HondaReport.com - Film Review: Fiennes shines as 'Luther'

This historical perspective of the life of Martin Luther—yes, the original—is a gem with many facets. That doesn’t mean the facet I like best is one you or anyone else may like at all, however. For historians, Luther is loopy with holes and semi-fictitious characters. For the rest of us, it depends on whether we expect perfection or simply a mesmerizing history lesson. Neither documentary nor detailed mini-series, Luther is what it is: entertainment from a historical perspective.

MPPR Rating: NR
Date of Viewing: October 8, 2003
Location: Dole Cannery

The Hype: Joseph Fiennes as the beacon of a religious revolution of 16th century Europe seems hopeful at best. With a litany of faith-related movies meeting limited success in recent years, how and why could Luther be any different? For those of you who have never really understood Christianity, know this: Martin Luther revolutionized the church in the 1500s by audaciously telling the word that the New Testament is a book about redemption and love, forgiveness and unconditional acceptance—not buying deceased family members out of purgatory and selling relics on church steps. His efforts led to the translation of the New Testament into German, opening the door for common men and women to learn about Jesus Christ, as opposed to the Catholic church’s political decisions.

Strengths: Little was spared in creating sets and towns to replicate Old Germany, where Martin Luther came of age with his disbelief, education, and ultimately, demands of reform for the Catholic Church. Fiennes captures the fire and brimstone, but more so, he reaches in to present a Luther who is witty, funny and—a rarity in the staid church—passionate for both the Word of God and the love of a good woman. Director Eric Till and screenwriters Camille Thomasson and Bart Gavigan go to pains to clarify the differences between Luther, the church and overly zealous reformers. The message is clear.

Weaknesses: At the expense of pounding home their message about Luther, Till, Thomasson and Gavigan missed opportunities to show Luther’s passion and intensity outside of the church and its political corruption. In one horrid scene, thousands of peasants lay lifeless after a revolt against the church goes berserk. Among the dead is a crippled child who had come to befriend and love Luther. Instead of allowing Fiennes to mourn the child’s death, however, the scene is cut short without even a look at Luther’s eyes. Was this done to avoid showing a more vulnerable side of such a renowned name in world history? Or was this simply a measure of minimizing a scene that was, obviously, not taken from the written annals of history? Either way, it leaves questions—albeit tough ones—that I ask with the knowledge that Till, Thomasson and Gavigan could not have possibly made everyone happy.

Best Scene: For the agnostic or atheistic viewer, Luther’s words may have a bland, generic flavor from start to finish. For the true believer, however, the writing of Thomasson and Gavigan work in a corny, but poignant way. Early on, a young Luther balks at church doctrine and buries a young boy in a Christian graveyard—a no-no since the boy had committed suicide. Another memorable scene is mere seconds long; Luther’s decree regarding corrupt “indulgences” that profit the church is taken down from a church door by none other than Guttenberg, who publishes Luther’s words for the common peasant. There are more favorite scenes: Luther says to a skeptical cardinal, “The Pope may interpret scripture, but he is not above scripture”; from beginning to end, Luther battles demons and learns from his mentor and fellow priest a simple prayer—“I am Yours. Save me.” But my No. 1 scene comes near the end, when Luther faces the likelihood of death during a hearing before authorities of the church. He deliberates and refuses to recant his writings, saying “My conscience is held captive to the word of God.” And with that, there is no question that Luther walked the walk.

Worst Scene: A few times, there are some horrendously surprising edits that left actors saying words without moving their lips. Also, Luther’s marriage to a former nun comes very late and seems like a rush job that barely made the cut. Telling Luther’s life in just 120 minutes is a gigantic challenge, so I won’t be too hard on Till. But it was certainly a bit of a cringe factor in these instances.

Summary: This is NOT a film for everyone. It is slow. It is without nudity, car chases, and an abundance of cussing. However, for those interested in the history of the church, this is a must-see. For those who appreciate history, this is worth experiencing—not for minute, detailed accuracy, but for a film that bravely attempts to capture the center of what is one of the church’s most pivotal eras.

Discretionary notes: Some minor profanity and a lingering spread of post-mortem shots of dead peasants along the countryside. A 15-year-old will endure this just fine. But don’t take the 7-year-old.