Judith de Betúlia

The story of Holofernes leading the Assyrians against the Judean city of Bethulia. After a failed attack the Assyrians try to withhold the water supply from the Judeans. Judith of Bethulia is called into action to save her people.

This is the first D.W. Griffiths feature film. Indeed it's one of the very first full-length movies. It's a dry run for later Griffith epics such as Intolerance, which also features a biblical attack on an ancient city, in that case Babylon. This film is a lot less grand it has to be said. Watch out for the version available on-line with the abysmally inappropriately jolly score! It's really only going to be of interest to those who wish to delve into the origins of feature film-making. It's a little heavy going otherwise.

With a good cast, an interesting story, and settings that are generally convincing, "Judith of Bethulia" is a worthwhile and enjoyable dramatization of the semi-historical story of Judith (from the Old Testament Apocrypha). It fits together pretty well, and tells the story with a good amount of action and some depth as well. It is also of historical interest, as an example of what movies were like in the era when full-length pictures were just about to become common.

Blanche Sweet stars as the heroine Judith, a popular and prominent resident of the town of Bethulia, near ancient Jerusalem. When the town is attacked and besieged by the Assyrians, Judith becomes her town's best hope, so she must be courageous and must also work through some dilemmas. Sweet does a very good job of letting us see what her character is thinking and feeling. The rest of the cast includes several names well-known to fans of silent films (some in smaller roles), and they help out as well.

Although this was one of the earliest feature-length films, most of the story-telling techniques work all right, and it shows only a few real signs of age (mostly in the more lavish or large-scale sets and scenes). While it's probably too 'old-fashioned' to appeal to most of today's movie-goers, it's a good movie that is worthwhile both for its content and its historical interest.

The first feature-length film from DW Griffith, JUDITH OF BETHULIA tells the story of a young widow who saves her city (Bethulia) from the Assyrians by an act of treachery.

It's a warm-up for Griffith's masterpiece, INTOLERANCE, a few years later but still has merit of its own despite hammy acting and lackluster sets.

Blanche Sweet (then 18) stars as Judith and is very pretty but the acting style (it is 1914 after all) is still crude with waving arms and long dramatic poses. Henry B. Walthall is the head of the Assyrian army, Mae Marsh and Robert Harron play the young lovers, Lillian Gish is a young mother, Dorothy Gish is a young cripple, Kate Bruce is the loyal maid, Harry Carey is the traitor.

The extras (in heavy makeup) include Lionel Barrymore, Antonio Moreno, Elmo Lincoln, Mary Gish (mother of the stars), and someone named J. Jiquel Lanoe who is quite excellent as the head eunuch.

Certainly worth a look but this seems very amateurish compared to what was coming. The film is also famous for going well over budget and getting Griffith fired from Biograph Studio.

Judith of Bethulia tells the story of the Assyrian attack on the Israelite city of Bethulia led by Holofernes (Henry Walthall), and devout widow Judith (Blanche Sweet) who is to be the savior of her people.

Judith of Bethulia is the precursor to Griffith epics such as Intolerance and Birth of a Nation. The film itself somehow lacks the harmony that the following films do, but this was Griffith's first attempt at a full-length feature (though it was his second to be released), and for that props must be given. In fact, he composed it without the knowledge Biograph, for the company had decided against producing anything longer than two reels. Biograph refused to release the film until 1914, by which time Griffith had left the studio.

It is evident that the finished product is not what Griffith intended. The subplot between lovers Naomi (Mae Marsh) and Nathan (Robert Harron) is somewhat abandoned for the primary action between Judith and Holofernes, and then is re-acknowledged and tied up very quickly. His impeccable story telling and ability to evoke emotion are evident as always and the film is very engaging, but I cannot help but feel that the film is lacking in some aspect. The sets and costumes are however gorgeous as are the performances by the cast. Had Biograph been initially supportive of Griffith's dream, I believe the film could have been a masterpiece equaling Intolerance. We are instead left with a beautiful early attempt at such an epic.

This was something of a milestone – denoting a leap for pioneer D.W. Griffith from his customary one or two-reelers to a then considerable length of 49 minutes in this version (its length may vary on account of differing speeds utilized during projection of Silent movies) as well as from a modern-day, or at least American, setting towards apparently unlimited scope. In that regard alone, JUDITH OF BETHULIA is worthy of attention – but Griffith's Victorian sensibilities (which he could never, or would not, shake off) still ground it into the antediluvian quality of film-making which is perhaps the most common objection raised by certain viewers nowadays to watching Silent pictures! Anyway, this was obviously inspired by the Old Testament tale in which a saintly woman sacrifices her dignity in order to release the Jewish people (depicted as long-bearded stereotypes which would not go down well today!) from oppression by the Assyrian army: she ingratiates herself within the affections of King Holofernes, whom she gets drunk one night and decapitates – after which the invaders disperse. Apart from a lengthy offensive outside the city walls, the running-time is padded-out with the plight of a young couple (the boy is a brave warrior and the girl eventually enslaved inside the enemy camp) and, also appearing from time to time, is Lillian Gish in a typical role symbolizing motherhood. Unfortunately, the print I acquired of this 95-year old title was extremely fuzzy – rendering the elaborate and often chaotic visuals even harder to make out – and it was accompanied besides by one of the most incongruous scores I have ever heard, approximating to a circus jingle (complete with laugh track!) which one finds at its most jubilant when the on-screen events seem to demand emotions of an entirely different nature!!