Babylonian story to my 16mm Blackhawk print from another source, even going to the trouble of duping and extending the Gaylord Carter organ score for the insert so it would play without a jarring dropout in audio.

As highly touted as it was when it was first screened in the late 1980s, the MoMA "Intolerance" reconstruction has virtually disappeared since then. Everson's article objected to the MoMA version on purely aesthetic terms; but Merritt's well researched and well reasoned piece really calls into question many of the assumptions made in MoMA's approach to the project. It is very difficult to accept the MoMA version as the "first night version" it purports to be after reading Merritt.

Still, the MoMA version is worth seeing. By adhereing to the cpyright submission scene order and including some freeze frames of scenes that were eliminated before release, it does offer some insight into the complexity ofthe film and gives some idea of the state of "Intolerance" several months before its release.

Kindy,

There are much better prints of INTOLERANCE than what Kino used. The Thames Silents version is superior and it has a Carl Davis score. Arte Network unveiled a newly remastered and re-scored version in 2007 that hasn't found it's way across the pond. David Shepard mentioned a newer version that He produced awhile back, some months ago as well.

Ha, ha. You've got me salivating over here!

Chuck W,

Well, I have both of these, but I don't think I'm supposed to mention that here. Whoops , I just mentioned it. Are you watching the Photoplay ORPHANS OF THE STORM now on TCM?

The score found on the Arte Network presentation is pretty dark and brooding. I'll check the composer as I do not recall his name. It is Orchestral. Easily the best transfer of INTOLERANCE I have seen, and might be the version David had reference too? Not sure if it was produced by Film Preservation Associates or not? I'll look it up and see.

In a way its too bad for modern technology it must have been quite a sight to visit Los Angeles in the silent era and see the huge sets being built such as the one for Intolerance, they dont need to do that anymore, but it was things like that that gave Hollywood that larger than life aura.

I was at the press screening of MoMA's restored INTOLERANCE at the NY Film Festival and was actually sitting behind Bill Everson and Michael Powell. (I think one or two other Nitratevillers were there as well.) They were furious with it because there were way too many stills for way too little story improvement. I personally was surprised that they used a number of wideshot stills that were obviously scenes that were already in the moving film and could have been repeated without anyone noticing. I should also say the film experience was marred because the last reel started reversed and the it had to be stopped with a fifteen minute delay. One last complaint -- the stills had been stapled or pinned to the paper originally and blown up to full-screen size looked like giant white potholes. They should have been at least hand-painted before the stills were shot. AND Gillian Anderson's interpretation of the original score didn't fit the film's running time so there were many long silences in the score. However... It was a well-meaning but flawed restoration. It didn't work for me but it's heart was definitely in the right place.

I attended a screening of the MoMA version at UCLA with Dennis James performing a rousing organ score that ended with "My Country 'tis of Thee!" I had no problem with viewing that version despite the stills and the holes in them-the film swept me up and never let me go from start to finish.

I have a VHS copy of the Thames version-I got it from Columbia House years ago. Some silent film buff on a website I can no longer remember mentioned that it was only available through Columbia and gave the catalog number-it was not on their website and he only stumbled on it by accident. Having the Prometheus CD of the score I was curious to hear what Davis was able to do, and it is a remarkable work and should be made available on DVD. I tried to dub it onto a DVD+R but was prevented by Copyguard .

I've quoted myself before regarding this point, but it still seems timely for this topic -- I always wondered when and why Hollywood became Hollywood, and not one of many other names, and this is part of my essay on Griffith from one of my Pordenone reviews:

Historian Marc Wanamaker has spent most of his career chronicling the rise of the American film industry and its impact on Southern California. In discussing his research, I asked Wannamaker a simple question: when did Hollywood become Hollywood?

Film studios were springing up all over Los Angeles — why was a sleepy suburb of Los Angeles anointed as the symbol for a style of filmmaking that would come to dominate the world? Wanamaker gave me a quick response: just read the postcards. Written spontaneously, they give you an immediate sense of what people are thinking at any time. And if you read the postcards mailed in 1915, something remarkable is happening. The cards start talking about the building of gigantic temples and statues, structures towering over the nearby buildings on Sunset Boulevard. Nobody had seen anything like this before. It was bold, audacious, extravagant . . . it was . . . Hollywood. For Wannamaker, Hollywood became Hollywood when Griffith built the Babylonian sets for Intolerance.

In 2001, a mall was built on the corner of Hollywood and Highland Avenue. The mall is populated with giant elephants and exotic statues. Tourists walk by these statues, as they did in the summer of 1915, replaying an event that over ninety years ago, helped shape the future of the neighborhood. Few will know they are, in a way, honoring the memory of D.W. Griffith, one of the original ‘architects’ of Hollywood.

Here's the plaque at the Hollywood and Highland Shopping Center that Lokke refers to:



INTOLERANCE is one of my very favorite films. It's a mess and I love every minute of it!

--Jason Liller

Blog: TheCenturyBook.WordPress.com
Twitter: TheCenturyBook

Has anyone ever posted online a list of the differences between the Image and KINO versions...?

wait so the kino version of intolerance is not the most complete? ive only ever watched it once, but now i understand the killiam (image) version is the most complete (although the kino version is suppose to have extra scenes not seen in the killiam) right?

also if anyone is interested in the PAL one that lets you choose each story individauly, go to silent era and look up intolerance they have a link to amazon uk listing of it

With the fine work they have released so far, I look forward to David Shepard's
future release of INTOLERANCE as a Flicker Alley title.

Whenever that may be.

Keep up the good work David.