LUTHER
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This historical drama could be the basis of an excellent movie, but it isn't. It is the story of the small beginnings of a change that influences world history to the present day. Instead, the sweeping events are minimized and turned into a reverent church play. There is some valuable historical detail in the script, but Luther's philosophy is simplified and sanitized. The acting is flat and surprisingly uninvolving. Rating: 4 (0 to 10), 0 (-4 to +4)
Up until the 1990s I would have chosen as the best film I had ever seen Fred Zinnemann's A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS. It is a film about philosophical and religious discourse told against the backdrop of great historic events. I looked forward then to seeing LUTHER, which potentially could have been a companion piece in the same mold. It had the discourse and even greater events, but it is not nearly so compelling a film. What it lacks is the writing, the acting, and most of the historical splendor. This is a film that is subdued when it could be rousing. It is drab when it could be exhilarating. The director, Eric Till, seems to feel the film must be compelling because the cause is so noble. It is hard to believe that this is the same Eric Till who twenty years earlier directed the powerful TV play "A Case of Libel."
Joseph Fiennes, the Shakespeare of SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, plays Martin Luther. Luther is a very troubled Roman Catholic priest. He argues with his teachers and they are enough impressed they choose him to be taught to become a Doctor of Divinity. Luther's doubt revolves around his belief in a merciful God. But some high members of the Church find it profitable to preach that all are sinners in the hands of a wrathful God, threatening all with eternal burning in Hell. This belief so much helps the sale of indulgences, money given to the Church to bribe God. As is the custom of the day, while in Rome Luther purchases an indulgence to buy his deceased grandfather out of Purgatory and into Heaven. There he is disgusted at the whole concept of the priests selling a place in heaven for money. The Church finds this a moneymaking business and also profits by the sale of "authenticated" relics, another custom Luther abhors. He returns to his town of Wittenberg to mock the mercenary customs of the Church in his sermons. Then an indulgence preacher Johann Tetzel (Alfred Molina) arrives locally and with the avaricious fervor of today's televangelists Tetzel starts selling indulgences to Luther's parishioners. Luther decides it is time to go public with his anger. He takes his beliefs and turns them into the Ninety-five Theses, which he nails to the church door. This minor-seeming incident echoes across Europe and is the spark of the Protestant Reformation.
This really could be very compelling story, combining action and argument. But the direction robs the history of most of its drama. The acting is extremely flat. It reminds one of tableaux with one-sided arguments placed in characters' mouths. As Friedrich [known as Friedrich the Wise], Peter Ustinov gives just about his worst performance that I can remember, yet he has the best acting of the film. He acts and, as important, he reacts even if his expressions are exaggerated. Joseph Fiennes who occasionally reacts with pained looks comes in second and there is no third. All other performances seem wooden. Fiennes seems to have a Renaissance sort of face and looks good in historical films, but he needs direction. Most of the other characters are little more than speeches wearing robes, contrived speeches at that. The debate of ideas is never on a very high level. There is no mention of Luther's more controversial views like his arguments against social egalitarianism or his anti-Jewish stance. On the other hand we do see some of the history. We see, for example, why Luther's translation of the New Testament into German-language would so threaten the Church.
This is a story that could have been told with some historical grandeur, but Robert Fraisse's photography seems subdued in a modest Lutheran sort of way. The film never really attempts to be the feast for the eyes that A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS is. More reverent than engaging, this story of Martin Luther is preaching to the choir. It proselytizes when it should be showing the issues. Somehow it seems to minimize the events rather than pulls us into them. One ends up asking, "is that all there was to the Protestant Reformation?" I rate LUTHER a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Copyright 2003 Mark R. Leeper
========== X-RAMR-ID: 35934 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 1204400 X-RT-TitleID: 1125461 X-RT-AuthorID: 1309 X-RT-RatingText: 4/10
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews