[faithandlife] LUTHER FILM

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : November 2003 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: charles scott <crscottblu@...>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Brothers+

Here is a review of a Luther film.  Have any of you
seen it?

Charles+
----------------------------------------


Christianity Today, Week of September 22

A Reformer's Agony
A high-caliber film shows how messy it was when Luther
helped change the course of
history.
Luther, reviewed by Chris Armstrong | posted
09/26/2003 Christianity Today

LUTHER
directed by Eric Till
RS Entertainment
Before the Reformation, the meaning of life came
highly structured from the hierarchy of
the Church. One didn't ask questions. One didn't need
to.

Many believers, perhaps most, experienced Truth
through relics, images, and rituals—not
as oppression but as comfort. To be sure, one did not
meet God face to face. But one did
not want to! For the late-medieval rank and file,
assurance of salvation came not from
bold access to the throne of God, but from the myriad
mediating practices of penance and
devotion.

In Luther, one scene in particular brings home this
historical reality. Glowing with joy, a
young mother who has purchased an indulgence (a
remission of temporal punishment)
for her crippled daughter holds it out to a gaunt
Martin Luther: "Look what I bought for
Greta!" She has been gulled by the rhetoric of the
charlatan indulgence-seller, Johann
Tetzel (Alfred Molina).

Luther (Joseph Fiennes) takes the paper and reads it.
His anger at the corrupt
establishment rises and boils over. He forgets the
gentleness he has displayed toward her.
"This is worthless," he says, crumpling it in his
fist. "You must rely on God's love."
Crestfallen, she turns and walks disconsolately away.

At several key moments in the movie, Luther faces the
charge that he is tearing apart the church. He
grapples repeatedly with the possibility that he is
destroying, rather than building, God's kingdom. To
their credit, though, the filmmakers resist the
temptation of portraying a Lone Ranger Reformer
against a thoroughly evil Church. There are enough
sympathetic figures in the Catholic establishment
(Matthieu Carriere's Cardinal Cajetan chief among
them) to create some sense of historical nuance.

Moreover, we get to see some warts of the Reformation.
Andreas Karlstadt (Jochen
Horst) takes Luther's teachings to their extreme,
announcing that the day of the great
leveling has arrived. Soon we see townspeople dragging
the monks who have cared for
them out of their church and pummeling them. Rocks
crash through stained-glass
windows. A crucifix is knocked to the floor. (The
scene involves a bit of historical
sleight-of-hand: the real Karlstadt, advocating
nonviolence, had refused to join the
militant radical reformer Thomas Müntzer.)

Luther is still a medieval man; this anarchic attack
on authority is too much for him. He
appeals to the princes, demanding the peasant revolt
be put down. Soon the blood of the
peasants runs on the floor of the ruined church.

Surveying the carnage, Luther agonizes: "I have torn
the world apart." He begins to slide into depression.
He must force himself out of bed each morning. Until,
that is—in a moment befitting Hollywood—he meets the
escaped nun Katerina (Claire Cox). Sunny but
steel-willed, Katerina leads Luther from the dark
tunnel and into the summer of the loving marriage he
has long denied himself.

Of course, this is a Lutheran movie, not a Catholic
one—it is backed by Thrivent, the major Lutheran
financial services organization. The answer to the
question of whether Luther is destroying the church he
loves or bringing it back to its most basic sources of
authority is clear. The abuses flowing from the
"sewer" of Rome are portrayed starkly
enough.

But writer Camille Thomasson and director Eric Till
have done well to show something of the anguish and
desolation that comes with the uprooting of old
meanings and the conflicted (and always incomplete)
process toward the new. Even if we are convinced,
with Luther, that the new meanings are really the
oldest ones of all—fidelity to Scripture,
salvation by grace alone, the surpassing love of the
Father—we can sympathize with the human toll of what
our age has fashionably called a "paradigm shift."

If there is any misstep in the film, it is the
relentless niceness of its Reformer. Throughout we see
Luther filling the void left by the old, corrupted
symbols of late medieval Catholicism with the simple
"Jesus loves me" theology of a mainstream Sunday
school class.

The filmmakers have hardly gotten young Martin out of
his early years as a psychologically tortured monk,
convinced God is out to get him, when they remake him
as a mild '90s Luther. His confessor Staupitz (Bruno
Ganz) is reduced to blustering: "In all the time I've
known you, you've never once confessed anything even
remotely interesting!"

As a student at Wittenberg, Luther insists on giving a
teen suicide a Christian burial—theological niceties
be damned. Interpreting the story of the Prodigal Son
to children in the woods, he stresses the father's
surpassing love. In the tower at Wartburg, he
interprets a Greek term as expressing that same love.

All of this is fair enough, though the theme does
become wearing. In one impassioned sermon, Luther
takes aim at the villain Tetzel, who emotionally
blackmails his audiences by unfurling crude paintings
of hell and then offering to help them buy their
relatives' way out of eternal agony. Tetzel's problem,
Luther insists, is that his God is too mean.

"I, too, saw God as sentencing sinners to death in
hell," Luther preaches. "But I was wrong."

Oops. In a major film for a diverse viewing public
that sees nothing but an oppressive, hypocritical
church, this '90s approach may indeed serve the
producers' religious motives.  But God's sovereignty
seems to have receded a little too much here. And one
wonders, if this was really all the Reformation was
about, why would anyone have objected? Why didn't all
the Catholics just get on board, singing Kumbaya?

Finally, though, the film does tell us as much as it
probably can: the Church had been corrupted in many
ways. It had strayed from the Bible—its best and
truest authority. And the road back was a rough one.

What it loses in theological subtlety it gains back in
artistry. This is a dramatically gripping and visually
stunning movie. More, it is warmly personal: Sir Peter
Ustinov comes near to stealing the show as Luther's
wise, wry prince-protector, Frederick;
Staupitz is another Catholic "good guy" whose concern
for his spiritual son lights up the screen. The film
is—as much as can be expected—historically
even-handed.

Luther matches grandeur of vision to excellence of
execution. The resulting drama packs spiritual as well
as entertainment power: it charged the atmosphere even
of the small screening room where I first saw the
film. I will be seeing it again.

Chris Armstrong is managing editor of Christian
History magazine.

Copyright © 2003 Christianity Today 
 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/