Intolerance?

Firstly, I know there's a bunch of Toni Collette fans out there, and while I wasn't in her camp, there's sure to be a few Keisha Castle-Hughes fans out there. If you're a fan of both then you should be happy about this They're teaming up for a new movie called Hey Hey, It's Esther Blueburger. It's especially good news for all you Keisha fans because other than a tiny blink-and-you'll-miss-it role in Star Wars: Episode III you haven't had anything to see the youngest ever Best Actress Academy Award nominee.

aaanyway.



I finally managed to watch the rest of DW Griffith's 1916 epic movie Intolerance. Pleasantly, the last hour of this movie wasn't as soul-destroyingly dull as the first two. Infact, I need to confess to blatantly cheating while watching the middle hour of this film. I had watched the first hour and nearly died of boredom, so when I finally managed to put the disc back in and watch the rest I started to feel like I wasn't gonna make it so I actually pressed the fast forward button. SORRY to any fans of this movie. But, it made it much more bearable. I played it so I could see the title cards but, really, it made it much better. it was faster paced (instead of the snail pace that it actually goes at).

However, when I sat day the next night to watch the final hour I found it was much better. I didn't need to fast forward because stuff was actually happening! (shock, i know!). This part of the film has legitimate tension, interest and had be watching and not glancing at the timer every five minutes (that felt like 15 throughout the rest of the movie).



Technically I could appreciate the entire film. It is very well designed. The acting is all null and void except for one and that would be Mae Marsh from the modern story. I would actually go ahead and say she was brilliant. I loved her once her story really kicked in (instead of following around those old bitties).

However, there is one problem that this film has that I could not ignore. It is the reason I felt as if I was slowly dying. It is also a big problem I have with silent films in general. Remember that hilarious scene in Lost in Translation where Bill Murray's character is filming the commercial and the director talks for a while in Japanese and then the lady translates as about three words? Yeah. That's what I thought of while watching Intolerance. Characters will literally stand around (or sit, lol) talking to each other for minutes and then a title card will come up saying "They were angry!" like... WTF? I HATE YOU. It made me so angry. I'd sit there watching these characters talk IN A SILENT MOVIE and then it all gets summed up in a title card on no more than ten words. I hate that. Why am I sitting there watching all that talking when I don't need to? The film is three hours long and it could've easily been 2 and not as soul-destroyingly boring.

I also think the constant criss-crossing ruined parts of it. The modern story would've been excellent if it were one single story but then they throw in a Babylon story (which was awful lot like Kingdom of Heaven scarily enough. And then a story about Jesus (???) and then another story about the St Bartholemew's massacre in France. It was all just so much. The Babylon story was interesting I suppose. The other two not so much. And Griffith obviously new it as they barely get any attention until they need to resolve them.

I also don't understand how these stories about "intolerance"? Like... huh? That doesn't make sense. Ugh. I'm gonna give this movie a C- because I can appreciate the craft and I wasn't as overtly insulted as I was whilest watching Griffith's previous Birth of a Nation. I also thought the last hour was legitimately interesting, however I just simply could not forgive the first two hours' tedious boring blahness that made me feel as if I wanted to poke my eyes out and die. C-