Luther

Luther Film Review by Joshua Morrall

The problem with directing history is that history, when reflected honesty, is often slow and cumbersome, in many ways like the Exchequer system of financial management used in the 1480s. Luther, another small budget 70s offering from the American Film Theatre, is a factually correct film, and unfortunately suffers for it.

The title role of Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk who was an integral part of the reformation, is painstakingly recreated by Stacy Keach. In a film so devoted to the character development of Luther, Keach copes masterfully, handling the intense and intruding close ups with the greatest of ease - although that is not to say that his performance looks effortless. Quite the opposite. Part of the package with screen adapted plays is that you get all-out devotion from the actors involved. With such long scenes and very little action, the actors are put through the ringer and have little choice but to embody the role. Whilst this serves to deliver stunning performances (look out for Judi Dench as Katherine) the scenes drag out in a manner that modern movies would never allow.

Small budget entails limited set quality, but in this film it serves to compliment the gritty 1500s atmosphere. Script, obviously, is without fault, coming from an intelligent play by John Osborne, who first wrote Luther ten years before this adaptation was made.

What remains insufferable is the pace. The film is directed with an air of dignity and the performances are deserving of eternal praise, but as a child of the movies, I was sucked helplessly into a comatose state of boredom. My fascination with the reformation begins and ends with Henry VIII, who was commended by the Pope for slating Luther's ideas in a book. That sort of conflict is one I would enjoy seeing captured on film. Here, however, I am faced with a triumph of fact over fiction, which, although refreshing and honest, is nonetheless almost impossible to watch in one sitting.

Rating: 2.5

The first impression you might have is that there is no way that John Osbourne, the creator of the frustrated Jimmy Porter in Look Back In Anger, could possibly have reached back five centuries for the subject matter of another play. Osborne's best work Look Back In Anger is firmly rooted in the 20th century, dealing with the post empire Great Britain that he knew and was part of.

Luther of course is about the founder of one large sect of Protestantism, Martin Luther of 16th century Germany which was a geographical expression, not a country at that time. Luther was an angry young man like Jimmy Porter who revolutionized theology in his time and issued the bluntest, most direct challenge to the supremacy of the Catholic Church and the Pope. He founded his church which became supreme in Northern Germany and the Scandinavian countries.

But when the peasants started to revolt, Luther betrayed the revolution he started and urged that they be put down as severely as possible which they were. It's for this that John Osborne indicts him in his work. It is the biggest tragedy of Luther's career and the one in which the Catholics never stop heaping scorn on him, a lot of it justified.

The film Martin Luther from the Fifties that starred Niall McGinniss and the recent Luther that starred Joseph Fiennes from this decade do not deal with part of the Luther story. We see a very flawed human being, torn by a most exquisite conscience and frightened about the forces he has unloosed. One of the church elders who admonishes him says that the peasants want the gold and silver of the church, not a new kind of faith and he's not completely wrong.

Stacy Keach takes Albert Finney's place who originally created the role on Broadway where the play ran for 211 performances in 1963. Keach does a fine job in the part as does Judy Dench as Mrs. Luther, Patrick Magee as Luther's father and Hugh Griffith as one of his church superiors who lays the law down to him, unsuccessfully.

No doubt we've not seen the last interpretation of this man's life. Martin Luther will be reinterpreted by historians and dramatists for centuries.

Interesting film and play. Playwright Osborne did not intend to add the character of the knight (serving as part chorus, part psychological alter-ego) but the idea apparently came from Julian Glover the actor who plays the part. Apparently Glover added the part in the stage version as well. And that character is fascinating. According to IMDb, Tom Baker made an uncredited appearance as Pope Leo. But that bit is never shown in the version I viewed. Director Guy Green extracts good performances from all the characters, especially Stacy Keach. And cinematographer Freddie Young adds his touch with interesting camera angles in crucial scenes.

Instructive, but not exactly entertaining. Since I wasn't well-informed about Luther, this film filled in several details, while failing to address some of the main facts, generally well-known, about this significant historical figure. This is a filmed play, but I don't see what's wrong with that. I enjoy plays as much as (good]) movies. This is a bit of an oddity however. Difficult to tell what John Osborne was setting out to promote. Luther's reported anti-semitism was ignored, but it could hardly have been any more intense than the anti-semitism of the Roman church. Osborne seemed to be primarily concerned to demonstrate Luther's Oedipus complex, and strained relationship with his father, as motivation for his actions. This was a novelty for me.

Keach was good, but the actors featured on the DVD case puzzled me. Robert Stephens ? Leonard Rossiter ? I recognized them, but hardly saw them as stars. Judy Dench was employed for about two minutes at the very end, and her part as Luther's wife could have been taken by anyone. The impressively powerful performances were by Hugh Griffiths, as the bloated indulgences salesman, and Alan Badel as a creepy spokesman for the Pope. These two are not mentioned at all on the DVD case. Patrick Magee, as Martin's conflicted father was a strong presence, but the full significance of his role escaped me.

Great attention was paid to the esoteric rituals of the brotherhood in the early part. Towards the end the director, or the playwright, seemed to lose interest, especially in Luther's failure to stand up for the citizens who had supported his Reformation. This was in any case promoted by Henry VIII in England , for personal reasons; and his actions had already been significantly preceded by Gustavus Vasa in Sweden

Other significant actors were Maurice Denham, as Luther's mentor, and Julian Glover as a strange cross between narrator and chorus. Not sure if that was originated by Osborne. Generally a curious piece of work by Osborne, otherwise. I'm glad I sat through it, but it needed a bit of stamina. Take that as a recommendation, if you like. Check Wikipedia.

Movies don't come duller than this stiff filmed stage play that revolves around the sexy topic of the Reformation, to the accompaniment of the always pulse beating Gregorian chant.