A Luther for our time?

Luther 2003, directed by Eric Till. Not recommended for young children, some violence.

Luther is a visually appealing, character driven drama that tries, in two short hours, to recreate 25 years in the life of one of the great reformers of the 16th century (1505–30). The movie offers a wonderfully reconstructed visual world, filmed on over one hundred sets throughout Europe. Its robust but flawed portrait of the Reformation era, however, requires viewers to be able to appreciate the complexities and risks involved in historical reconstruction.

In its whirlwind tour of a quarter century, the movie ranges from Luther’s “thunderstorm” crisis commitment to become a monk to the Diet of Augsburg, where the German princes sided with Luther against the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.

In between Luther struggles valiantly with both God and the devil, becomes a priest and fearfully celebrates mass for the first time, witnesses the moral and spiritual degradation of Rome, becomes a professor at Wittenberg, challenges Johann Tetzel’s sale of indulgences, nails his 95 theses to the door of the church, uses the printing press to disseminate his teachings, translates the Bible into German, and stands up to the Diet of Worms by giving his famous “here I stand” speech. Luther’s challenges to the church accompany the outbreak of the peasant rebellion, signal the end of the unity of the church in the west, and foreshadow the long decline of the Holy Roman Empire.

The movie does what movies do best: it shows us things well. The production quality is impressive. The movie opens our imagination to the world of the 16th century. It allows us insight into the significant figures of the Reformation era. It depicts the decadence of the church and the political wrangling between church and empire. The casting in some cases is superb, with Joseph Fiennes as Luther, Alfred Molina as Tetzel, Bruno Ganz as Johann von Staupitz, and Peter Ustinov as Frederick the Wise. But these strong points are almost overshadowed by the political correctness of the movie’s historical (re)vision.

This is a movie for our ecumenically tolerant times. After all, only a few years ago (on October 31, 1999, the anniversary of Luther’s 95 Theses) Lutherans and Roman Catholics agreed on a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. The movie either distorts or disregards significant dimensions of both Luther and the Reformation era. It presents some of Luther’s spiritual passion and ideas well, but does not give us the man in all his ambiguity. It doesn’t even show us any debates between Luther and his detractors, since his Catholic opponents seem unwilling to engage his ideas.

The movie shows some of the political complexity of the time, but glosses over much of its subsequent tragedy. It ends before Luther became violently anti-Jewish. It softens his brashness by avoiding, among other things, his calling the Pope the antichrist. None of his support for the executions of the early Anabaptists appears. The movie shows his grief over the massacre of more than 100,000 peasants, when his writings explicitly supported the princes’ violent crushing of the peasant uprising. It misrepresents the Catholic view of indulgences and portrays Tetzel as an itinerant “salesmonk” (as one critic puts it). It presents a Luther who promotes religious freedom, failing to remind us of his exclusiveness: “I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved” (June, 1522).

Even so, this Luther will be appealing to many. He is rooted in Scripture. He struggles to depend fully on a God who loves him unconditionally. And he speaks out boldly against a corrupt and decadent church. I walked out of the movie wanting to know more, to clarify hunches, and to verify historical interpretations. Watch this movie; then dig deeper.

Luther will be available on DVD and VHS November 30.

Gordon Matties teaches biblical studies and a course in film and faith at Canadian Mennonite University. See his Movie Theology website.