Charming and brutal

A lot of fun.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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" was one of the first great full-length epics. While the Italian film, "Cabiria", came out later in 1914 and was much longer and much better, "Judith" did debut first--and no doubt its success led to director D.W. Griffith making his next great epic "The Birth of a Nation".The story is from the Apocrypha and apparently there was also a play about Judith as well--and Griffith crafted his story based on both. As far as the historical accuracy of the story goes, it's got some plot holes and inaccuracies but it makes for a nice story.The film begins with the Assyrians under General Holofernes (Henry Walthall--though he's difficult to see under that giant beard) attack the most likely fictional town of Bethulia. The Jews' faith wavers, but the fair widow, Judith (Blanche Sweet), has faith that God will deliver the city from the Assyrian army. When God doesn't act, Judith takes matters into her own hands--and disguises herself as one of Holofernes' strumpets (he has a lot and never actually seems to do much of anything but party). Eventually, Judith finds him drunk and whacks off his head and presents it to her people. The Assyrians in turn run like babies.So what's to like? The film looks amazing for 1914. The costumes, sets and the look of the film are a HUGE step forward for the film industry and it looks great. It also helped that the actors were quite distinguished and tended to act in a reasonable and restrained manner (for the most part). The only serious negatives are the language in the film (it's very old fashioned and occasionally silly) and that the film is occasionally heavy-handed. A very good film overall.

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.