Judith de Béthulie

The Biograph company has taken the original four reels and to those from the hundred and fifty thousand feet of exposed negative have added two reels. New sub-titles have been given the whole production. These are unusual in their artistry. Over dark atmospheric backgrounds, selected from the negative, sub-titles have been imposed. The effect is striking. Out of regard for the opinions of exhibitors, many of whom had complained that "Judith of Bethulia" as a title lacked those psychological qualities of appeal for which showmen as a class have such a keen sense, the enlarged production is issued under the name of "Her Condoned Sin." As the reissued picture treats of a Biblical period, not of to-day, it is under no handicap such as follows upon the bringing out of the vaults of a story where the characters are arrayed in a garb that was up to date a few years previously. Another fact that will impress itself upon the observer is that after all we have gained little if at all in a photographic way in the past three years. The photography of "Her Condoned Sin" is of the best. The whole subject is tinted and toned in a most effective combination of amber and light sepia. This treatment, together with the new titling, enhances the pictorial quality of a subject that at the time it was first presented to the public was conceded by many in a position to speak authoritatively to be the best all-around product of an American studio. - The Moving Picture World, February 3, 1917

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.

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.

Judith of Bethulia is, depending on your definition, Griffith's earliest full-length feature, or his longest short. While nowhere near as mammoth in length as Birth of a Nation, in scope and ambition it is a leap forward from two-reelers like The Battle of Elderbrush Gulch. In any case, it was certainly Griffith's first genuine attempt at making a feature, and only really suffered from curtailment by the Biograph bosses.

The care Griffith takes in establishing character was nothing new, and neither were the techniques he uses for staging the battle sequences. What stands out here though is how constant the quality level is. While the whole is clearly lacking some development - the romantic angle between Mae Marsh and Bobby Haron appears to have been a casualty of Biograph's cutbacks - what does remain is consistently of a high standard. There are no wrong notes, no awful performances and no misjudged cuts. In this respect Judith of Bethulia differs from many of the better known Griffith features, which whilst appearing fully rounded and complete, were often peppered with weak moments.

Nevertheless, Griffith has clearly put a lot of thought into the structure of Judith of Bethulia. The film is filled with counterpoint and contrast, and it is in fact this which gives it the nature of a feature and not a short. The majority of Biograph shorts dealt with one form of business at a time - frenzied action, emotional turmoil, loving harmony and so forth - and any attempts to mix and match these tended to be a bit of a mess. In Judith of Bethulia Griffith pulls off just such a blending. For example, when Judith is wrestling with her conscience over whether she can murder Holofernes, Griffith intercuts the Bethulian soldiers' dash to recapture the well. The ensuing battle scenes would seem to be at odds with Judith's agonising, yet by now the audience has bought into her situation and the counterpoint works. Another example occurs in the middle of the film, where Griffith cuts back and forth between Judith's decision to go forth into the enemy camp, and Holofernes executing a cowardly soldier. Why intercut between these two seemingly unrelated scenes? Because they are the defining moments of character exposition for both - Judith's spiritual awakening, and Holofernes at his most barbaric.

In relation to the above, there is also a lot of contrasting of Bethulian piety and purity with Assyrian debauchery. This kind of religious moralism is rare in Griffith's work, although as anyone who has seen more than a few of his films will know he was happy to wear almost any political or philosophical hat so long as it suited the story.

Griffith casts what were, at the time, all his favourite leads, hence the generally strong performances throughout. The historical setting allows for a little more hammyness and theatricality than would be acceptable in a contemporary drama, which means things even out nicely given the generally naturalistic but occasionally over the top acting styles of the late Biographs. It's interesting to see Lillian Gish cast in a supporting role as "the young mother". To date her best and most prominent performance had been in The Mothering Heart, and she also played the token mother of the token baby in The Battle of Elderbrush Gulch. Later, when she was Griffith's primary female lead she would play the purely symbolic mother figure, eternally rocking the cradle in Intolerance. Although she never had a child in real life, with her tender features Griffith had clearly singled her out as the archetypal mother, specifically of babies.

Judith of Bethulia was inevitably overshadowed by the three-hour extravaganza that was Birth of A Nation. Now that Birth has been denounced as racist nonsense, film buff favourites Intolerance and Broken Blossoms are now most often cited as Griffith's ones to watch. It's really about time Judith of Bethulia was given recognition as Griffith's true feature debut, and the crowning achievement of his days at Biograph.

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.