Luther (2003)

Directed by: Eric Till | 120 minutes | drama | Actors: Joseph Fiennes, Jonathan Firth, Bruno Ganz, Peter Ustinov, Benjamin Sadler, Claire Cox, Alfred Molina, Uwe Ochsenknecht, Mathieu Carriere, Jochen Horst, Torben Liebrecht, Maria Simon, Lars Rudolph, Marco Hofschneider, Christopher Buchholz

This film about Martin Luther, the most famous founder of the Protestant church, is not the first film made about him. Luther’s life was filmed as early as 1929, and Luther was also the subject of a film in 1953 and 1974. The question is whether the ‘Luther’ of the 21st century is a necessary and indispensable addition.

In ‘Luther’ the story is presented chronologically: the starting point is the infamous thunderstorm that brought Luther (Joseph Fiennes) to the priesthood. Running through an open field with lightning on his heels, a terrified Luther vows to God that he will become a monk if he gets out alive. And so it happened…
We don’t know anything about the how and why behind it. For a moment you have the idea that the difficult relationship between Luther and his father has something to do with Luther’s decision, but it is only a vague suggestion.
The developments in Luther’s life follow each other in rapid succession. One minute he’s a dubious monk with a gigantic guilt complex, who must be guided with the loving hand by his new spiritual father (Bruno Ganz), and the next he’s man enough to go on a business trip to the ‘open sewer’. which is called Rome.

That event changes his view on life and, more importantly, on his faith, as the filmmakers apparently want to make clear to us. And life in Rome is indeed reprehensible: monks and priests who go with the whores, people in little more than rags who have to murmur the Lord’s Prayer on every step of the Vatican. Little is left to the imagination for the viewer.
Not much later, Luther is in Wittenberg, where he soon becomes a professor of theology. How he climbed the ecclesiastical and scientific ladder so quickly at a young age (less than thirty) is not told. The dubious monk of yesteryear is now a confident professor who is already quite critical of the Catholic practice of relics and indulgences.
Everything leads inevitably but completely without tension to that one moment: when Luther hammers his 95 theses on the church door, thus openly denouncing all kinds of abuses. With this he unintentionally sets in motion an avalanche: in no time the people revolt and thousands are killed. Luther, meanwhile, is called to account by the church and the emperor, but does not recant his writings. The only prince who still wants to protect him is Frederick the Wise of Saxony (the late Sir Peter Ustinov), an old but very cunning prince sympathetic to Luther’s stubbornness.

All very exciting, and actually happened, but the tension never comes across. Director Eric Till probably wanted to make a truthful film, but has only made a film in which all the long-known facts are dutifully laid out. However, we learn nothing about the person Martin Luther. Why exactly did he manage to reach the people? There were more clergy who opposed (even earlier) the political power of the church and the abuses in the name of the church.
What was the influence of the developments surrounding the printing press? Why did Luther not foresee that his writings would cause a revolt and a church split? How can a former monk, who never wanted to leave the church, finally decide to get married? All things that come up in ‘Luther’, but which are not discussed in depth for a moment. ‘Luther’ therefore gives no insight into who he was, or who his opponents were, but only shows what he has done and experienced.

It also doesn’t help that Joseph Fiennes portrays Luther as a rather unstable, almost manic-depressive figure: one moment self-assured and combative, the next full of doubt and a sense of sin. No doubt the real Luther united these extremes in himself, but it seems totally unbelievable because Fiennes portrays everything in an overly dramatic way. This is not only to be blamed on him, but also on the director. All actors suffer from this problem to a greater or lesser extent. The pleasant exception is Ustinov, who turns Prince Frederik into an amusing old fox.
The rest of the characters remain largely one-dimensional characters: the evil indulgence seller Johann Tetzel (Alfred Molina), the crafty Cardinal Aleander (Jonathan Firth), the money-guzzling Pope Leo X (Uwe Ochsen-servant), or conversely, the loving spiritual father Von Staupitz ( Bruno Ganz). And not to forget the people: a stupid, ignorant mass, clad in rags, who (if they are not tossing in their own mud) smash into each other’s brains…
The fact that Till gives the film a somewhat personal-dramatic touch by having a poor single mother and her crippled daughter return in the film over and over again only makes things worse.

Martin Luther’s life can undoubtedly be made into an exciting, but above all interesting film. After all, it symbolizes a dramatic event in European history, which still affects many people today. That Eric Till’s ‘Luther’ is not that film, however, is certain.