1914's 'Judith of Bethulia' has some historical interest. With it being one of silent film's most revolutionary directors DW Griffith's first feature length film, after a large collection of mostly very impressive short films. And already showing signs of the great technical skill and the ambition that can be seen in much of his feature film output. Seeing so many Griffith regular actors here in the same film was another interest point and the subject did fascinate.
'Judith of Bethulia' is not one of Griffith's best or most revolutionary, and is somewhat uneven. It is though an impressive film in many ways and has more to it than merely historical interest, the best of the many good things being absolutely great. Is it a must watch? As a film no it isn't but it is for Griffith and silent film completest sake. Is it worth seeing? It absolutely is, even if Griffith did better work before and especially since this level of ambition and skill was pretty darn impressive.
Sure, 'Judith of Bethulia' isn't perfect. It is on the wordy side and with terminology that is very of the time. Also thought that some of it could have done with more subtlety in the messaging.
The pace perhaps could have been tighter and there is an at times old fashioned feel.
Yet, there are so many things that make 'Judith of Bethulia' worth seeing. It looks great, not just for back then but also now. It is amazing at how ambitiously elaborate the settings are and the opulence is there in the costuming. Griffith's technical skill was already advancing quite some while before this was made and released, but it was here where it started to come to the forefront and it shows in some beautiful framing and use of camera. That never looks static while not being overblown.
Blanche Sweet gives a sensual, dignified turn and Griffith regulars such as the Gish sisters, Robert Harron and Henry B. Walthall make strong impressions too even in roles not quite as big or demanding. Griffith's direction is adept and on the most part the film is not dull. Riveting in the very elaborately shot and choreographed battle scenes, which were very ahead of the time at this point of history.
While an uneven film, there is a lot to admire in Griffith's first feature film. 7/10.
'Judith of Bethulia' is not one of Griffith's best or most revolutionary, and is somewhat uneven. It is though an impressive film in many ways and has more to it than merely historical interest, the best of the many good things being absolutely great. Is it a must watch? As a film no it isn't but it is for Griffith and silent film completest sake. Is it worth seeing? It absolutely is, even if Griffith did better work before and especially since this level of ambition and skill was pretty darn impressive.
Sure, 'Judith of Bethulia' isn't perfect. It is on the wordy side and with terminology that is very of the time. Also thought that some of it could have done with more subtlety in the messaging.
The pace perhaps could have been tighter and there is an at times old fashioned feel.
Yet, there are so many things that make 'Judith of Bethulia' worth seeing. It looks great, not just for back then but also now. It is amazing at how ambitiously elaborate the settings are and the opulence is there in the costuming. Griffith's technical skill was already advancing quite some while before this was made and released, but it was here where it started to come to the forefront and it shows in some beautiful framing and use of camera. That never looks static while not being overblown.
Blanche Sweet gives a sensual, dignified turn and Griffith regulars such as the Gish sisters, Robert Harron and Henry B. Walthall make strong impressions too even in roles not quite as big or demanding. Griffith's direction is adept and on the most part the film is not dull. Riveting in the very elaborately shot and choreographed battle scenes, which were very ahead of the time at this point of history.
While an uneven film, there is a lot to admire in Griffith's first feature film. 7/10.