User Reviews

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.

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!!

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.

Upon release, the said to be the longest film feature ever - the biblical-era "Judith of Bethulia". Notably directed by D.W. Griffith, it's really not as good as some of his previous releases; in hindsight, its length is perhaps its most remembered feature.

The story centers on Judith (Blanche Sweet) courageously figuring to save her city (Bethulia) from the invading army of the conqueror Holofernes (Henry B. Walthall). To wit, Ms. Sweet dresses herself up in order to seduce Mr. Walthall. She looks more ridiculous than seductive, with what looks like a peacock on her head. Walthall's other ladies, and eunuch (!), look more fetching.

A marvelous actor, Walthall doesn't have much to do in "Judith". The acting honors are stolen, early on, by Mae Marsh and Robert Harron, perhaps because they were directed to walk around without over-emoting. There are some exciting battle sequences.

****** Judith of Bethulia (3/8/14) D.W. Griffith ~ Blanche Sweet, Henry B. Walthall, Mae Marsh, Robert Harron

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.

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.

Since it is Easter time, Herr Graf's curiosity about strange Christians' pious habits led to a decision to watch a film inspired lightly by or based on religious scenes ( although aristocrats don't share any Christian feelings about their fellow men at this time or any other time of the year ). For this reason "Judith Of Bethulia" was chosen, a film located in Bethulia, a village near Jerusalem, so it was perfect penance for this German aristocrat. "Judith Of Bethulia" was the last film directed by Herr D.W. Griffith for "Biograph Studios" because the American director had a strange idea about how many reels were necessary to depict a story, an opinion about film running time that the company didn't share ( afterwards Herr Griffith would take revenge and put his theory in practice in his well-known and longer silent films ). The film is the story of Damen Judith, a widower who, in order to save her city from the Assyrian invaders and the thirst and famine that her countrymen suffer in the besieged city, sacrifices her virtue to Herr Holofernes, the invading leader.

"Judith Of Bethulia" is a film in which the techniques are recognizable which made the American director famous in the silent world, even though this film exposes them in a subtle way: not forgetting the pace, the perfectly entwined shots and situations, the strong male characters that Herr Griffith was so fond of, and the fragile and self-sacrificing little fräuleins so characteristic of his cinema. This film is not remarkable but perfect ( clean, even antiseptic ) in its technical, formal and performing aspects.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must sacrifice himself to one of his devoted fat German heiresses.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/

D.W. Griffith fuses Thomas Bailey Aldrich's long poem of Judith's story with its basis in the Apocrypha to derive this somewhat austere and powerful film of the widow's noble sacrifice to save her besieged city and its inhabitants from an invading Assyrian army, led by Holofernes. With JUDITH as Griffith's first feature length effort, he turns away from the commercial needs of the Biograph Company, the management of which desires to maintain its policy of making only one and two reelers, and his expenditure of $36000 is double the amount budgeted, reflecting his expanded use of sets and extras and providing the requisite exercise in preparation for his next major work: BIRTH OF A NATION, made as a free agent. Eighteen year old Blanche Sweet's performance is striking as she utilizes all of her wide range of expressivity, uncommon in one so young, to mirror the emotions of a woman who is physically attracted to a man, Henry Walthall as Holofernes, toward whom her only possible final act will be his death by her hand, as depicted in many a well-known painting. The supporting cast serves the sparsely titled production well, with emotional performances from Mae Marsh and Robert Harron as endangered lovers, and among the many bit players who animate the work may be seen Lionel Barrymore, Harry Carey, Antonio Moreno and Lillian and Dorothy Gish as victims of the invaders. This version is the four reeler rather than the one of six reels released later and is Griffith's answer to the full-length epics which were being imported from Europe; its release was delayed a year by Biograph to ensure that the director had left its employ, but this brought scant gain to the company: Biograph was soon defunct, while Griffith's star was rising.

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.

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

Prettily shot and wonderfully costumed, a great period piece.

The story goes that when D. W. Griffith attended a screening of the Italian biblical movie "Quo Vadis?" during its 1913 New York City run, he immediately became hooked on his desire to make a feature film, and on an epic scale. Employed by Biograph Studios, Griffith begged the executives for a chance to spend some money to make an unforgettable movie. The studio claimed it couldn't afford such an expense and to forget about it.

When he journeyed to the west coast away for the studio's headquarters to make a series of films in the late summer of 1913, Griffith decided to fulfill his dream of directing a feature length film, creating the 60-minute "Judith of Bethulia." The studio knew something was up when it began getting cascading bills for what they thought was a series of short films. When its executives discovered Griffith had spent over $36,000 to make one motion picture, they said the movie would have to be spliced into two for separate showings to get a return on their investment. And they also constricted Griffith from ever making another lengthy movie again.

This was the last straw for the director, who had been Biograph's premier director since 1908. He eventually landed at Mutual Film Corporation, formed just in 1912, which gave Griffith everything he wanted. The director also took his stock company of actors with him as well as his favorite cameraman, Billy Bitzer.

Biograph withheld the release of "Judith of Bethulia" until March 1914, to avoid paying Griffith any profit sharing the company had with the director until he walked out.

The movie itself was praised for its sprawling scope with a large cast dressed up in authentic biblical costumes. Blanche Sweet, 18 years old at the time of filming, was the seductive lead who arouses the Assyrian leader, played by Henry Walthall, in an erotic display of seductiveness. The battle scenes would prove to be a dress rehearsal for Griffith's 1916 "Intolerance," the Babylonian segment.

"Judith of Bethulia" provided the critics heaps of praise for Griffith's handling of a movie containing such a grand scale of cast and crew. They pointed out the pure artistry he painted on the screen, claiming this American director has ascended to the lofty perch of those Italian directors who had led cinema in the epic feature films.

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.

Judith Of Bethulia (1914) : Brief Review -

An achievement of a whole new level for Hollywood in feature film length by the courtesy of DW Griffith. Griffith had already made many briliant films till 1914 but all were shorts, naturally. With Judith Of Bethulia he expanded the length which automatically expanded the cinematic graphics for Hollywood. This was before he made long-length epics like 'The Birth Of A Nation' (1915) and 'Intolerance' (1916) which are also his longest films ever yet getting everything right with a grand vision within 60 odd minutes was still a difficult task upon the release of Judith Of Bethulia. It was also the first feature-length film made by pioneering film company Biograph. Everything came together at right time for right reasons and the results were simply amazing. The film is based on the deuterocanonical Book of Judith, quite like an biographical. A religious woman seeks to save her people from destruction by seducing and murdering the enemy leader, but her plans get complicated once she falls for him. Blanche Sweet as Judith and Henry B. Walthall as Holofernes looks pretty good even for the contemporary consideration. Lillian Gish, the girl we all love plays a small role of the Young Mother and as always she looks super cute. Judith Of Bethulia doesn't give much space to actors for solo engagement as it involves huge crowd rightly for the context. So, more than actors it was a team effort, doesn't matter if you don't know those artists but you know that the film was not possible without them. Griffith takes his storytelling to new heights with grand scale presentation and vivacious atmosphere around the story. The use of camera, junior artists, explosion and other properties is done very smartly by him and how. It's on a level which set the landmark for filmmaking in Hollywood Cinema.

RATING - 8/10*

By - #samthebestest.

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.