Page 72 - Inside the Film Factory New Approaches to Russian and Soviet Cinema

INTOLERANCE AND THE SOVIETS: A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION 53
Griffith’s tale, specifically rejects Griffith’s most famous stylistic contribution to the
genre.

II
The familiar story that Intolerance first reached the USSR after it somehow
11
slipped through an anti-Soviet blockade is apocryphal. In fact the film was
imported well before the Revolution. When the Italian spectacle Cabiria scored a
success in Russia in 1915, it was assumed that a potential audience for spectacles
existed there, and the Italian Jacques Cibrario, who headed the Transatlantic film
12
distribution firm, brought Intolerance into Russia in 1916. But, although
Intolerance overshadowed Cabiria in size and splendour, it was quickly labelled too
avant-garde for Russian movie audiences. No Russian exhibitor would agree to
handle the film for fear that audiences would be confused by the four-part
structure. Consequently, the film gathered dust on a shelf somewhere in Russia
until after the Revolution. Not until 1918 did a special government decision clear
the way for Intolerance to be shown commercially in the RSFSR. 13
The première of Intolerance in Petrograd was a major cinema event for the
Soviets. On 17 November 1918 the Petrograd Cinema Committee sponsored a
special showing for an audience composed largely of government officials,
14
including the Commissar for Enlightenment, Anatoli Lunacharsky. The 25 May
1919 Moscow première was part of an official celebration. The occasion was the
first anniversary of so-called ‘Universal Military Training’, the government’s Civil
War programme of training Red Army conscripts. Intolerance warranted a special
closed showing at the prestigious Moscow movie theatre, the Artistic
[Khudozhestvennyi]. 15
The Moscow première inspired an illuminating review in Izvestiya. The critic
was impressed by the American film’s scope and technical virtues, and he noted
that it might serve as a model for future Soviet productions. But he dismissed the
content as ‘bourgeois’: the theme of reconciliation and ‘notorious tolerance’ failed to
resolve the issues of class conflict in the modern story. He suggested that Intolerance
might be reconstructed into a thoroughly ‘agitational’ film by ‘turning scenes
16
around and changing titles’. His remarks identify the ideological reservations that
Soviet cinephiles had about the film. The Soviets recognised that Intolerance was
a humanist, even a somewhat leftist film. But it certainly was not a revolutionary
film. For Soviet artists anxious to find a cinematic model which combined the
dynamic style of the detektiv with the political content of the agitfil’m, Intolerance
was close yet still very far. Intolerance had its militant moments– most notably the
strike sequence–but its vague sentimental humanism left Griffith’s Soviet admirers
cold.
The Izvestiya critic advocated the re-editing of the film for commercial release to
give it a proper slant. It is difficult to determine the extent to which that was done.
At least one account indicates that the Christ section was abridged in the public
17
versions of the film. But there is reason to believe that the film was not