Let me say that I'm certainly happy I finally watched this 3h epic from one of the early giants of American cinema.I did enjoy espcially the more tumultous parts of the movie. Just the attempt to show various examples of 'intolerance' from roughly 2500 years of human history deserves quite a bit of respect- Also, the coulisse from the Babylonian episode can be considered something like the stage setting equivalent of the Gizeh pyramides in my opinion.
The main issue I take with this movie, however, is that Griffith succumbs to a major case of conceptual imprecision in lumping together quite heterogenous types of moral hazard like betrayal, jealously, bigotry, wrongful imprisonment, zealous puritanism, lust for political power under the vague catch phrase of 'intolerance'. I don't see how this sort of label contributes in anyway to moral clarity nor how it could help overcome the main kinds of intolerance, i.e. intolerance of the religious and racial kind. In my point of view, the only paradigmatic case of intolerance in the whole movie is displayed in the French episode. This one, however, is the second shortest part of the movie. This is why I suspect quite a bit that ultimately Griffith was very ready to turn his attention to the pomp, adventure, and exoticism of Babylon rather than getting to the philosophical bottom of intolerance, which could have been achieved with with a focus on France and Jerusalem. Trying to make up for the racism perceived in 'Birth of a Nation', Griffiths was undoubtedly well-intentioned, but not much more.
The main issue I take with this movie, however, is that Griffith succumbs to a major case of conceptual imprecision in lumping together quite heterogenous types of moral hazard like betrayal, jealously, bigotry, wrongful imprisonment, zealous puritanism, lust for political power under the vague catch phrase of 'intolerance'. I don't see how this sort of label contributes in anyway to moral clarity nor how it could help overcome the main kinds of intolerance, i.e. intolerance of the religious and racial kind. In my point of view, the only paradigmatic case of intolerance in the whole movie is displayed in the French episode. This one, however, is the second shortest part of the movie. This is why I suspect quite a bit that ultimately Griffith was very ready to turn his attention to the pomp, adventure, and exoticism of Babylon rather than getting to the philosophical bottom of intolerance, which could have been achieved with with a focus on France and Jerusalem. Trying to make up for the racism perceived in 'Birth of a Nation', Griffiths was undoubtedly well-intentioned, but not much more.