Content area
Full Text
AbsTRAcT: By presenting new information about sound effects, stage lighting, film length, speed of projection, and motivation for the changes to D. W. Griffith's Intolerance (1916), this article rebuts the conclusions presented in Russell Merritt, "D. W. Griffith's Intolerance: Reconstructing an Unattainable Text," Film History 4, no. 4 (1990): 337-75. My analysis argues that composer Joseph Carl Breil's score for Intolerance could become functional again only with the MoMA reconstruction of a very early version of the film. I establish how important music was for Griffith and therefore how necessary the orches- tral scores are for any assessment of his motion pictures. By focusing on the heretofore minimized role of Griffith as showman, this article unearths rich documentation about his film presentation practices and publicity, which significantly alters the way his films should be perceived and presented. Griffith's emphasis on orchestral scores also played a role in the elevation of the cinema and in the pressure for bigger, more luxurious movie theaters in the United States and Great Britain.
KEYWORDS: D. W. Griffith, Intolerance (1916), MoMA reconstruction, Joseph Carl Breil, orchestral scores, film music, film length, film publicity, stage lighting, gentrification
Over twenty years ago, the Museum of Modern art (MoMa) presented a recon- structed version of d. W. Griffith's Intolerance (1916) at the new York and Porde- none film festivals1 accompanied by Joseph Carl Breil's original score for orches- tra, chorus, and vocal soloists. Besides shining a spotlight on the presentation of silent films, the screenings revealed the existence of two different interpretations of the changes Griffith made to Intolerance between 1916 and 1926. depending on which of the two interpretations you held, you either approved of the 1989 reconstruction or considered it to be a travesty based on the presumed existence of what has been called a "mythological" longer version.2
The intention of this essay is to extend that debate by introducing new information based on the presentation and reception of Griffith's works.3 it will raise questions about the motivation for the frequent changes he made. it will also establish certain facts about the length and projection speed for Intolerance and expand on the reasons for choosing to restore one version over another. to the portrait of Griffith the director, it adds...