Giudetta e Oloferne [Head of a Tyrant], (Fernando Cerchio, 1959)

Not sure why it's taken me so long to watch and review this one before. I've written quite a lot about Judith films and this is, I think, the longest cinematic adaptation of the deuterocanonical book. And while it's known as Head of A Tyrant in the English speaking world, it's an Italian peplum film shot just after the genre exploded with the release of Le Fatiche di Ercole (Hercules, Pietro Francisci, 1958).

Judith is played by French actor Isabelle Corey who had starred in both Bob le Flambleur and ...And God Created Woman within a few months of one another in 1956. Opposite her Oloferne is played by Massimo Girotti who was still almost a decade away from his most famous performance as the dad in Pasolini's Teorema (Theorem, 1968) screaming into the deserted landscapes of Mount Etna. 

It's unusual for a peplum film to rest quite so heavily on its performances, and Corey and Girotto do a good enough job of portraying the tensions both of them feel. On the one hand they feel inextricably pulled towards the other, but she is torn between her love of him and the love of her people, he on the other hand knows she might be trouble but chooses to let her into his heart regardless. 

The plot deviates a little from the story in the Book of Judith. The Assyrians come seeking to make the Israelites surrender. I like the way the town elders aren't really sure why they're being attacked. That seems to fit with the over-the-topness of Nebuchadnezzar's reaction in the text. Despite the reasonableness of the appeal for surrender,some refuse to accept their gods and there are a few who fire a few arrows towards Holophernes which creates conflict.The Bethulians are ordered to give up the would-be assassins or else they will be destroyed. But rather than besieging the town the Assyrians seem to move in. There's no camping at any rate. One other deviation is that Judith's servant, while an active character in the film, does not accompany Judith there.

The portrayal of Judith is interesting. In the book she's a beautiful widow and both elements seem to have some bearing on the story. I don't recall if anyone mentions that she is a widow. Instead there's much more emphasis on her being a daughter and sister than on being a widow. Her youthful attractiveness is only emphasised when she ingratiates herself into Holophernes' inner court by performing a sexy Salomé-esque dance. 

 

Of course the most famous film version of this story is the 1914 one by D.W. Griffith and this is a very different beast. obviously this adaptation is in colour and with sound, not to mention that for modern audiences the quality of the available print is is far greater here. Yet something else feels very different aside from all that. It's campier, for sure. The shortness of the soldiers skirts confirm that. But perhaps it's because director Fernando Cerchio trusts his material a little more, as if knowing that the possibility of violence creates a more engaging experience than the before and after battle scenes in Griffith's film.

Cerchio puts that colour to good use, particularly the greens and reds in the interiors which complements the costumes. It reflects both the opposition between Judith and Holophernes, but also their similarities, and that a little of each is found in the other. Yet the gaudiness of these tones, particularly in combination, are also unsettling, putting us ill at ease. There's a slight In a Lonely Place vibe here: the chemistry, the tension between conflicting passions, or between head and heart. 

Here, though, things are different. Holophernes decides time is up for Judith's people. His costume changes to predominantly black as he hopes to force the citizens to surrender the guilty men. Hers is pure red with both the connotations of sexiness and blood. The physical gap between the two widens. Holophernes starts to feel justified in his decision and then he says "Sometimes we have to do things in spite of ourselves that we wish we didn't have to do" and his spell over Judith is broken.

The beheading scene is particularly good. The sword almost calling out to her like Macbeth's dagger via a quick zoom. Her pose (above) as she hesitates just for a moment before striking, almost as if wishing he would wake-up and stop her. One more notable moment remains as Judith emerges from the building, shot from behind, and holds aloft Holophernes' head, motionless. A lesser director might have strung out the final battle scene here, but her it's rather half-hearted. The decisive blow has already been struck.

Silent Bible Film Mystery - #06Pre-Griffith Judith Films

As I've noted before, D.W.Griffith's Judith of Bethulia (released in 1914, though filmed in 1913) was not the first film based on the Book of Judith but the fourth or even fifth. Of the others two are definitely still in existence  Giuditta e Oloferne (1906/1908) [my review] and Gaumont's Judith et Holopherne (1909), directed by Louis Feuillade [my review]. But recently I've been investigating a Judith film, or perhaps two Judith films, from the UK released sometime between 1910 and 1912 going by the title Judith. 

The Theo Frenkel Film

The film more likely to have both existed and been about the biblical heroine is one directed by Dutch director Theo Frenkel (above right). It is listed along with several of Frenkel's other films on page 7 of Jon Solomon's "The Ancient World in the Cinema" (2001) and although the list of films is from 1911-1912 the index clarifies that Judith was 1912. Solomon kindly checked his notes for me but unsurprisingly, all these years later he was unable to determine his source. The IMDb repeats these details, however the BFI database has no entry.

There's also a mention in "Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft" Volumes 59-61, listing the film as:

Judith, GB 1911, Regie Theo Frenkel [Regie translates as director].

This evidence is also backed up by a list I was sent many years ago now by David Wilson, adding that the film was produced by Charles Urban's Natural Colour Kinematograph Co. Frenkel was also known briefly as Theo Bouwmeester during his British years, after his mother, indeed that's the name he is listed under in Brian McFarlane's " Encyclopedia of British Film". There's a good piece on Frenkel at eyefilm.nl though the only thing it mentions about this period is to confirm that he was indeed working for Urban at this point in time.

Interestingly Tord Larsson, among other sources, mention another biblical film by Frenkel from this era, Fall of Babylon (1911), covering events in Daniel. Indeed it appears from IMDb that he directed numerous films with biblical sounding titles including: Samson and Delilah (1911), Ester: A Biblical Episode  (1911), Herod (1912), The Prodigal Son (1913), 

Things are further complicated by the fact that Frenkel directed a later film which was also called Judith in 1923, only this was not a biblical adaptation. Whilst it certainly doesn't rule out the possibility that he made a biblical film called Judith in 1912, it does raise the possibility of error. Perhaps Frenkel's 1923 film was mis-dated at some point, or maybe his 1923 film was a remake and neither film was biblical. However, overall I'd say the possibility of this film existing and being about Judith of Bethulia looks fairly probable.

The Brockliss Film

The evidence for a British Judith film from 1910 comes down to a single line in an advert in the British Weekly trade publication "The Bioscope" on the 3rd March 1910. In the listings of film's available to exhibitors it simply lists "Judith ... Brockliss    700   B" as shown below.

The 700 is 700ft (about 10-12 minutes depending on various factors) and the B is one of Bioscope's genres (my term not theirs) standing for "Biblical" which in itself is kind of remarkable as the Bioscope listed only 16 genres at the time. 

These few details are so scant it's difficult to know how to interpret them, but the Brockliss in question is (the company founded by) J. Frank Brockliss, pictured, left, above. At this stage, Brockliss primarily seems to have been selling projectors - see the puff piece on him in the August 1912 edition of the Cinema News and Property Gazette. However, according to Jan-Jun 1912 copies of The Implet (produced by US company Imp Films) he was also an agent distributing (Imp's) films and it seems he imported films into the UK to sell to exhibitors. 

Three possibilities come to mind. Firstly, this could (as I thought initially) be a film in its own right, probably British. I can't rule that out, but it seems unlikely to me given the available evidence. It's also possible, given what I've written above that this film was the same as Theo Frenkel's 1911/1912 film Judith. I can't be 100% certain that film even existed, and in any case, this is (at least) a year before Frenkel's film is usually dated. The fact that Brockliss imported films from overseas, rather than distributing home-grown talent also seems significant.

For me, a third possibility seems most likely: that Brockliss was actually distributing the 1909 Gaumont film Judith et Holopherne. The Cinema News and Property Gazette article tells us that he already distributed Méliès' films in the UK and that he had other French producers signed up. Secondly at the end of March 1910 an almost full page advert for Gaumont's film appeared in The Bioscope and, in contrast to the French title it was simply going under the name Judith in the UK. While it looks like they were distributing the film themselves, that doesn't rule out Brockliss promoting the same film three weeks before on the 3rd of March. Perhaps they ultimately decided not to do business together. 

The full page ad also gives Gaumont's release date was April 20th again this is the right kind of time-frame. It does raise the question as to how Brockliss was already showing it on the 10th March, but as the Bioscope was more of a trade publication, perhaps this was a pre-screening for exhibitors. The other minor problem with this theory is that Brockliss' 700 feet is considerably less than the Gaumont advert's 960ft, but given that lengths of cuts varied, this is not insurmountable.

Whilst the BFI database/collections does have an entry for this title which notes Brockliss's involvement, it refers directly to the same Bioscope advert as I have and has no other details, so so it seems quite likely the database entry is based on the advert. It does, however, also list the Gaumont film under the title Judith rather than the fuller French title, confirming that this was the name it was known by in the UK. There's no entry in the IMDb for this film and I could find no other verification.

---------

So it's hard to be 100% confident that either film actually existed, but if you put a gun to my head I'd say the Frenkel one did, but Brockliss was just promoting the Gaumont film in the UK, quite possibly before either he or they decided to part company.

As an aside, in the process of investigating all of this I also made a few discoveries. For example, I've known for a while that several early silent film periodicals are available to view via the Internet Archive (yet another reason to donate to them), and that you can search for key words in the scanned in versions, this tends to take a while for many files (some of which contain over a thousand pages. However, if you scroll down you can get a text file version of these files which are so much easier to search and then cross compare. Searching "Moving Picture World" (in the combined book of the first six months of 1910) yields a rave review of the Gaumont Judith film (p.552) by T. Ruth. There's also a run down of the plot of the Book of Judith for "lecturers and exhibitors who may not be in a position to readily refer to the Apocryphal books of the Bible" (pp. 699-701). 

==========

Larsson, Tord (2017) "The New Testament in Film" in Ilona Nord, Hanna Zipernovszky (ed.), Religious Education in a Mediatized World (Kohlhammer: Stuttgart). p.40.

Jon Solomon The Ancient World in the Cinema (New Haven: Yale University Press, [1978] 2001).

The Book of Judith (2015)

I've written several times about films based on the Book of Judith and director Alex Méndez Giner has been kind enough to share with me his 2015 short The Book of Judith (view trailer).

The film is not an attempt to directly adapt the Book of Judith, nor to create a modernised version of the story or even to depict a 'Judith figure'. Instead it draws on numerous and historical artistic portrayals of Judith's deeds as the texture of a film about the internal thoughts and anxieties of a widowed farmer, in order to penetrate "the complex psychology of Judith’s character and shed light on her personality".¹

The nameless woman, who the film's official description confirms is called Judith, lives on an isolated sheep farm with what we presume are her daughter and mother. Their remote lives are interrupted one day when a rather forthright stranger seeks shelter: it's winter and his car has apparently broken down en route to his mother's funeral. The stranger is not sinister, but the presumptive way in which he appears to invite himself into Judith's house and then decide he is staying for the night leaves her feeling threatened and perhaps a little violated.

I say "appear", because from very early on in the film the line between reality and fantasy quickly becomes blurred. We witness only snippets of Judith and her guest's initial discussions to the point that it's unclear how he ended up inside her house to begin with let alone being her guest for the evening.

Méndez Giner's evocative imagery, however, says it all. Images of wolves, sheep with their throats cut, softly lit funeral processions and Judith deep underwater engulf the viewer in images of the threat of an invasive outside force. The precise nature of the threat brought by the stranger is never made explicit, but left for the viewer to infer from the range of Judith's inner thoughts with which we are presented. Unsurprisingly, given the film's title, things culminate with a series of sexually charged images.

The director's own description of the film refers to over 110 portrayals and the influence of some of the most famous such works, especially the Baroque-era painters Gentileschi, Bigot and Caravaggio are particularly apparent. Notable too are references to other works such as Caravaggio's "Sacrifice of Isaac" and Bill Viola's "Five Angels for the Millennium".

The result is a beautiful and interesting film which by associating itself with the text only loosely, through symbols rather than plot, allows its audience to explore some of the emotions that Judaism's greatest heroine may have experienced when the might of Holofernes army threatened her and her town. And it demonstrates to us today that, even if the stakes are rarely, if ever, as high for us as they were for her, we can still find a path to less troubled times.

======
Image credit - Alex Mendez Giner.
1 - From Méndez Giner's description of the film which accompanies the trailer - https://vimeo.com/167677004

Judith in Film

Photo from Judith et Holopherne (1909)
Having done a series on Judith films at the start of the year, I realise I never actually wrote a piece on the eponymous heroine herself, so here I want to draw together my thoughts on some of those films with a particular focus on what they say about Judith herself.

The Bible emerged out of patriarchal culture and so I'm not sure which is more remarkable: Is it that there are so few women portrayed as heroes and leading characters, or that there are so many relative to the male dominated culture. Either way, the cinema in general does not suggest things have moved on a great deal further. A brief look at the top ten grossing films from last year shows 5 that had a clear single lead male figure, one featuring an ensemble cast of 8 only one of whom was female, one that might be considered to have a male and female lead, leaving only 2 that had a woman as the lead character - just one more than the number starring CGI animals.

If the deuterocanonical books of the Bible are included then only 3 carry a woman's name - Ruth, Deborah and Judith. Hardly a surprise then that cinema has only a paltry offering of films about these three characters. Ruth at least has a 60s epic, a fine animated version and a 90s art film to her credit, Deborah has almost nothing. Judith however has passed out of fashion, despite being the subject of what could arguably be called the first real Biblical Epic - Judith of Bethulia (1913).

By that stage she had already starred in at least three early silents. First up was the Italian offering Giuditta e Oloferne, perhaps dating from as early as 1906. French and British versions of the story followed in 1909 and 1912 respectively.

One thing that is particularly interesting about these portrayals is the way they weaken Judith's character. Several of the films about here show her as hesitating before finally killing Holofernes. This may be due to a number of factors. Firstly, it makes better drama. There's tension as to whether she will manage it in time, her emotional conflict, the possibility of love - all of which absent from the biblical account all offer audiences a little bit more. Secondly, this also allows God to explicitly sanction what it is Judith is to do. This is not just her idea, but God's commands, which not only makes Judith more sympathetic, but also makes the idea of killing for a good cause a little more palatable. It's perhaps notable that there were 4 about Judith killing in a good cause, in the eight years before, what was then, the most terrible war the world had ever known.

But lastly it also weakens Judith's character. Even today society is a bit squeamish about women assassins. They do occasionally make popular entertainment (such as last year's BBC series Hunted or Kill Bill) but various armies are still adapting to the changes, and when you consider how many male movie roles involve a lot of killing the success of The Hunger Games does little to disprove the theory that society accepts that women and men have an equal role as killers.

So Giuditta e Oloferne provides an angel to really let both Judith and the audience that this IS was God wants her to do. This contrasts most strongly with the biblical account where notably God is silent. Judith seems to believe that God is with her, but even she doesn't try and claim that he had specifically told her to take this course of action. Gaumont's Judith et Holopherne is less explicit though still shows Judith praying before she strikes, but Griffith's film goes even further showing her indecision to be rooted in her love for the Assyrian general. Not only has she become an indecisive woman, but she is unable to meet a powerful man without falling in love with him. 1959's Italian film Giuditta e Oloferne aka Head of a Tyrant takes this remoulding of Judoth's image still further. Not only does she fall for the tyrant in question, but she also performs an erotic dance for him. Whilst the Bible is clear that she possesses a certain allure, this sexualising of her demeans the proto-feminist character of the Bible.

It's refreshing, then to see a recent depiction of this story reverse this trend. Whilst the bedroom scene is still undoubtedly sexual, it is clearly Judith who is on top (signified literally at the moment of execution). Holofernes is shown as weak, and the actor's youth and demeanour portray a vulnerability. Judith by contrast is in control. Holofernes, as per the Bible, is slave to the whims of his sexual desires, Judith is active, prowling around the bedchamber making preparations whilst Holofernes lies idly by playing with the sword that will soon remove his head.

Despite various films' attempts to water down Judith's proactive and aggressive personality, what they cannot get away from is this: the Judith story is essentially about a bloody, brutal and mendacious execution.

Holofernes in Film

Given the fairly one dimensional portrayal of Holofernes in the book of Judith, it's perhaps little surprise that he has rarely been fleshed out in film. The earliest silent films about Judith - Giuditta e Oloferne (1906) and Gaumont's Judith et Holopherne (1909) - portray him simply as a lust-driven tyrant; a piece of meat biding its time before slaughter.

Things begin to change in D.W. Griffith's Judith of Bethulia (1913). Physically all three portrayals of Holofernes are very similar - a well-built, dark-haired man with a heavy, black beard who lounges on a couch whilst scantily-clad servant girls fawn in attendance. But some of the subtleties of the biblical account (for example his relative fairness in Judith 11:1-4) are also portrayed, not least because this is the first film to explain the events from Holofernes' point of view as well as Judith's. The film's intertitles explain that Judith finds him "noble", but more significantly that he ""had thoughts only for Judith - and he gave no heed unto the Dance of the Fishers by the artful women". Holofernes' thoughts are also shown visually during the dance. Griffith uses an iris to put the spotlight on Holofernes and cast the rest of the action into darkness, demonstrating his isolation from them and his single focus on Judith.

Holofernes appeared in one more silent film - the Italian Giuditta e Oloferne (1928) - but then over thirty years passed before his next significant appearance in 1959 in another Italian production of the same name. The film was released elsewhere in the world under a variety of titles, including Judith das Schwert der Rache in Germany and Head of a Tyrant in the English speaking world. The film went still further in softening Holofernes' image. Whilst initially he is depicted as ruthless and debauched he falls for Judith and demonstrates tenderness. The transition is marked in a scene where Holofernes snaps "I should have killed you with the others", before gently holding her head and kissing her. Indeed in many ways the film is a variation on the Roman-Christian epics of the early fifties such as Quo Vadis where a good Christian transforms the heart of a Roman commander, only with a radically different twist at the end.

A swathe of made for TV movies followed in the sixties, from the USA (1960), Argentina (1961), West Germany (1965 & 1966) and France (1969) with two European films reaching cinemas in 1979/1980 from Spain (Judith) and the former Yugoslavia (Judita), but the story has largely passed out of fashion despite its rich source material (packed with irony, humour, wordplay and suspense) and the seemingly obvious appeal for modern audiences (sex, power, violence, politics).

One recent film, Quebecois filmmaker Eric Chaussé's 2007 short Judith has offered an interesting adaptation of the story. By limiting the action solely to Holofernes' sleeping quarters Chaussé strips him of the trappings of imperial power (servants, grand armour, luxurious furnishings) humanising him and making him more vulnerable. The actor (pictured) is also young, with softer features and seemingly more gentle. Shorn of his power Holofernes appears almost as a victim, even the way Judith climbs upon him implies her dominance, subverting the image of the would be rapist of Judith 12:12. The final shot is of Holofernes' execution, which is filmed from directly behind his head, an almost point of view shot which places the audience in sympathy with the Assyrian general. Chaussé's cinematography is utterly reminiscent of Caravaggio and Gentileshchi's paintings and gives the scene a fittingly dark, intimate and erotically-charged atmosphere.

Judith of Bethulia (1913)

By the time D.W. Griffith got around to making Judith of Bethulia in 1913 it was already the third film to have been made about the Jewish heroine. An Italian film from 1908, Giuditta e Oloferne, was the first and two years later a French film Judith et Holopherne also covered the story. Yet since Griffith's day the story has been largely ignored.

It's significant, of course, that the first two treatments were both from Catholic countries where the deuterocanonical books are more widely accepted, but nevertheless Judith's early exit from cinematic history is something of a puzzle. There are still far fewer strong female characters than there should be, but there is gradual increase. Where female leads have starred in action films they have tended to be strongly sexualised, Xena Princess Warrior and Tomb Raider being two notable examples. Judith's story, then, seems like it should be even more of an obvious choice today than it was 100 years ago - not only does it feature a female heroine, but she also uses her sexuality to carry out her role as assassin. It's to be hoped that the absence of modern adaptations of this story shows greater maturity in society's attitude to women. Sadly I suspect that its just a product of the predominance of protestantism in the UK, America and various other countries combined with a decline in interest in religion in general in formerly Catholic European countries.

Judith of Bethulia was released a year or two* before D.W.Griffith's ground-breaking and controversial film Birth of a Nation in 1915. Whilst a number of releases separate the two films, many of the techniques which brought Griffith acclaim are in evidence here, albeit in their infancy.

For example, in contrast to those two earlier films (the latter of which was made only 3 years beforehand) there is a far greater range of  shots from relative close-ups to long shots with a considerable depth of field. The sets are also an improvement on the previous Judith films, although Bethulia is no match for Griffith's Babylon in Intolerance three years later.

The major beneficiary of this range of shots is the battle scene, featuring significant numbers of extras and several shots with a significant depth of field. These are somewhat confused, particularly in comparison with his later big action scenes, lacking a certain organisation and making it difficult to differentiate which people are which. (No doubt this is not helped by only seeing a poor quality transfer of the print)

Griffiths also shows his penchant for personal melodrama shot against a backdrop of major historical events. Aside from the Jesus segments of Intolerance, the three other episodes all revolve around the trials of a young couple. Likewise Judith's story is juxtaposed with that of Nathan and Naomi a young Bethulian couple. She is captured by the Assyrians just before Judith's mission, and as the Assyrian army panic's in the wake of their commander's death, Nathan slips into their camp to rescue his beloved.

Such a juxtaposition creates interesting contrasts with the relationship between Judith and Holofernes. It emphasises the strength of character Judith displays, but it also highlights the romantic element of their relationship. He for his part is instantly "ravished with her". Likewise when she finally meets the commander, she is deeply conflicted, and "wrestles with her heart" because she finds him "noble" (despite the numerous semi-clad servant girls that hang around his tent).

Later an intertitle tells us "again she faltered for the love of Holofernes - yet struggled to cast away the sinful passion". Once again the intertitles also reveal Holofernes feelings, he "had thoughts only for Judith - and he gave no heed unto the Dance of the Fishers" but they are also conveyed visually. During the dance, a shot of Holofernes with his courtiers uses an iris to express Holofernes' lack of interest in his surroundings, which have, quite literally, been relegated to the shadows.

It is in the killing scene when this comes to a climax. Holofernes falls asleep and Judith raises a sword above his neck, but she hesitates and lowers it again torn between her love for him and her duty to her people. She stares into the distance and the film cuts away to the well of Bethulia now littered with the bodies of her countrymen. Whilst it seems physically impossible for her to see this, the sequence suggests that somehow she knows it and she gets up and kills the Assyrian leader. Interestingly we do not witness the decisive blow. This decision may have been on grounds of taste, or technical complexity, but it acts as a testimony of her love for him. And, aside from biblical fidelity, is more to be read into her taking away the head of the man she loves?

It's a significant film then, not only the launch of Griffiths into feature length movies, but also expanding on elements of the story only hinted at in the earlier films.

*Sources disagree on the exact year of release. IMDB and Campbell and Pitts cite 1914, whereas the BFI give the release date as one year earlier.

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.

Giuditta e Oloferne (1906/1908)

The BFI Archive print of the film starts with an introduction

"The Italian film. From 1908 to 1914 Italy played an important role in film history with her classico-historical spectacles. The success of Quo Vadis (1911) as well as of the French Queen Elizabeth definitely established the long film and brought cinema new esteem"

I'm not sure at what stage these notes were added, but they go on to show some elements of analysis. "Insistence on architecture and gesticulation were constants".

The film begins with people challenging the priests to do something about the siege - children are dying. Judith arrives with her entourage and is dressed very much like a suffragette. It would be a mistake to assume this is a deliberate association on behalf of the filmmakers. Italian women didn't gain the vote until 1946 and it's more likely that the style of dress I associate with the suffragette movement is merely typical of pre-war European fashion. Nevertheless given the story's political angle and it's radically divergent portrayal of a woman, it's an association that I suspect many other viewers would make.

Certainly the expensive looking dress and the entourage emphasise that Judith is relatively wealthy and in high standing in her community. It's while Judith is doing her make-up at home that the angel appears to her with a sword to signify the deed she is being commissioned to carry out. There's no angel in the text of course so this addition strengthens the idea that this was God's idea.

Judith and her handmaiden leave the camp and are quickly captured by some Assyrian soldiers. They bring the pair into the court and Holofernes is instantly smitten. Having been making merry with his court and cavorting with some scantily clad servant girls, he sends out the whole court upon Judith's arrival. Holofernes starts to seduce Judith. Judith stands but the angel appears again and orders her down. This again indicates Judith's mission is God-ordained circumventing any questions about the morality of her actions.

The next scene takes place in the adjoining room where once again Holofernes has company (including some blacked-up servants), only this time Judith drinks. He then takes her to his bedroom where she continues to resist his sexual advances. Eventually Holofernes passes out but Judith is reluctant to kill him. Suddenly the angel appears again, specifically gesturing that she should cut off his head and so eventually she does, drawing the curtain around Holofernes' bed before popping his severed head into a bag and leaving.

The final scene (pictured above) depicts Judith returning home and pulling out Holofernes' head before the assembled people to show their victory. The people of Bethulia bow.

The repeated addition of the angel, even urging her to kill Holofernes is strongly interpretative, and is particularly interesting for those who like me are intrigued by the way Christian art often distorts the biblical text in order to rationalise such awkwardly violent acts seemingly at God's command. For protestants this story is not so problemmatic as they give the "apocrypha" much less authority, but what's interesting is that similar tactics are used throughout the history of filmmaking for stories from the universally accepted canon.


The plot summary provided by the organisers of the "Ancient World in Silent Cinema II" event gave the film the following synopsis:

Giuditta e Oloferne [Judith and Holopherne] (Italy, Mario Caserini, 1908) 6 mins. The Israelites, besieged in Bethulia, bemoan their fate. In Judith's palace, an angel appears and instructs her to help. Judith is led into the tent of the Assyrian leader Holophernes. He, much taken, orders everyone out including his protesting concubine. Judith is reluctant but, after the reappearance of the angle, submits to his embrace. Holophernes feats with his concubine and court. Judith enters and feigns pleasure. He leaads her to bed, but falls drunkenly asleep. The angel urges the reluctant Judith to kill him. Judith returns to the Israelites and shows them his head.

The BFI also summarise it on their website:

HISTORICAL. Apocryphal story of Judith who saves the Israelites by seducing and beheading the Assyrian leader Holofernes. "THE ITALIAN FILM. From 1908 to 1914 Italy... JUDITH AND HOLOPHERNES Produced by Cines-Roma. Biblical...insistence on architecture and gesticulation" (101) JUDITH AND HOLOPHERNE. Wolf logo. CINES (102) The Israelite people, soldiers and priests, besieged in Bethulia, bemoan their fate. Black slaves enter down steps followed by Judith, attendants and fanbearers wearing tights. All kneel (171). In Judith's palace: columns and curtains: the attendants bedeck Judith. They exit. A female angel appears, instructs Judith, vanishes, reappears and exits. Judith summons her handmaid and they leave (242). Four Assyrians with spears, bows and arrows in a rocky place: Judith and maid enter, show alarm and are led off held by their wrists (261). Holophernes holds court in a tent with his concubine, other women, guards, fanwavers and black slaves. Judith and maid are led in. Holophernes, much taken, orders everyone out including the protesting concubine. Alone, he takes Judith to the couch. She is reluctant but, after a word from the angel, submits to his embrace (318). In a circular tent, Holophernes feasts with his concubine and court. Judith enters, shows disgust but feigns pleasure. They embrace, drink and exit (390). In the previous tent the crowd enters. Holophernes drives them all out with a sword, embraces Judith, leads her to the bed, and falls drunkenly asleep. She observes him, laughs, picks up sword, hesitates. The angel urges her. She picks up sword again and, back to camera, uses it, turns holding head and sword, drops both, closes bed curtains, emerges wrapping the head in a cloth and exits (479). The Israelites are still wailing. Judith and her maid arrive with the bundle. Judith climbs steps and shows the head. All kneel (528ft). Note: Intertitles missing. First 101ft are a modern introduction. Length without this is 417ft. Also held: (205243A 425 ft, no titles, slightly better print) and 608423A (Joye Collection no.1907, 376ft, opening title and Cines logo but no intertitles, incomplete- ends when Judith leaves with her trophy).

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.