Luther, the Movie

Here's a review of the upcoming movie, Luther. It sounds like this will be entertaining without being preachy or heavy-handed. The movie releases on September 26. Anyone who has seen this, please leave your review here.

At one important point in the movie LUTHER, a wonderful, entertaining historical drama about the life of the 16th Century Protestant reformer Martin Luther, Luther admits to the German Emperor that he may have been too harsh when attacking some of the Roman Catholic leaders. Later in the movie, in fact, he realizes, and painfully regrets, that some of his actions in support of controversial ideas have led to many deaths during the peasant revolt in Germany, which was inspired by his writings and fed by the intemperate zealotry of some of his supporters.

At the same time, however, the Luther presented by this movie returns several times to the central issue that occupied his mind, and changed the world: the primacy of God’s Word, the Bible. “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason. . . I will not recant,” Luther tells the German and Catholic authorities accusing him of heresy. “My conscience is captive to the Word of God.” For history tells us it was the demands of study for academic degrees and preparations for delivering lectures as the teacher of biblical theology at Wittenburg University that led Luther to study the Scriptures in depth. His study of the Bible, the source of Christianity, convinced him that the Church had lost sight of the central truths of the faith: Sola Scriptura!

The movie LUTHER covers the early years of Martin Luther’s life, from his days as a monk in the early 1500s to the proclamation of the Augsburg Confession in 1530, which founded the Lutheran Church in Germany. It begins with the thunderstorm that led Luther to cry out to St. Anne, the patron saint of miners like his father, “Help, St. Anne! I’ll become a monk.”

At the monastery, Luther is wracked by guilt because he feels completely unholy in the face of the God of Justice. His mentor orders him to pursue an academic career to relieve the strain. Soon, however, the young theology teacher is trying to correct the corrupt Catholic Church in Rome, whose corruption Luther saw first-hand. He begins teaching his students and the people in Wittenburg about the mercy and compassion of God, while complaining about the Church selling forgiveness of sins to the people for money.

All of this angers the Pope and many of his officials, who are trying to collect money to build St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. They charge Luther with heresy, and the climax of the first half of the movie occurs when Luther refuses to renounce his writings, unless convinced by Scripture.

Joseph Fiennes does an excellent job of portraying this revolutionary historical figure, whose Protestant Reformation clearly led to the founding of America and the establishment of representative government in both England and the United States. Although he appears to be a bit too thin and young by the end of the movie, there are surviving portraits of Luther from the early 1520s when most of LUTHER takes place which approximate Fiennes’ features. Supporting Mr. Fiennes, as Luther’s supporter, Prince Frederick the Wise, is the legendary, always enjoyable Peter Ustinov, star of such classic historical movies as SPARTACUS and the great QUO VADIS.

Director Eric Till, who also did the MOVIEGUIDE® Award-winning TV program BONHOEFFER: AGENT OF GRACE, does a marvelous job of capturing the settings and atmosphere of 16th Century Germany and Italy. The movie is engrossing throughout, even though the high points and climax in the second half of the movie don’t match the powerful drama of the scenes where Luther refuses to recant.

MOVIEGUIDE® can find little or nothing wrong, factually speaking, with the historical portrayal of this part of Luther’s life, but LUTHER is told from a Lutheran, Protestant viewpoint. Hence, the movie may offend Roman Catholics, especially when Luther cracks some jokes about the Catholic leaders he opposes, including Pope Leo X. The ending of the movie also has one cardinal complaining, at Leo’s death, that, if Leo had been more like Luther, perhaps Roman Catholicism could have been reformed. Of course, after Leo’s death, the Catholic Church did indeed undergo reform within the movement known as the Counter-Reformation.

LUTHER clearly shows that Martin Luther’s career led to an increased respect for the mercy of God and the importance of God’s Word, the Bible. It also informs viewers, in an end credit, that Luther helped spread a new understanding of religious freedom throughout Europe. This is true, but only to a certain extent, because, for the next 150 years or so after Luther’s death, Europe was gripped by religious wars in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. In other words, a schism in a church can be an awful thing, especially when it leads to violence, although we are called by Scripture to stand for the Truth when absolutely required.

Regrettably, the movie says little about the other great foundation of Lutheran and Protestant belief – that each and every Christian is saved, and justified or declared righteous, by God’s grace through faith, not by works. This is a failing in LUTHER, even though the movie correctly and boldly stresses faith in God through Jesus Christ.

In the final analysis, LUTHER is must watching, because it shows, in a compelling and dramatic fashion, how Luther’s faith in God changed the history of the world. LUTHER is an entertaining, powerful portrait of the Truth which people of all faiths will appreciate and enjoy. It is one of the best movies of 2003.

Comments

[*** Dave]

Sounds interesting.

Of course, any Catholics offended by criticisms of Leo X, or the Church at the time, need only open their history books. It is possible, I think, to be a good Catholic and yet realize that some of its leadership have not always acted wisely, or Godfearingly.

The irony of Luther's actions "spread[ing] a new understanding of religious freedom throughout Europe," in the face of intolerance by Luther's own followers and other Reformers, certainly bears mention, though by causing a pluralism in religious thought (vs the relatively monolithic Church in Rome), it ultimately led to religious freedom and the Enlightenment, both seeing the wisdom of tolerating dissent and, ironically, drifting away from religion itself.

[Rich]

I think it would be fascinating to explore as an actor how Luther was and was not a product of his times. Luther was not always for religious freedom. For example, his behavior at the Colliquy of Marburg. There Luther and Melancthon met with Zwingli and Ecolampadius. They agreed on all doctrine (including such contentious issues as baptism and predestination) but they disagreed on real presence. Zwingli begged to the point of tears to be considered a brother. Luther dismissed him as "another spirit". This lack of agreement between the German and Swiss reformers was one of the great tragedies of Protestant history. Luther's attitude towards the Peasant's Revolt and both the Lutheran and Reformed camps behavior concerning Anabaptists would offend most modern people's sensibilities. There were many results of Luther's life that Luther himself would not have cared for. But, on balance, his influence on the world was positive.