"Relentlessly hagiographical" and "skewed" on all the major Reformation-era events and issues
9/27/2003 12:22:04 PM
Steven D. Greydanus of Decent Films Guide reviews the movie Luther for National Catholic Register. He praises the movie as "a well-made, dramatically compelling historical drama that is also an affirmation of faith that takes seriously matters of Christian doctrine," but points out its many serious flaws, especially how it portrays Catholic teaching and avoids Luther's anti-Semitism:
More troubling is the filmmakers’ apologetical manipulation of the facts of its hero’s life. It’s one thing for the film to avoid Luther’s notorious anti-Semitism, which is especially associated with his declining years after the period depicted in the film. On the other hand, it was solidly in the midst of the film’s events that we find the historical Luther declaring that no man can be saved unless he renounce the papacy; that Luther’s own doctrine cannot “be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved”; that those unconvinced of Luther’s views must “hold their tongues and believe what they please”; that even “unbelievers should be forced to… attend church, and outwardly conform” (cf. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 6, pp. 357, 422).
Needless to say, such pronouncements go against the film’s portrayal of Luther as a champion of “religious freedom.” Of this aspect of its hero’s religious views, Luther is conspicuously silent.
The film is equally careful to exculpate Luther of rebellious intent regarding the pope, showing his respect and deference for Leo as late as his 1518 interview with Cardinal Cajetan — yet it never hints at Luther’s identification of the pope as the Antichrist years earlier, even before the 1517 publication of his 95 Theses. In fact, we never hear Luther associating the papacy with the Antichrist, though he did so repeatedly.
In Luther, representatives of Catholic orthodoxy, especially papal representatives such as Cardinal Cajetan, are always shown dismissively refusing to debate or engage Luther, instead imperiously insisting that he recant without argument. Certainly Luther did meet with such treatment at times; yet the impression conveyed by the film is that no one on the Catholic side was ever interested in engaging and refuting Luther’s novel ideas. That Johann Eck, for example, publicly debated both Luther and Carlstadt — and seems to have had the best of the debates, incidentally — is not something one would ever guess from this film. Of course the filmmakers can’t show everything; but why must they consistently omit whatever facts might suggest that Luther’s adversaries were anything but unreasonable and imperious?
Rogert Ebert criticizes the movie for portraying Luther as "an apologetic outsider with low self-esteem," and faults Joseph Fiennes for a muddled performance:
That's the peculiar thing about Fiennes' performance: He never gives us the sense of a Martin Luther filled with zeal and conviction. Luther seems weak, neurotic, filled with self-doubt, unwilling to embrace the implications of his protest. When he leaves the priesthood and marries the nun Katharina von Bora (Claire Cox), where is the passion that should fill him? Their romance is treated like an obligatory stop on the biographical treadmill, and although I am sure Katharina told Martin many tender things, I doubt one of them was "We'll make joyous music together." This Martin Luther is simply not a joyous music kind of guy.
