good back-story, and good acting

Absolutely Fantastic

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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

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.

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.

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.