The proper running time and projection speed for Intolerance has been frequently discussed, but it came to mind again when I recently watched the Kino DVD. It moves too slowly.
Its 197 minute running time is twenty minutes longer than the old Image DVD (out-of-print), which I believe was supervised by David Shepard, and is longer than any other version that I know. There is no indication of new footage, and none that I could see, so could Kino have gotten the projection speed wrong? Intolerance is frequently run at too fast a speed, which happened on TCM, but did Kino err in the other direction?
Correct Speed on the Kino DVD of Intolerance?
-
Gary Newman
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:36 pm
- Location: White Plains, NY
-
Jack Theakston
- Posts: 1919
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:25 pm
- Location: New York, USA
- Contact:
Define "proper speed," to begin with, though.
The aesthetic of natural speed is at odds with the fact that almost unanimously, knowledge of the filmmaker's preference is almost always faster than normal. One only has to look at transitional-era silents that have fixed music tracks to understand that natural speed was not even attempted, and that a sped up version of events was a sort of visual shorthand.
The aesthetic of natural speed is at odds with the fact that almost unanimously, knowledge of the filmmaker's preference is almost always faster than normal. One only has to look at transitional-era silents that have fixed music tracks to understand that natural speed was not even attempted, and that a sped up version of events was a sort of visual shorthand.
J. Theakston
"You get more out of life when you go out to a movie!"
"You get more out of life when you go out to a movie!"
-
Richard P. May
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:12 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Films of that time had all kinds of speeds. The cameraman could have cranked at varying speeds, whether intentionally or not.
When exhibited, most projectors were also hand cranked, so the theater could have sped up or slowed down the film, depending on when they wanted to go home, audience patience, whatever.
I think that there is no "correct" running time for INTOLERANCE. Unlike sound films, there is nothing to lock in the speed.
When exhibited, most projectors were also hand cranked, so the theater could have sped up or slowed down the film, depending on when they wanted to go home, audience patience, whatever.
I think that there is no "correct" running time for INTOLERANCE. Unlike sound films, there is nothing to lock in the speed.
Dick May
Part of the problem is that when copied to Safety-Stock many years ago, portions of INTOLERANCE were in-fact "Stretch-printed". I do not recall the exact details, but it is the same with HEARTS OF THE WORLD and several Griffith features. 
If you look at the Thames Silents version of INTOLERANCE even that has some stretch printing at times that Kevin Brownlow and David Gill could not do anything about back in the early 80's.D. W. Griffith famously said that "the projectionist is sometimes compelled to re-direct the photoplay." another way of stating that as several of you pointed out, there was no single fixed running speed for films during the silenr era.
However, there are (fairly infrequent) exceptions. Sometimes speeds are specified in the music scores or special presentation instructions or with special title cards in the film leaders (for example, THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE, DOWN TO THE SEA IN SHIPS and THE THIEF OF BAGDAD).
INTOLERANCE is also an exceptional case. The film was financed by Triangle, which pioneered in the preparation of printed music scores for every feature film, and both to insure synchronization and to standardize its product, all Triangle features are specified to run at 18 frames per second.
But as is well known, THE MOTHER AND THE LAW (the "modern" story) was primarily photographed in 1914, when it is clearly established by music scores and published running times of premiere engagements that Griuffith intended his films to be shown at 16 fps.
Both Kevin Brownlow and I came to the conclusion that the "modern" story of INTOLERANCE should therefore run at 16 but the other three stories should run at 18, and although my video edition and Photoplay's have editorial variations, that's how we both handled speeds (except, of course, in those portions of the film with very short shots making up an intercut chase, when it all goes at 18).
Paul Killiam stretch printed portions of the Griffith features for his television versions, but there is no stretch printing in the Photoplay version of INTOLERANCE or in mine -- the speed variations are achieved in projection/telecine.
Kino's version of INTOLERANCE (sourced from Killiam preprint) is unique -- it is a very early cut of the film which both contains extra and lacks much material compared to the "standard" version -- if there is such a thing. Griffith not only cut and changed individual exhibition prints of the film during its theatrical runs in major cities, but also did some recutting in 1919 when the negative was reassembled after the printing of "The Mother and the Law" and "The Fall of Babylon," and again on the occasion of a theatrical revival in 1933.
The Image DVD version which I produced in 1991 uses material from three different cuts of the film and was guided by notes in the Griffith papers. I have since done a major upgrade which I hope will find its way to DVD one of these days.
David Shepard
However, there are (fairly infrequent) exceptions. Sometimes speeds are specified in the music scores or special presentation instructions or with special title cards in the film leaders (for example, THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE, DOWN TO THE SEA IN SHIPS and THE THIEF OF BAGDAD).
INTOLERANCE is also an exceptional case. The film was financed by Triangle, which pioneered in the preparation of printed music scores for every feature film, and both to insure synchronization and to standardize its product, all Triangle features are specified to run at 18 frames per second.
But as is well known, THE MOTHER AND THE LAW (the "modern" story) was primarily photographed in 1914, when it is clearly established by music scores and published running times of premiere engagements that Griuffith intended his films to be shown at 16 fps.
Both Kevin Brownlow and I came to the conclusion that the "modern" story of INTOLERANCE should therefore run at 16 but the other three stories should run at 18, and although my video edition and Photoplay's have editorial variations, that's how we both handled speeds (except, of course, in those portions of the film with very short shots making up an intercut chase, when it all goes at 18).
Paul Killiam stretch printed portions of the Griffith features for his television versions, but there is no stretch printing in the Photoplay version of INTOLERANCE or in mine -- the speed variations are achieved in projection/telecine.
Kino's version of INTOLERANCE (sourced from Killiam preprint) is unique -- it is a very early cut of the film which both contains extra and lacks much material compared to the "standard" version -- if there is such a thing. Griffith not only cut and changed individual exhibition prints of the film during its theatrical runs in major cities, but also did some recutting in 1919 when the negative was reassembled after the printing of "The Mother and the Law" and "The Fall of Babylon," and again on the occasion of a theatrical revival in 1933.
The Image DVD version which I produced in 1991 uses material from three different cuts of the film and was guided by notes in the Griffith papers. I have since done a major upgrade which I hope will find its way to DVD one of these days.
David Shepard
Did your upgraded version of INTOLERANCE run on Arte Network in Europe, originally in 2007? If so, I have seen it, and have a copy from a re-broadcast last year. Or was that a different version altogether?I checked with Image Entertainment and it seems that amazon.com's "discontinued" listing is in error. Image still has over 400 copies of my edition of INTOLERANCE in stock, and will try to get amazon's listing corrected so that they will be shown as available.
It will take quite a while to sell 400 copies so I doubt that the revised version will be available in the immediate or even perhaps the forseeable future.
David Shepard
It will take quite a while to sell 400 copies so I doubt that the revised version will be available in the immediate or even perhaps the forseeable future.
David Shepard