This one...

...is going to be INCREDIBLY brief.

Watching AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).  I was going to try and complete in a calendar year.  I'm at 44, and have just over 10 weeks to watch 56 films.  I'm not watching 6 movies a week and writing about them.  I'm just not.  I've given myself until my birthday, March 5, to complete this, as I took 5 months off.  I'm giving myself slightly over 2 months for those 5 months.  Sorry.

Like I said, this one is going to be brief.

Film 44

44.  "Intolerance" (AFI Rank #49)

This film is on the list because of its historical significance, and for very little else, I'm guessing.

D.W. Griffith was one of the early pioneers of film, and indeed, most of Hollywood excess can probably be traced to him at its root.  I'm no film historian.  There's lots of information about him available online.  Go find some.  He saw film as a great opportunity to create art, and he used it accordingly.

I am not going to sum up what I watched, as I can't.  "Intolerance" is really 4 stories (and sub-stories), intertwined, some of which seem to go together, most of which don't.  The basic four stories are "The Modern Story," about a group of do-gooders that recruit a rich woman into their midst, then spend all her money, forcing her rich brother to cut workers' wages at his plant, forcing a strike, forcing a couple of people into rough lives in the city.  The other stories are "Judea," which is a very light retelling of the Christ story, "The Fall of Babylon," which really, ultimately is about hubris, and not really intolerance...and "The French Story," about the slaughter of the Huguenots at the hands of Catherine De Medici.  Each segment is tinted a different color (mostly, but there are lots of inconsistencies in the tinting).  As a scene frame, we have the Eternal Mother rocking her baby to let us know that things keep going...

This film is a muddled mess, as a story.  I found myself, at times, quite taken with what was happening, but mostly this felt like a test of my endurance. The word "intolerance" is misused throughout, including one point where prison is labeled "the sometimes house of Intolerance."  Sure.  But, are you suggesting that prisoners are just not tolerated?  Really?  Of course, it doesn't help that DW puts up a card that reads that The Boy is "intolerated for a term."  It's sloppy, at best, with a keen sense of no knowledge of the English language. None.

Beyond that, the title cards change fonts throughout, which is fine, if it's consistent for each story.   It is not.  Again, an inattention to detail that I cannot tolerate.  (See what I did there?)

It's silent film, so there isn't much to say about the acting.  I was particularly drawn to The Friendless One, but I don't think I was supposed to be.

Look.  Here's a summary of the film.  It's long.  Like the film.  You can read this essay, and save yourself watching the film, if you HAVE to see what this is all about.  However, the stories kind of suck, and the film is worth watching for the technical.  So...I don't know.

God, I hate that I had to watch this...and yet...

I'm glad I watched the film, as it is full of elaborate sets, amazing costumes, grandeur, camera tricks, etc.  Hell, there's even nudity.  You can see what Hollywood will become.  I enjoyed watching the technical, for sure.  I am astounded how much this guy was able to accomplish in 1916.  Truly amazing.  It is.  For real.  Sets are astounding.

Beyond that...

...blecch.  I'm glad I watched it.  You don't have to, unless you are insane enough to do something like this, or take some sort of film history class.

Seriously.  Skip this.  I didn't so you could.

Ebert did not write about this film.  I feel bad being so brief.  I probably shouldn't be.  But...I'd need you to watch this to discuss it further, and I'm not sure I can ask that of you.