Gabrielle goes 1001

Fair play for watching a 7 hour black and white film, you deserve credit for that as you have admitted you find such films difficult at times. Glad to see you enjoyed it so much. I only know of this film as Jonathan Rosenbaum has it on his films to see list or something, I think, you've increased my interest in it, but I honestly don't think I'll get around to it for a while.

I don't think you were aware of Les Vampires, so I'm guessing the answer is no, but have you ever seen this?



Now that you've watched Les Vampires, it might give you more.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I don't think I could make it through Les Vampires.

It is split into ten parts which length varies from 13 minutes to an hour.It's more like a mini series so there's no need to watch it all during a day.

I knew that I have to check for remakes but I forgot since my thinking is: if I haven't heard then it isn't good.
Oh wait,just checked,it isn't even a remake.. Well,maybe I'll watch it someday,doesn't look interesting though.

D.W. Griffith, who could easily be called the first genius of feature film directing,made the legendary epic movie The Birth of a Nation in 1915.Despite all the positive reviews,movie received tons of criticism for its praise of the Ku Klux Klan.D.W. Griffith answered the critics with his next well-known film Intolerance.

The film,divided into two acts, tells four stories simultaneously and these stories are divided by Eternal Motherhood – a woman constantly rocking the cradle.Note that all the stories are set in different times of history and, excluding the modern story,all of them loosely portray true historical events.There’s fall of Babylonian Empire, the Crucifixion of Jesus, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre and I would say that modern story is about misunderstandings between working and middle classes and the tragic consequences of that.All of these events have one common theme – intolerance.

The idea of the movie is great but the only thing I truly loved about the whole film is the Eternal Motherhood(pic above) which portrays generations and time passing.Haunting and clever scene.But besides that and good intentions to make a “strong” movie,I felt that the execution was bad in all aspects.

Stories are not the same length.Modern and Babylonian stories are much longer than French and Jerusalem and I think it is a flaw since the latter stories do not seem to matter that much and therefore, they lose significance.Another great intention of the director was to slowly develop each story and then show all the climaxes simultaneously.Yes,a great idea,too but it made the beginning of the movie boring.Nothing grasped me and I did not want to sit through 2 hours waiting for the culmination.It may be because I am not a multiple story fan overall as I disliked some of the modern films containing multiple plots(Babel or Amores Perros).

The film is exactly like The Birth of a Nation style-wise.Viewer does not have to watch it carefully because sooner or later it will be written what happened.Only in Intolerance,you do not even have to interpret the scenes and the stories because it is interpreted for you – it is about intolerance and all the things which are portrayed happened because of intolerance.Well,I could argue about the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre as I don’t think it was a result of religious intolerance alone.When the film reached the end of the first act,I felt that the intolerance message is being shoved.

Once again,I disliked the subtitles (started appreciating Les Vampires approach to subtitles even more),the stories are quite complicated or I am not used to silent films,the music is dull(more or less the same during calm and dramatic scenes) and the special effects…well,it is a 1916 film,maybe they are good.Acting is way too theatrical for me but I dislike most of the silent/golden era film acting performances.

I believe that, from the historical point of view,this movie is not much ahead of The Birth of a Nation.Of course,it tried to be even more significant by telling 4 stories at the same time but what it did better than the first Griffith’s epic?I think nothing. Especially considering the technical side of the film.

To conclude,I failed again to see the greatness of the silent era genius D.W.Griffith.I find the stories not captivating,boring,dull and quite messy to completely understand.There is no space for interpretation,the movies takes on too much to care for each character and it seems much longer than it really is.

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

I heard that formerly all stories were the same length and the movie was 51 hours long (or at least that's how much material they recorded). Not only Griffith incorporated multi-story, but also his trademark - Griffith's ending.

is very strict. If you're not keen on silent cinema you should watch two more films and if you still don't like it move to later book entries. No need to torture yourself.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

You seem to have interpreted the film as uninterpretable. That, in turn, limits the comprehension and pleasure you can gain from it, especially when you imply that you didn't pay much attention to it. It's got its problems but it has its successes too. Watching these 1001 films is supposed to help expand your ability to appreciate cinema, not reinforce that you have difficulty understanding some of it.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I rate movies only on how much I enjoyed them,nothing more. I don't seem to like Griffith's way of filmmaking overall.He may be a great innovator and so on but I didn't like both of his movies and I can't connect to the characters because everything around them kind of irritates me - subtitles,acting,some messy massive scenes,music.

Yeah,I watched tons of "book" movies between Les Vampires and Intolerance but I fell that I should still go by release date as I want to see more classics,more importantly,I want to find something that I could appreciate from the old times.

Could you tell me more about the Griffith ending?


But I do!I saw Godfather when I was maybe 12 or 13 for the first time and I didn't understood a thing that's happening,why they killed this guy,why they put that head in the bed etc. I've got other examples,too.But I've seen a few hundred crime films by now and I can understand them easily.
Watching silent cinema is different because it's a different type of cinema.It required experience.You have to be much more focused on the screen as there's nothing to listen to.Basically the whole movie stands on your eyes.Now I,being a fan of dialogue, of course,have difficulties to focus on silence for a few hours.But don't say that I didn't pay attention - I was very attentive during first half of the film because I knew what to expect - lots of characters introduced,lots of stories,lots of things that you have to grasp at the first time or you'll miss them for the whole movie.Anyway,watching film from the 10s and watching film from the 70s is totally different experience for me.
I watch book movies to improve my knowledge about films,I may have disliked Intolerance but I do not regret that I watched it.It wasn't a waste of time.

Watching a film from 30s (as long as it's not mute) and 10s doesn't make a difference to me. When it comes to silents, it's a different experience for sure.

Griffith's ending is basically about a character being saved in the last second - it's being used in almost every thriller film.

The first movie I recall from the 30s which I've seen is M.And well,it's much easier to watch but the film itself isn't very complicated. I want to watch more silent movies from different directors^^

Watch some Chaplin. Maybe the lighter atmosphere of his films is for you.

I will ^^ I've seen The Great Dictator,it was quite decent.

Go for City Lights.

Sure...black marauders. Let's burn down houses and lynch people, that will defend us from these marauders!

__________________
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
-Daniel, There Will Be Blood