Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Steineded How sad is this?

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

MissSimonetta God knows Judith of Bethulia (1914) makes for easier viewing than what is usually regarded as D.W. Griffith's first feature, The Birth of a Nation (1915). On its own merits, this is a decent little film with a good performance from Blanche Sweet in the titular role.The original biblical tale is expanded upon, most notably by adding a subplot with two lovers separated when one is made a captive of the enemy and by having Judith fall in love with Holofernes, the man she is sent to seduce and assassinate. These are good additions, I think, especially the latter. It helps give more depth to the tale and the titular heroine herself.Birth is more ambitious and experimental, but I much prefer Judith. It seems more assured of itself (most likely due to having less scale and running time) and I adore Blanche Sweet, who never achieved the level of stardom she deserved. Plus it's not, you know, horribly racist.

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.

Cineanalyst From the Apocrypha story, a poetical tragedy by Thomas Bailey Aldrich and the theatrical version, Holofernes (played by Henry Walthall) leads his Assyrian army against the walled Judean city of Bethulia. The Assyrians decide, after failing to penetrate the wall, to parch the Judeans into submission. Their watering place is located outside the wall. Consequently, widow Judith (played by Blanche Sweet) is inspired to save her Judeans.This was D.W. Griffith's first feature-length film, and it has the constituents of later Griffith spectacles: poetic and theatrical traditions, romance, battle scenes and costly costume and set design. The battle scenes are distant and poorly choreographed, though. Nevertheless, the production went over budget, costing Biograph some $36,000. Accordingly, Griffith's days at Biograph ended here, and he would go on to make better and grander films.For a film by the director who would make "The Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance", it's surprising that in his first feature-length spectacle, it's the acting and character relationships that are the highlight. Five-feet-seven-inches Walthall manages to portray the large laggard. Griffith is cited to have said, "Well, Wally will play him tall", in defending to the studio the casting (from Schickel's Griffith biography). Sweet does just as well. I think her walking amongst in the last shot was a fitting end.

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.