MovieChat Forums > Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (1916) Discussion > I'm a bit confused about the Babylon sce...

I'm a bit confused about the Babylon scene.

posted 18 years ago by Skye_Reynolds
5 replies | jump to latest

I finished the first act last night and I plan to finish the second act tonight. However, it strikes me as odd that he appears to be portraying Babylon as the victim in this situation. Historically, it was Darius the Mede and not Cyrus the Great that conquered Babylon. Griffith is going by the Biblical history in which Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. However, Babylon became a symbol of evil within the Bible. It seems quite odd that he would take the Biblical telling and change it so that Babylon are the sympathetic victims and not the villains. Biblically Belshazzar profained God's sacred utensils by drinking from them and his fate was written out on a wall as if by the hand of God Himself.

Was it believed historically in 1916 that Cyrus defeated Babylon or was he taking certain liberties with the Biblical presentation of what happened? It seems rather odd that he would contradict the Bible considering his portrayal of Christ within the film. They say that winners write the history books and while there are conflicting histories, I believe the Bible when it says that Cyrus defeated Belshazzar and brought and end to the city of Babylon. Of course, this is personal belief and has no bearing on the film itself.

Long story short, why is he going by the Biblical tale in which Babylon is a great evil and then portraying them as the victims?

[–] Trouter2000 18 years ago

They were victims of Intolerance, though intolerant themselves. I think Griffith was doing what Stone did to Nixon, sympathizing with a victim largely unknown to anybody.

[–] mjcarrabine 17 years ago

I don't know if it helps at all, but after the intermission title, the following intertitles appear:

"In this last act the events portrayed in Bablyon are according to the recently excavated cylinders of Nabonidus and Cyrus, that relate Babylon's betrayal by the priest of Bel."

"These cylinders describe the greatest treason of all history, by which a civilization of countless ages was destroyed, and a universal written language (the cuniform) was made to become an unown cypher on the face of the earth."

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin2 17 years ago

Cyrus was behind it, Darius the Mede (Not to be Confused with the Darius who was latter King of the Persian Empire, that's a completely different Darius but many get confused on that) was simply his General.

The Bible is in fact the only document to mention Darius the Mede (By the name at least) Read Daniel Chapters 5&6.

My Voting History.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=14630264
Enjoy!

[–] ringprint-1 16 years ago

This is the movies!!!

Cyrus The Great sounds like a more fearsome
foe than Darius the Mede.

Besides, given his previous movie, historical
accuracy was one of D.W. Griffith's weaknesses.

[–] SusanJL 14 years ago

Apparently, DG decided to make up a story about the fall of Babylon counting on people's ignorance of the Bible, or he was ignorant of the Scriptures. Hmm... who to believe, God or man's version?? Yes, I'll take God's Word over man's, too!