The Story of Esther (1910)

Back in 2016 (was it really that long ago?) I wrote the first entry in my "Silent Bible Film Mysteries" series, seeking to get to the bottom of three Esther titles that Gaumont released around the early 1910s. The conclusion was that there were two shorter films, The Marriage of Esther and Esther and Mordecai that were released in the US a week apart in June 1910, but at other times and places were circulated as a single film Esther. There was also something of a lament that these films were not available to view outside of (offline) film archives.

Recently, however, I got notified by John from betweenmovies.com that a composite version of the film could now be streamed from the (online) Gaumont Pathé archives. You have to create an account – which takes a while, perhaps because they are individually verified – but then a composite version of the film is there to view. (BetweenMovies is a great website, by the way, and has some really interesting additional information about these films, including original reviews, press ads, still and some more screen grabs).

=======

The first thing to notice is that the title version of the film is The Story of Esther. It's plain enough that this is a renaming of the composite material, though perhaps with some additions and subtractions. The production was attributed to Louis Feuillade, and its stars were called "three of the most noted of Paris", "Mademoiselle" Gravier as Esther, Leonce Perret as Ahasuerus and "Monsieur" Legrand as Mordecai. Perret also worked for Gaumont as a director. He was at the helm of at least 292 of their films, including his La Fille de Jephté (1910) which I've discussed before. Mlle Gravier then is presumably Gisèle Gravier who starred in both another of Perret's films, Gisèle, enfant terrible  and another of Feuillade's La prêtresse de carthage the following year.¹ I could turn up nothing on M. Legrand.

The plot remains fairly close to the contours of the biblical text. Vashti has already been deposed before the start of the film, conveniently relieving the film's leading man of the suggestion of impropriety. Instead the opening shot sees an array of young women arrive at the palace as candidates for Ahasuerus' next wife. For most of the shot, though, Mordecai and Esther stand at the front right of the screen facing the crowd. Esther hesitates before entering – and is the last to do so – then Mordecai returns to centre stage and reaches his arms to heaven. 

After the width of the opening outdoor scene, the indoor scenes move in closer for a more intimate atmosphere. Esther and the other "maidens" are prepared to meet the king and there's a deft iris shot to close the scene focusing on Esther. 

In the next scene similar camera placement sees Ahasuerus chose Esther from only a handful of women, with everyone else ushered out before the King himself places the crown on Esther's head. Moving Picture World's Rev. W. H. Jackson called this moment "decidedly and extremely peculiar, most unwarranted, and without doubt not faithful to the times and custom".² I think he may be protesting a little too much. "Without doubt" seems a bit strong given how little was known about the era 110 years ago, even if he is probably right. Historical inaccuracies in Bible movie? Surely not.

In any case it's noticeable that this scene is not particularly romanticized. Given the lengthy procession of women into the palace, Ahasuerus seems to spend almost no time at all deciding on his new queen and while he picks his bride based purely on looks, there's very little indication that she is attracted to him.

Jackson was much more favourably disposed towards the wedding banquet scene however which manages quite an impressive depth of field with an advisor front, centre and relatively close while dancers twirl away on the stage at the back of the room. The composition is a little odd – Feuillade doesn't pan or zoom at all in this film – so the advisor is sat facing off screen, but it does leave a gap for Esther and Ahasuerus to process down. This seems to be the climax of The Marriage of Esther and, in honesty, it's more than a little slow.

It's also noticeable here how the walls reproduce some of the statues and bas-reliefs taken from the Palace of Sargon II (in Khorsabad). While Sargon II pre-dates the era in which the story was set by about 200-250 years, the palace had only been discovered by French archaeologist Paul-Émile Botta in the 1840s and was (and is) prominently displayed in the Louvre. If you compare the scene with this image from the Louvre you can see it's a direct attempt at reproduction.

A fairly detailed title card leads us into the second half (or Esther and Mordecai) opening the shot above. I've not managed to turn up any association between Esther and the harp, but it makes for quite a striking image. Mordecai warns Esther and the two proceed to foil a plot against her husband in the film's best action scene with Esther and Mordecai saving the king in the nick of time. 

The same set is also used for the next scene where Mordecai refuses to bow to Haman. The wall decorations here are not immediately identifiable; they look more Egyptian than Babylonian to me. Perhaps they were recycled from another Gumont film set in Ancient Egypt, perhaps even Feuillade's own L'exode (1910), which I've seen but don't have access to in order to check.

Haman goes to Ahasuerus who gives him the ring from his hand in order to enact his revenge on Mordecai and his people. Interestingly the throne room here resembles Jean Pesne's print/etching of the scene. It's supposedly based on Nicolas Poussin's "Esther devant Assuérus", but, Pesne's image mirrors Poussin's and makes it a good deal lighter such that the detail and architecture is far more apparent. Perhaps Feuillade and his set designers were influenced by one or both of them, perhaps neither. Haman sets off to set the wheels in motion.

However in the meantime, Ahasuerus discovers that Mordecai had not been honoured, calls in Haman and orders him to put Mordecai on a horse and lead it through the streets announcing his honour. One of my favourite parts of the story is omitted here. In the Bible, the king asks Haman to devise the method of honouring. Haman thinking it is he who is to be honoured is then appalled by to discover his method of honouring himself will now be applied to his hated enemy (Esther 6:6-10). This ironic switch is made all the worse as it is her who has to parade round honouring Mordecai. It also foreshadows the following chapter, with a not dissimilar switch whereby the method of execution Haman has devised for Mordecai will be used to kill Haman instead (Esther 7:9-10).

The scene of Mordecai's honouring is the film's most interesting in terms of influences. It cleverly combines both Gustave Dore's "Triumph of Mordecai" & Jacques Tissot's "Mordecai's Triumph" with a single static shot that merges the composition of one into the other. On top of this the bystanders wave palm leaves which also recalls Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. While it's appropriation / supersessionism this typological interpretation of Mordecai (as a "type" of Christ) has long been popular with Christian interpreters and so it's no surprise that biblical filmmakers carried on this tradition.

And then comes the climatic scene with Esther's banquet. the plot abridges the cycle of meals Esther goes through prior to explaining her predicament to her husband and instead cuts to the chase. The composition here is more akin to Rembrant, Lievens, Victors and Armitage than to Tissot or Dore, but it's notable how many depictions of this scene place Haman on the left, but none of the historical artistic takes on this moment capture the dramatic way in which Esther flings her arm out across Ahasuerus to point to the man she is accusing. 

It's noticeable also that she doesn't faint in contrast to the deuterocanonical passage from Esther 15:7 where she swoons. However Ahasuerus comforts Esther as she sobs which is found in Esther 15:8. Haman begs for is life, is seen and is led away. 

Haman's grim execution is omitted, but there's a final scene in Ahasuerus's throne room and a final Thanksgiving scene featuring women dancing in the kind of generic SE Mediterranean costumes that dancers are routinely given in this kind of scene. I don't know enough about costumes from this time and place to know if any of them are accurate, but these ones feel particularly orientalising.

There's little of the additional material from deuterocanonical books, or subsequent Jewish tradition. What's more interesting though is the way that he parts of the narrative that are omitted tend to benefit Ahasuerus, Mordecai and perhaps the never-mentioned God. The grim realities of Harem life are minimised. While Esther's not portrayed as attracted to Ahasuerus, he's made to seem decent enough with physical shows of affection and comfort. His questionable treatment of Vashti is left out as his Haman's execution. Meanwhile, Mordecai's orders which result in over 75,000 gentiles being killed are also not included.

So while there isn't anything as heinous as the trivialising in the Veggie Tales version, nor the teenage romanticising of One Night with the King (2006) and perhaps a few other recent outings), it is a fairly sanitised adaptation of the story. 

That said, all things considered this isn't a bad first cinematic screen outing for the Book of Esther. Some of the processions are over long and the characterisation is a little weak, and there's little of the spark that we find in Feuillade's Fantômas just a few years later, but it does have its occasional moments. And it's network of visual references from Assyrian bas-reliefs to Tissot and Dore provide a good deal of interest.

=====

1 - Gisèle, enfant terrible listed on the IMDb. La prêtresse de carthage listed on p4 of this catalogue of Early films from the collections of the Swedish Film Institute.

2 - Jackson, W. H. "The Marriage of Esther: A Critical Review by Rev W.H. Jackson" in Moving Picture World, vol 6 Jan-Jun 1910, p.1098. Available online at https://archive.org/details/movinwor06chal/page/1098/mode/2up?view=theater 

La Nativité (1910)

My final seasonal offering this Christmas is La Nativité (1910) seemingly released in some English speaking regions as Herod and the New Born King as seen in this advert which I believe was from 1910.¹. 1910 was in the middle of peak production of biblical movies (1908-13) and was one of at lease four biblical movies Gaumont was promoting at the time, with Louis Feuillade behind them all (available on YouTube).

Despite the film's greater focus on Herod and the magi, the action starts with the shepherds inside some kind of shelter. The absence of any scenes featuring Mary and Joseph before the day of Jesus' birth is notable. The shepherds appear bottom left of the screen with the camera peering over their shoulder to a black void beyond. To anyone familiar with this era of filmmaking it's obvious what happens next. It's unclear if this is a double exposure technique or back projection, but a single angel appears in the darkness. Here Feuillade's work is rather clumsy compared to some of the work his forbears have already produced by this stage. The shepherds hold their somewhat awkward-looking pose for what seems like an age. Then the angel appears. They briefly turn to face him/her, bow, and then reconvene, holding their pose for long enough for the original angel to be joined by the full choir. Once the heavenly host has departed, the shepherds leave the shelter by the same exit to the rear of the set.

Interestingly, a similar composition is adopted for the next shot. Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus appear cramped into the bottom left of the screen, with a view extending into the distance occupying the majority of the remaining space. I've seen various version of this scene that were recorded before this one, and in every other one I've seen up to this point the camera peers into the stable from the outside. Here however things are the other side the camera (and so, by extension, the audience) is inside the stable looking out into the night. Naturally the shepherds soon appear from the rear. It's notable that neither shot would work in a theatre - they only work from the specific vantage point of the camera, not the multiple viewpoints required for successful theatre composition. Even if Feuillade's compositions don't match the standard of his later work, the idea that he just arranges his scenes as if he were arranging a theatre set doesn't hold water.    

The version I saw runs to almost 14 minutes, but these two scenes with the shepherds occupy only three and a half minutes. As the alternative title suggests, the film's main concern is with the magi and King Herod. The next two shots cover the arrival of the magi, both outside and then inside Herod's palace. What's noticeable here is that one of the wise kings, presumably Balthazar, is played by a Black actor. I haven't researched extensively into who the first Black actor was - a cursory google suggest that a comedian called Stepin Fetchit (aka Lincoln Perry) was the first Black actor to receive a screen credit/earn $1 million but neither of these are the same thing, I'd be interested to know if anyone knows of an earlier actor from the African diaspora.

Oddly, in contrast to the use of this actor, Herod seems to be played by someone in brown make-up. I'm curious to know how this inconsistency arose. Using a Black actor in a positive role seems somewhat progressive, but the racist use of "brownface" undermines this. What, if anything, they were trying to convey?

One possibility is that it was a way of "othering" Herod. Herod's father was an Idumaean – a people from Edom, South-West of Jerusalem who had converted to Judaism during the Hasmonean period – and his mother was Nabataean (Arab) princess.  At the time of this production, though, Josephus' designation of Herod as an "Idumaen i.e. a half Jew" was seemingly how his background would have been understood. Perhaps this othering is intended not just to place a barrier between Herod and the audience, but also between him and the other Jewish characters (who are otherwise played by white actors). But given that the historical Herod would most likely be physically indistinguishable from the other Jewish characters the clear determination to mark him as different from them is strange.

Herod's throne room here is quite dramatically lit, in a fashion that Feuillade also used for the scenes inside Moses' house in L'Exode (1910). There, though, they suggested secrecy, as if the family might have been hiding from the Egyptians. Here, however, the darkness feels more like a moral judgement. 

The magi head to Bethlehem and  arrive at the grotto, shot from the same angle as before (pictured above). Next there's a cut back to the palace where Herod discusses the matter with his queen before calling three soldiers or perhaps advisers and instructing them to go to Bethlehem. The massacre scene is left off camera, as is Joseph's dream, so the next shot is simply Mary and Joseph walking quietly away from Jerusalem.   

The author of glowing review in the December 17th edition of Moving Picture World found the film's final scene – where Mary and Joseph rest in front of the Sphinx (still above) – as particularly striking, describing the 50 ft long shot as:

...a real master in every sense of the word. It would be impossible to find a more beautiful composition, with such admirable light effects and of such superior photography... this last scene is art, pure and simple and will remain engraved in the memory of every person lucky enough to have a chance to gaze upon it.

What I find more interesting is the fact that the composition of this scene matches that from the same scene in the earliest extant Jesus film La Vie et la passion de Jésus-Christ (1898). As far as I can make out it's not based on Doré or Tissot so it's possible that this shot is derived in some way from the 1898, though Merson's "Rest on the Flight into Egypt" seems more likely².

The MPW review also mentions a scene "Herod and the Woman" which does not seems to appear in the version available on YouTube unless the palace scene with his queen(my assumption) is intended. There are further reviews in the 1910 Moving Picture World including the December 31st edition (available here) which described it as follows:

An illustration of the first part of Chapter II of the Gospel of St. Matthew. No more beautiful and artistic film has been shown during the year. Every scene is a marvel of accurate representation. The scene which Hoffman has so graphically portrayed as the "Repose in Egypt," is one of the most impressive ever shown on a motion picture screen. It depicts the search of Herod for the new born King and details the flight into Egypt to escape his jealous rage. A reading of that chapter in the Bible will supply a synopsis more graphic and complete than any that could be written now. (view on IMDb)

Overall though the film is a bit of a disappointment. It's overly slow, not only by today's standards, but even compared to other biblical films of the time, and not in a contemplative way. Moreover it lacks the spark of Feuillade's other work even from the same year. Hard to believe that he was only three years away from the first instalments of Fantômas (1913-14). Without the action or novelty of many of the other films from biblical cinema's boom years it drags, even for those 14 short minutes. It's not bad, and short enough that it's not a bad option to drag out at Christmas and for those who are interested in Feuillade and his development as a director it's certainly worth watching. 

============

In addition to the version available on YouTube the film also appears as an extra feature in Kino's Fantômas Bluray set.

1 - I'm grateful to John Larsen for drawing my attention to the link between these two films. (If you haven't checked out his excellent website Between Movies, you really should. It looks like the add linked to actually came from 1910's Moving Picture News (not 1911 as stated in the tweet, though I have no idea how I got hold of it as the 1910 edition isn't in the MHDL archive). 

2 - I owe this observation to Twitter user @Zyber's post here.

Silent Bible Film Mystery - #01 Gaumont's Esther (1910)

At present I'm doing some work on a list of films from the Hebrew Bible. It's one of those tasks that you start off thinking will be a big job and then it turns out to be massive. The end is in sight but I'm left trying to figure out if certain films are the same with different title or different films, which is particularly tricky when you delve into the silent period and the period between 1907-1914 when films were short, often released together but also often sold section by section.

Which brings me to the film/series Esther from 1910. It was made by Louis Feuillade for Gaumont and starred Renée Carl, Léonce Perret, Madeleine Roch. But according to the AFI it was released as two films on two different dates - The Marriage of Esther on the 11th June 1910 and Esther and Mordecai a week later on the 18th June 1910. Dumont (2009) lists these as two films, one simply called Esther and the other called Esther et Mordochée. The IMDb joins them together under the title The Marriage of Esther although if you view it on the iPad app the title is changed to Esther. It lists all three titles as alternatives.

David Shepherd discusses the film briefly in "The Bible on Silent Film". He lists it as simply one film Esther and indicates that it exists in both the BFI and the Gaumont Pathé archives and describes it on pages 104-5 which you can read in Google Books. It sounds like he has seen it. One key point though is that he describes it as part of a trilogy, though I'm not sure what evidence exists for this aside from his own assertion. Campbell and Pitts mention this only in passing (as part of the easily missed section on page 5 of other Gaumont films) but mention it as two films Esther and Mordecai and The Marriage of Esther, in that order.

So whilst my hunch is that these films were originally released as one in France, I'm going to list them as two as that appears to be how they were released in the US and that it seems to be the only way to clear up the relationship between the three titles. Unfortunately, whilst I like to call the films by their titles in their original language that would be problematic here so I will have to opt for their English titles. The more I go into this project the more I realise just how many twists and quirks there are.

A couple more bits of information on this one. Firstly. There are some excellent frame grabs of this film at NitrateVille thanks to Bruce Calvert of the Silent Film Still Archive. These also show that the film was hand coloured rather than just black and white. Disappointingly I can't seem to find this anywhere to buy or view. Neither it, nor any Bible films are part of Kino's Gaumont Treasures Vol. 1 DVD despite the fact that two of the three discs are dedicated to this films director Louis Feuillade and star Léonce Perret. Indeed given that the other disc is given over to Alice Blanche Guy it's a little disappointing that not a single Bible film makes the cut. Opens the door for another project perhaps...

Lastly, the IMDb also includes a couple of photos of the film and there's also a nice summary of the two parts taken from "Moving Picture World".

PART ONE: "The Marriage of Esther" King Abasueris, who is now generally understood to have been Xerxes, and who ruled over India and its provinces about B.C. 521, is recorded to have cast aside his wife and directs that it be heralded throughout the domain that he is in search of a new spouse. He issues instructions to have brought before him for his approval the most beautiful young girls of all his lands. Accordingly, the maidens are led to the palace, and we see them being sumptuously gowned and bejeweled before being brought into the presence of his Majesty. Among the number, the king is greatly impressed by the beauty and grace of a handsome young Jewish girl. This one is Esther, who was adopted by her uncle, Mordecai, and by him brought to the palace of the king. Esther's beauty surpasses that of all the others and she is crowned Queen by Abasueris. Mordecai is appointed to sit at the king's gateway.

PART TWO: "Esther and Mordecai" Mordecai is appointed to sit at the King's gateway. While on duty he discovers a plot to assassinate the King and discloses the facts, whereupon the King orders that this brave deed be recorded in the Annals of the Kingdom. Among the King's favorites, Haman is supreme. He soon becomes violently jealous of Mordecai and plans his destruction. As Mordecai is a Jew, Haman makes preparations to massacre the entire race and thereby complete his revenge on Mordecai. About this time the King decides to make a review of the Annals and to his amazement finds no record there of the good deed of Mordecai, whereupon Haman is ordered to give honors to Mordecai. This only serves to increase the jealousy of Haman. Through the gracious intercession of Esther, Mordecai soon has another and greater victory over Haman. As the time for the massacre of the Israelites approaches. Esther, who has been told all by her uncle, Mordecai, invites Haman to dine with her and the King at the palace. During the feast she discloses the fact that she is a Jewess and declares that all those who are enemies of the King and are not worthy of his favor, whereupon the King, who has been informed of the full facts, orders Haman delivered up to the guards and has him hanged on the very gallows Haman had designed for Mordecai. The victory of the Israelites is now the cause of great rejoicing.

It's a shame that the BFI have taken all the details of their archive details off their website, as that might have been a potentially useful source of information. I don't understand that decision at all...

Belshazzar's Feast (1905)

Le festin de Balthazar (Belshazzar's Feast - 1905) is one of three short films made by Pathé that were also packaged as the one-reeler Martyrs chrétiens (also 1905), and of the three it is undoubtedly the most interesting and technically accomplished. Whilst the other two films, Les martyrs and Daniel dans la fosse aux lions, are essentially just a more exciting way in which to present lion-tamer footage, Balthazar is marked by an impressive matte shot that allows for both the film's villain and the mysterious hand to appear in the same shot.

It makes for a rather awkward composition of course. The giant hand and the words it writes dominate the left of the screen; Belshazzar's party are squished into the right. The shortness of the footage relies on using a large chez lounge to highlight which character Belshazzar is, not to mention that for this to really pass as a feast for 1000 (Dan 5:1 NRSV) Belshazzar has to be surrounded by courtesans, dancers and drinking buddies for the scene to work. And then of course there is the arrival of the Median army who burst into that same shot through the large doors in the middle.

What's fascinating is that the order in which the cinematic innovations appear to have taken place. In 1905 films were almost entirely composed of long, static mid-shots, as if the cameraman were watching a play. Montage, inter-cutting and close ups were really still a thing of the future. Yet, remarkably, matte shots (including this one which actually utilises a close up) were in use, even though most modern viewers would assume they would be more advanced.

And then there's the use of filters, well known to those familiar with the films of this era, but here swapped in the middle of the scene, with dramatic effect. The "sky" turns from serene blue to a foreboding red at the very moment the hand appears on the wall.

The other interesting point about this film is that the hero of the original text - Daniel - doesn't really make an appearance. Even before Belshazzar has had a chance to get an interpretation of this strange sign, the Medes are upon him and Babylon has fallen.

The BFI synopsis of the film credits Lucien Nonguet as the director and offers the following summary:

DRAMA. Historical. Based on the Old Testament Book of Daniel, Chapter 5. Belshazzar indulges in a lavish feast, surrounded by women, and plied with wine. Suddenly, he perceives a vast, disembodied hand, tracing writing on the wall in a strange language. He is filled with foreboding, and falls back on his couch. A moment later, armed Medes burst in, and carry off the women, and King Belshazzar is slain (123). The End (130 ft).

Campbell and Pitts also discuss the film (p.1)

BELSHAZZAR'S FEAST
1905
France
Pathé
1 reel B/W
Taken from the Book of Daniel, this short theatrical film told of the court of Belshazzar in ancient Babylon and included the Biblical account of the handwriting on the wall. The film was remade, with the same title, by the French Gaumont studio in 1913

Judith et Holopherne (1909)

Often known as Judith (1910) in the UK or Judith Retterin Israels (D)

I'm unsure how many prints of this film still exist. Certainly the BFI archive lists only one and silentera.com are unsure as to whether the film is still in existence. The intertitles are in German, and are fairly lengthy - perhaps around 200-250 words across five cards, which constitutes a significant part of the reel's 8 minute running time, although the film's ending is missing.

It turns out that the intertitles are one of the more notable parts of the film so I'll reproduce the wording (in German) and offer a basic translation as I go through. The opening title card places the story in its historical context dating it as the 13th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, details the siege of Bethulia and the drying up of the cistern and notes that Judith is the widow of Manesseh.

Im dreizehnten Jahre der Regierung des gewaltigen Königs Nebukadnezar entbrann - te sein Zorn gegen die Judäer und sein sieggewohnter Feldherr Holophernes lag mit grosser Heeresmacht vor Bethulia, einer ihrer Stadte. Und es kam der Tag, an dern das Wasser in den Cysternen versiegte und das verzagte Volk bestürmte Osias, den Fürsten, die Stadt den Assyrern auszuliefern. Da entschloss sich Judith, die Witwe des Menasse, die Retting der Kinder Israels zu wagen.

In the thirteenth year of the reign of the mighty King Nebuchadnezzar his anger was kindled against Judah and his victorious commander Holofernes was lying in wait with a large army against Bethulia, one of its cities. And there came the day when the water dried up in the countries cistern and despondent people violently protested to Osias, the prince to surrender the city to the Assyrians. So Judith, widow of Manasseh, decided to dare (attempt) the salvation of the children of Israel.

The opening scene is of the marketplace in Bethulia before a cut to Judith's house and a visit of the town's leaders, before the second intertitle.

Und sie legte ihre Witwenkleider ab, salbte sich mit köstlichem Wasser, fiel auf die Knie und betete zu Gott. Dann begab sie sich begleitet von einer Dienerin ins feindliche Heerlager, wo sie angab eine entflohene Hebräerin zu sein

And she took off her widow's garments, anointed with precious ointment, dropped to her knees and prayed to God. Then she went accompanied by a servant into the enemy camp, where she claimed to be an escaped Hebrew.

We see Judith getting prepared, having her nails done by two servants and appearing in the marketplace. We're never quite told how Judith ends up in the presence of Holofernes, but the next intertitle, and scene, takes place in the Assyrian camp.

Und sie wurde vor das Angesicht des Holofernes geführt. Derselbe sah ihre Schönheit und entbrannte in Liebe zu ihr. Da gewährte er ihr eine Zufluchtsstätte in seinem Zelte und zwar an dem Orte, wo er seine Schätze bewahrte.

And she was led into the presence of Holofernes. The same saw her beauty and fell in love with her. Then he gave her a refuge in his tent, and that in the place where he kept his treasures.

Judith goes straight in and bows, and her and Holofernes chat. Yet again the girls present prior to this are hastily sent away. Eventually Judith leaves.

Am vierten Tage machte Holofernes ein Festmahl allen seinen nächsten Dienern. und er befahl, dass das hebräische Weib zu ihm komme. Und sie weigerte sich nicht, denn jetzt hielt sie den von Gott gegebenen Augenblick gekommen, ihr bedrängtes Volk zu retten.

...Und in der Stille der Nacht schlug sie dem trunkenden Feldherrn das Haupt ab mit seinem eigenen Schwerte.

On the fourth day Holofernes held his next feast for all his servants. And he ordered that the Hebrew woman to come to him. And she refused, because the God-given moment had not arrived for her to save their beleaguered people.

...And in the dead of night she hit the commander's neck with his own sword.

This lengthy intertitle rather spoils the climax for anyone unfamiliar with the story and dissipates any sense of dramatic tension. Holofernes holds another banquet where Judith pretends to drink whilst Holofernes pours his wine down his throat. Then she cunningly and seductively pours her drink down his throat as well. The courtiers leave and the next shot is in Holofernes bedroom, with Holofernes asleep on the bed. Judith prays briefly before hacking off Holofernes' head in what is, nevertheless, a nicely composed shot (pictured above). The final intertitle again explains what is about to happen.

Und sie verliess mit dem verhüllten Haupte des Holophernes ungehindert das Kriegslager, begleitet von ihrer Dienerin, und sie erreichte Bethulia. Hier war der Jubel gross. Das assyrische Heer aber, als es seinen Feldherrn erschlagen sah, entfloh. Die Kinder Israels waren gerettet. Judith aber ward hochgeehrt im ganzen Lande.

And she left the war camp unhindered with the veiled head of Holofernes, accompanied by her maid, and she reached Bethulia. Here, the jubilation was great. But the Assyrian army fled when they saw their commander killed. The children of Israel were saved. And Judith was highly respected throughout the country.

There's a brief scene from Bethulia - looking out off the balcony, before the end is cut off rather abruptly. There's no scene of Judith being honoured by her people as the final intertitle anticipates.

Sadly it's a fairly dull interpretation on the story, although the scenes with just Judith and Holofernes are well, er, executed.

The BFI describes the film as follows:

DRAMA. Historical. The Apocryphal story of Judith and Holofernes. The Israelites, besieged in Bethulia, beg their leader to hand over the town to the Assyrian commander, Holofernes, but one of their number, the widow Judith, decides on an alternative plan. She goes to the camp of Holofernes, who becomes enamoured of her. After a feast at which he gets a drunk, she escorts him to his bedchamber and there chops off his head with his own sword. The besieged Israelites await her return...(770ft). Incomplete. Note: This film employs the same sets as Gaumont's Le FESTIN DE BALTHAZAR (1910).

The notes for the second Ancient World in Silent Cinema event reproduce this text, but also credit the director as Louis Feuillade, date the film as 1909 instead and give its length as 8 minutes.

Judith Films

I'm going to be writing a bit on films about Judith and Holofernes over the next week or so including writing about 3 silent portrayals of the story, as well as a quick look at how the main two characters are portrayed in the various films. So it seems a good idea to start by collating a list of the different films in which the story of Judith features. Interestingly the majority of these films are from the silent era, despite the seemingly contemporary appeal of the narrative for today's audiences - sex, violence, seduction, empowerment - can you imagine what Tarantino would do with this story?

 

It's always difficult to know how exhaustive to make lists like these, particularly now people can make films on their cameras and upload them to YouTube, but here is a list of most of the significant portrayals of this story. If you think I've missed one, please let me know in the comments.

 

Giuditta e Oloferne (1906/1908)

[Italy, Mario Caserini] The earliest film about Judith, Campbell and Pitts date this as 1906, but the print in the BFI National Archive is dated in 1908.

 

Judith et Holopherne (1909)

[Gaumont, France, Louis Feuillade] A year after the Italian Judith, Gaumont made a Judith film of their own, distributed in the UK simply as Judith.

 

Judith (1912)

[UK, Theo Frenkel]Evidence on this film is rather scant, indeed it may even be two films, one released in 1910 and another made 2 years later. Things are further confused because the director of this film Theo Frenkel made another film called Judith in 1923, although that does not appear to have been a biblical one.

 

Judith of Bethulia (1914)

[Biograph, USA, DW Griffith] Undoubtedly the most well known of the films about Judith this was Griffith's first feature length film. A 1917 release of the film was renamed Her Condoned Sin.

Giuditta e Oloferne (1928)

[Italy] Campbell and Pitts list this in the notes to the 1906 film, but there are no further details. IMDb lists this as 1929, as does Derek Elley. The BFI Archive lists this as 1928 and describes the film as having "two parallel stories, the first, set in biblical times about the heroic Giuditta who dies to save her city Betulia from the Assyrians. The second is about an engineer who tries to prevent any speculation about a beautiful woman."

Head of a Tyrant / Giuditta e Oloferne (1959)

[Italy, Fernando Cerchio] IMDb gives this a lowly 3.6 score and from the trailer and excerpt available on YouTube it's clear that this film imports a dance of Salome moment into the film as well as attempting to create extra intrigue by having Judith fall for her victim. (Poster image above).

 

General Electric Theatre: The Story of Judith (1960) [USA]

Judith (1961) [Argentina]

Judith (1965) [West Germany]

Judith (1966) [West Germany]

Judith (1969) [France]

These five all seem to be TV movies from the 60s, but definitely different films as they all list different actors.

 

Estudio 1: Judith (1979)

[Spain, Alfredo Castellón] At 140 minutes this is seemingly the longest version of the story.

 

Judita (1980)

[Yugoslavia, Marin Caric] Produced by Yugoslav company Hrvatska Radiotelevizija (HRT) this is the only biblical film I know of from the former European country.

 

Judith (2007)

[Canada, Eric Chaussé] This 4 minute short from French speaking Quebec limits itself to the bedroom scene and even without subtitles is a remarkably powerful treatment. It's available to view on YouTube and is well worth the four minutes.

L'Exode (Exodus)

Louise Feuillade, Gaumont, France, 1910, 13 mins. The image is, of course, from DeMille's 1923 The Ten Commandments, but of all the silent films about the Moses story, and a good deal of those since, L'Exode is easily the most daring. Whereas DeMille stacked the pack, making Pharaoh's son a brat so that none of us minded when the finger of God bumped him off, L'Exode portrays him far more sympathetically. The result is a thought provoking and challenging film which makes us question which side we are really rooting for. By the end we are glad that Moses and the Israelites have left Egypt, but for all the wrong reasons. Our sympathies lie with the Egyptians and we are relieved to see the children of Jacob ejected from the land.

The film builds carefully towards this climax from its opening scene. Like DeMille's film the story starts between the ninth and ten plagues, In fact, one of the film's German titles was Zehnte Plage (Tenth Plague) - the other being Auszug Der Kinder Israels Aus Ägypten (The Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt). We open with an interior shot of a very elderly Moses consulting men who are presumably the elders of Israel. I say 'presumably' because not only are the intertitles are in German but the interior of the room (I was going to say palace) is sufficiently luxurious to leave the audience wondering which scene from the Bible they have just witnessed. The brilliant-white haired man whose matching beard almost reaches his waist could certainly be Moses, but the room is certainly not typical of a Hebrew slave. But if this is the palace then where is Pharaoh? Or even some in Egyptian dress?

But all becomes clear when those present in the room disband to instruct the Israelites on how to mark their door posts with lambs blood. This scene is again deserves some discussion, not least because it is taken as one long shot which pans back and forth from door to door, focussing in on doors at different depths. This must have been a relatively unusual use of the camera in 1910, but thematically it unifies the individual households as the camera moves gracefully from one to the next.

This panning shot is also fairly graphic, as the camera moves from door to door we see the throats of lambs being slit, their blood being drained off and sprinkled on the doorposts. On a single viewing it's difficult to work out whether or not these lambs were actually killed on set. Certainly movies in those says were not monitored by the American Humane Association and there were several instances of people being killed on set during a shoot. The blood is also flicked onto the doorpost using a hyssop branch rather than daubed as per The Ten Commandments (1956). Exodus 12:22 says only to "Strike" the door with the blood drenched hyssop, but elsewhere in the Torah (Lev. 14, Num. 19) it talks about using Hyssop to sprinkle blood as part of a ritual.

Next we move to inside Moses's house, which is clearly a different building from the room he is shown in earlier. Here he and his family gather to share the passover meal. Exodus has God calling for this meal to be celebrated at night, yet light streams into the room from an upper window. This may have been a mistake, or a theological statement about new light or a new dawn or such like. Either way, the resulting shot is stunning. The Bioscope basks in its "Rembrandt lighting". Certainly it was the most memorable shot in the whole collection of films, and thankfully the director was sufficiently aware of his achievement to linger on the short for us to fully enjoy it.

The scene is very much reminiscent of the same scene in DeMille's 1956 The Ten Commandments, only without Rembrandt's lighting: an unadorned room with only a plain table in the middle; various guests, including servants, joining in the meal; newcomers entering via the door in the wall on the right hand side of the camera. There is seemingly no other room in building and the camera stays largely at a distance with the length of the table crossing the width of the screen. Given that DeMille had always been a devout Christian, and his interest in films was such that he would make his first movie just four years later, it's more than possible that he saw this film and was, on some level, influenced by it, though perhaps only DeMille could take such a wonderfully composed shot and remove it's most striking element for the sake of biblical fidelity.

It's at this point that the film's emphasis moves from Moses and the Israelites to the Egyptians. We're introduced to Pharaoh's son but, in contrast to the 1923 DeMille version, he is shown sympathetically. Here is a normal child that one cannot help but warm to - a sense of connection that is immediately overshadowed by the knowledge that we know his fate. Perhaps even more unusually, as he begins to display signs of illness we see Pharaoh's tenderness toward his son, and the concern of his carers.

The son's death is followed fairly swiftly by a cut to the house of a miller where a similar scenario unfolds. The miller and his wife are concerned by their daughter's health, but having placed her on a chair he continues with his work. He's a big man pushing a huge millstone, yet the tension of the previous scene and the sickening sense that we know what is shortly to occur is heightened as the miller slowly grinds the millstone round one more revolution. At first he has is back to her, then his view of her is obstructed by the stone itself. By the time he returns to where he started the child has died. The grief is palpable, all the more on the day due to Stephen Horne's hauntingly evocative live piano accompaniment.

There's a wealth of symbolism here. Whereas Pharaoh sits at the very top of this kingdom, the miller sits at the bottom. Pharaoh was at least responsible for what unfolds: the miller is entirely innocent. His back-breaking work almost indistinguishable from that of the Hebrew slaves. As the camera first cuts to the scene it seems almost unimportant - as if an important character is about to enter and make an announcement, perhaps announcing the death of Pharaoh's son, or of children all over the nation. In contrast to the scene with Pharaoh's son, here, it only gradually dawns on us that this is the scene we are waiting for, and that therefore the little girl is also doomed. There's no doubt that much could also be made of the symbolic nature of his profession, going round in circles, crushing the grain and so on.

As if the emotional impact of these two scenes was not great enough, the next is a real sucker punch. In a courtyard, perhaps in Pharaoh's palace, two parents mourn their lost child. They are soon joined by two more, and then two more, and so on until the frame is crammed with parents mourning their lost children. It's the kind of scene that is utterly absent from both the Bible and from any other film version of this story, creating sympathy for the Egyptians, and causing believers to re-visit this story from the point of view of those on the other side. Horne accompaniment may have made it all the more poignant, but the sympathy for those on the losing side of this biblical narrative is certainly there amongst the visuals alone. The scene concludes with an intertitle that mentions the 430 years in Egypt and the 600,000 Hebrews that let Egypt during the Exodus.

But given these three scenes, it is hardly surprising that when the Israelites leave, they are almost thrown out, rather than leaving joyously with gifts from the Egyptians. Indeed they are quite literally shown the door. The scene is on a much smaller scale than the one from The Ten Commandments (1923) shown above and is relatively short. The film's abrupt ending, just as the Exodus begins, seems to reinforce the Egyptian perspective - there's no concern for how the Hebrews will fare now. L'Exode (Exodus) is not so much about the birth of one people group so much as the death of another.

The BFI synopsis suggests that either the start of this film was missing, or that I don't recall it and failed to write notes on it. Here is their entire summary:

BIBLICAL DRAMA. Moses warns Pharaoh; marking the Israelites' doors; the Passover feast; the death of the firstborn; the Israelites leave the city. No main title or first intertitle. Pharaoh sits, surrounded by his court. Four women bring in his son whom he kisses affectionately. A black guard announces Moses, who is always led by Aaron and followed by a group of Israelites. Moses foretells the tenth plague and leaves. Pharaoh embraces the boy (133). " Die Vorbeerereitungen zum Osterfest..." (149). Moses, with long white forked beard, seated indoors while Aaron kneels besides him, instructs the Israelites about the Passover (246). Street: man takes a dead lamb indoors while a woman holds a bowl of blood and a man marks doorposts with blood. Pan to Moses sprinkling blood on another doorpost. By a third door a lamb's blood is being drained (380). "Das Erste Osterfest..." (395). Indoors: A couple lay a table. The Israelites enter. Moses celebrates the first passover: he preaches and prays. A roast lamb is put on the table. Moses hands out food (714). "Die Zehnte plage..." (730). Pharaoh's son sleeps surrounded by harpist, mandolin player and fanwaver. Pharaoh enters, kisses him and leaves. The boy starts up, gasps and flops dead, arms outstretched (823). A man pulls two huge vertical millstones round a central post on a horizontal six foot millstone while his wife cradles their son. She joins her husband's work. The child wakes, chokes and dies (912). The dead firstborn are brought into the street by their wailing parents. Moses and the Israelites enter. Pharaoh tells them to leave (1050). " Der Auszug..." (1063). Outside the city gates: Pharaoh sits on a dais among a crowd. The exodus: an excited child runs out of the gates, followed by Aaron leading Moses, crowds of Israelites, a herd of goats and two camels (1171). Incomplete (1476ft). Note: The four surviving German intertitles have the Gaumont logo: a G in a ring of stars. They are numbered AL B 2375 2 to AL B 2375 5. Note: Also held: A 690ft viewing copy in faded colour 205627A. It consists of: Moses instructing Israelites; marking doors; Passover feast (133-582); A one foot glimpse of the black guard from the first scene; The exodus (1063-1171ft) The order on the viewing copy is currently B A C D