Luther

Martin Luther, his controversial religious beliefs and his life made for fascinating reading prior to familiarising myself with the play. The 1961 play by John Osborne is well written and worth getting acquainted with if wanting a change from the plays more regularly performed and studied. It is hard to resist any film with a cast that includes Stacy Keach, Judi Dench, Julian Glover, Hugh Griffith and Patrick Magee. Am more familiar with Guy Green as a cinematographer, which he was very good at.

The fifth film in the American Film Theatre series, 'Luther' left me mixed to mildly positive on it. It is worth seeing to see how the play translates to film, results were mixed somewhat there, and for the performances. It may make one interested in reading more on Luther and his life if not done yet. Yet for all its admirable efforts and good intentions, 'Luther' also had potential to be a better film than it was and the real life person and story are a lot more compelling than what was seen here.

'Luther' does have a number of strengths. The production values are suitably gritty, especially the photography, while not being ugly. Which suits the tone of the story well. There is also a haunting but not too intrusive music score from John Addison and there are some powerful, well intentioned moments where Luther and the tension his contrarian views caused did interest. The dialogue is sincere and thought-provoking, without being too talky.

What makes 'Luther' is the acting, which was the most common strength for the American Film Theatre series. Particularly standing is the magesterial lead performance of Keach, though it would have been interesting seeing the role creator Albert Finney do it, and the intense turn of Griffith. Dench is touching in her screen time and Glover makes his character, which could easily have been an out of place irritant, interesting and it was like the character was actually not an interpolation.

Having said that, many of the actors are underused. Particularly Magee, although he does make the most of what he has. Did find the pace often too dull and the drama could have been tighter, flowed more naturally and could have been opened up more. Like the acting being a consistent strength for the American Film Theatre series, staginess was also a common problem and 'Luther' suffered from that at times, which is a problem with the story being pretty slight.

Adaptation-wise, 'Luther' is quite faithful, apart from Luther's more controversial views being under-explored (the film plays it too safe with the anti-semitism for instance). But too often, it came over as too faithful in spirit which accounts for why the film felt too much like a filmed play. Green directs with good intentions, but the directing did feel like it lost interest and momentum in the story later on which is why the film lost lustre.

In summary, worth a look but not an essential and more for curiosity's sake than it being a great film. My opinion of course. 6/10.

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.

The TCM showing of LUTHER was preceded by a discussion of Ely Landau's efforts to make the American Film Theater as a subscription effort to bring the best of the stage to a wider audience. There's no doubt about the excellence of this production, with some fine performers -- all British except for Stacy Keach in the title role -- under the direction of the able Guy Green. Yet I find the entire series, and this in particular possessed of an artificiality that renders it less compelling than it might have been. Despite the gracefully moving camera, it remains a stage play removed from its own environment, a dying fish flopping on the sand.

That reaction may be informed by, as I have noted in other reviews, an absolute lack of understanding of faith. Yet I remain conflicted; truth is truth, facts are facts, and the truth or falsity of Luther's beliefs and arguments -- as well as those who face him in this straw man argument --are not affected by his humanity and foibles. While Luther's position may be seen as the struggle of a lone man against authority, his appeal to an authority other than the Pope, to the Bible, remains an appeal to authority. Why choose one over the other? Because you can justify your own position? The German princes who supported him did not do so out of any religious conviction, but to reduce the authority of the Pope and increase their own. Luther's reaction to those who interpreted the Bible other than he did is also intellectually dishonest.

Yet none of these points are emphasized. Instead, we are to side with him because we see him, and not the Pope whom he defies. In the end, we are left believing the evidence of our own eyes and ears. Given a choice between believing someone we can see and someone we cannot, we can do no other.

Albert Finney created the role of Luther, which he played in both London and New York between 1961 and 1964. Every review of Finney's performance that I have seen was positive. So I can't help wishing that he had played the part on film.

I believe Stacy Keach is one of the best American actors, but he seems to struggle with this role, at least during the early scenes, in which he uses, bizarrely, a pseudo-Irish accent. Later on, however, Keach digs more deeply into the role; and his performance is ultimately impressive, even moving.

The play seems a little dated, particularly regarding its neo-Brechtian touches over Luther's diatribe against the peasants. But given Keach's work and that of the splendid supporting actors (especially Robert Stephens, Judi Dench, Patrick Magee, Alan Badel), the film remains well worth seeing.

"Luther" was part of the American Film Theatre series, in which certain plays were adapted for film and exhibited in some 500 US theatres on a subscription basis --