MARIO GAUCI 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!!

Steffi_P 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.

Michael_Elliott Judith of Bethulia (1914) *** (out of 4) D.W. Griffith's first feature as well as his final film for the Biograph company. Semi historical story from the Old Testament about Judith (Blanche Sweet), a strong willed woman who rises up to defend her town of Bethulia against Holofernes (Henry B. Walthall) and the Assyrians. Griffith was the first to take film-making to Los Angeles and that's how he got away with this film when Biograph refused to let him make longer running films. Griffith told the company he was going back out West so that he could film in better weather. The studio was under the impression that he was going to make six short films but instead he spent $36,000 (nearly five times the cost of a normal picture) and created his first feature. Even though the film became a huge hit, Biograph still refused to let him make features so Griffith left the studio, taking the majority of their actors with him and the rest is history. Needless to say but Biograph didn't last much longer. As for the actual film, it's a pretty good telling of events but for some reason that beautiful editing of Griffith's isn't to be seen here, which is a shame because it probably would have helped the film a lot. I think it would have also helped had he inserted more title cards but it's clear Griffith's mind was on the technical side of the epic battle scenes. The battle scenes here are very good and quite a treasure for the eyes. There's one scene where the Assyrians are trying to break down the gate leading into Bethulia and this here is where the greatest action is. People are on top of the gate throwing down large rocks, which was all done for real. Griffith paid the actors an extra $5 a day to let these rocks be thrown at them. The performance from Sweet is exceptionally good and the supporting cast also includes Mae Marsh, Lillian Gish, Dorothy Gish, Harry Carey and Robert Harron.

Snow Leopard 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.