The Racism cannot be excused

Rating: 1/10 (15 October 2015)

Film is an art, and Griffith was the pioneer of this vision, he saw himself as a great genius and the 'father of narrative cinema'; when he left American Biograph after his film Judith of Bethulia he went to Hollywood and put an advertisement for himself in the paper that contained a list of all his previous films, he was certain a studio would recruit him.
This complacency is also on show in the very first shot of the film, namely the trademark outline for the text, containing Griffith's name in the upper-right and -left corner and his initials on the bottom. It is quite evident he loves himself very much.
I see a lot of reviews here trying to justify the racism in the film by saying that in 1915 everyone was racist. Then how come the film immediately sparked protest after its release? The NAACP was successful in removing some of the racists parts of the film; it was cut from 1544 to 1375 shots. Because Griffith made the film without a script and those cut scenes were destroyed, we can only guess what other ghastly things were on them -the fact that the extremely racist South Carolina Parliament scene was not cut, does make me wonder just how bad those removed takes were.
In typical Griffith vanity, he felt attacked and violated for the public had stained his genius and masterpiece. He went to make a whole three-and-a-half film to vindicate the 'Intolerance' of those who opposed his racist depictions. The audience did not like this unsubtle message and Intolerance became one of the biggest flops in Hollywood history (the fact that it was such a complicated film for the time was also a big factor, but just let me believe in this delusion of poetic justice).
It the sneering tone or the rating did not convey it yet, I absolutely loathe this film. The depiction of Afro-Americans as uncivilised, alcoholics, rapists and other depictions you would assign to the concept of untermenschen, makes my blood boil. There is a big difference between denigrating a group of people (as the Indians have been subject of in many Westerns) for the sake of the narrative and the way Griffith denigrates a whole social group (believing in the separation of the human race in 'sub-races' is in itself racist). The only time Afro-Americans are portrayed as sympathetic is when they are submissive; Griffith states this as 'the Aryan birthright' of the white South.
The worst part of Griffith's film is the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, he has Afro-American blood on his hands. This fact in itself is enough for me to give this the lowest rating possible. I do not care for this 'encyclopaedia of what film was capable on a technical level', if Griffith had not made this film another director would eventually have mode a similar film, one I would have actually been able to enjoy.