Luther - The Movie

[onejayhawk]

It starts this Friday, 26 Sept. According to the advance publicity, it is decidely focused on the history and politics, rather than the Dogma and the religious arguments. Here is the Official Website.

J

 

[Kryten]

Oooo....I shall look out for this one.
Thanks for the link.

It's about time that such an influential figure was made into film.
(Providing it is accurate of course. )

 

[pawpaw]

he changed the world

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Kryten
Oooo....I shall look out for this one.
Thanks for the link.

It's about time that such an influential figure was made into film.
(Providing it is accurate of course. )

One thing that has already irritated me is that, supposedly if the rumor is accurate, Luther presents Frederick the Wise with the first print of the German Bible, which never happened. But how much accuracy can you get in 2 hours?


J

 

[Mescalhead]

Hopefully they won't sensationalize his anti-semitism.

 

[andrewgprv]

I saw a commercial for this and I didn't like what I saw, the commercial looked too glamorised and hollywood. I can only imagine what the show will be like.

But I do agree it's about time someone paid attention to Luther, he truley changed the world.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Mescalhead
Hopefully they won't sensationalize his anti-semitism.

They didn't touch on it at all, which is what I expected to be honest. I just saw it and I must recommend it. We just finished studying the Reformation in European History class and they had many major players (Pope Leo, John Tetzel, Prince Frederick, Charles V, and of course, Luther). I thought it was really well done, even if a propoganda flick. I liked it and it was certainly worth my time/$.

 

[puglover]

I saw it. It was excellent. I recommend it all the way. It was accurate, yet very enjoyable.

 

[onejayhawk]

I fianlly saw it. Not bad, but not great. One thing the movie does poorly is account for time passage. He spent years in the Wartburg, working on the German Bible, but it comes across as mere weeks. Indeed his 25 year main career is telescoped into a seeming 5-6. And a few glaring inaccuracies are distracting, like when he gives a printed copy of the German New Testement to Elector Frederick. Another, typically Hollywood, problem is that almost all the props seems new and unused: clothes, swords, money, etc.

On the other hand, the film does a good job at creating a nonmodern atmosphere. Real period buildings were probably not always available, but even the newer ones still show centuries of use, and many actual buildings were used. Ustinov is brilliant as Frederick the Wise. There are some excellent shots of carnage, which conveyed the difficult point that 100,000 dead pesants is not just a number in a book.

You see very little of Luther the debater and none of Luther the musician, both critically important. The landmark Address to the German Nobility is almost completely ignorred. Because of this you do not get a feel for how he won over the aristocracy, which is absolutely critical to his continuing survival. Also, there is no mention of the great scholar Erasmus, who gave him enormous credibility simply by finding nothing to criticize.

All in all I was left wanting more.

J

 

[Benderino]

You're right, the timing is off, and for people who don't know the facts it can seem weird. I'm just proud that I've actually been to the Wartburg! I suggest it on your next trip to Germany

Otherwise, though, I thought it was fabulous.

 

[JonathanValjean]

Wow! It is wonderful to know that Hollywood would actually pay tribute to Martin Luther on the big screen. I'll have to try to catch this one on the big screen, but if not, I'll look forward to seeing it on DVD. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

 

[Caesar Sam]

Why couldn't they mention his anti-semitism at all? It's a part of his character and should be mentioned such a film.

 

[History Guy]

Well, I saw the film last week and though it pretty good, actually. It probably won't go down as a classic like the Niall McGinnis Luther, but it was a good film all the same.

I think perhaps my biggest problem with the film was the "nice guy" attitude towards Martin Luther. It seems as though any major religious leader in films these days will be portrayed as a nice guy (or an evil fanatic...), and old ML is no exception here. Somehow I just couldn't imagine Joseph Fiennes telling people to flatuate at the devil, or to "send them to Master Hans", or bragging out his drinking expertise. But that's to be expected these days. For the most part, it was not a bad performance.

However, one cannot deny that this is a remarkably accurate film. It should at least be nominated for Best Costumes.

Besides, Sir Peter Ustinov was in it. That's a good mark in its favor. He steals the show whenever he's around.

 

[Benderino]

The only problem was that it was a little to Protestant propagandaish.

 

[History Guy]

That is so, but it a good chunk of the production money did come from the Lutheran Church, after all.

 

[Caesar Sam]

That might explain a bit of it. Did Niall McGinnis' film portray him anymore accurately?

 

[Achinz]

I'd save my money and just re-watch an indepth British TV series on him. It gave a wonderful insight into the man who started off a devoted Catholic and how a pilgrimage to Rome completely changed all that as well as his miraculous escape from the Papal forcces after his excommunication. Thought provoking as well as absorbing stuff.

 

[HuckFinn]

Originally posted by Mescalhead
Hopefully they won't sensationalize his anti-semitism.

Not that I care that much for protestantism of catholicism... but let's hope not. First of all, practically everyone in his day's Europe was anti-semitic... second, this happened in his old days when he was already rather senile and saw Satan behind every corner anyway.