Martin Luther

In 1517 a young monk nailed a long paper to the door of Wittenberg's Cathedral containing 95 thesis - they were 95 different questions that the current Roman Catholic Church failed to settle in it's accounting of the Christian faith. When Martin Luther did his act he started more than a personal dilemma of the might of the Church (and much of the state) against one lone monk, but he also shook that mighty Church and created the greatest schism it faced in five hundred years (the last one being the split with the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Church about 1050 A.D.). Luther never envisioned his questions would lead to the Protestant Reformation, but once it got beyond the initial query of the 95 thesis - when he was faced with either knuckling under or facing death by burning as a heretic - Luther proved himself the man to continue leading his reformation.

He was not a flawless figure. He was self-centered, and resented rival "heretics" (Zwingly, John of Munster, Calvin), and he would become really vicious towards the Jews for failing to follow his leadership into "true Christianity". In fact his diatribes against the Jews would become the true foundation of modern German anti-Semitism. But he remains the founder of Protestantism.

His flaws do not appear in this film, which was made by the Lutheran Church.

However the film is a pretty faithful account of his conflict with the organized Church, and how it led to the creation of Protestantism (and, in particular, Lutheranism). It gave Niall MacGinnis the best straight dramatic lead role in his career (the closest second is his Karswell, the villain in NIGHT OF THE DEMON). MacGinnis always was a superior supporting actor in small parts, so it is worth noting that when he was given an important part like Luther he did the part well.

This reverential biographical film of the founder of the Lutheran Church by the Lutheran Church would hardly have been anything else. The many flaws of Martin Luther, his sexism, his anti-Semitism, get no mention here. His contributions to theology and to the German culture the good ones are discussed at great length.

Martin Luther is not THE founder of Protestantism, he's the founder of one of the Protestant denominations. There was a fellow over in Switzerland named John Calvin, a guy later on in Scotland named John Knox, and even that wife slaughtering monarch in England Henry VIII all founded various Protestant denominations.

Yet Luther, a priest who originally wanted to be a lawyer and who attacked the ruling Roman Catholic Church, certainly showed a lawyer's training. His famous 95 questions nailed to the church door in Wittemberg was nothing less than an indictment.

The great contribution theologically speaking that Luther made was the notion that no one, not even a Pope intercedes for man in his relationship with the Deity. One is saved by faith alone in the fact that Jesus is the Messiah who sacrificed himself for the sins of man.

It should not be forgotten that at this time the Catholic church was very engaged in the geopolitics of Europe and the world as a temporal power as well as a center of faith. The Pope as a temporal ruler had temporal needs like the ruler of any other state, maybe more so with his dual function. Hence the sale of indulgences which according to the Lutheran versions were dispensations for sins to come. I'm sure Catholics will differ, but they didn't produce this film.

Niall McGinniss makes a fine and upstanding Martin Luther. The film was shot on location in West Germany in the places mentioned in the story. The film also got Oscar nominations for Art&Set Design and black and white cinematography in its very graphic depiction of medieval Germany.

It's not my view of Martin Luther, but it certainly is the view that Lutherans certainly have of him.

The film is the accurate representation of culture being adapted to the modern audience, and this is why it is a must watch for people of all ages. It provides background and historical insights into one of the most pivoting points in the history of religion. However, instead of being a commentated documentary, it is a biographical film about the life of one of the most influential and controversial figures in the history of Christianity. It accurately tells the story of Martin Luther - from the big events like the posting of his Ninety-Five Theses, to simple get-togethers with his ex-colleagues from school. It has a very classical, narrow story line without any plot-twists that are so popular in the cinema culture of today. It tells the story as it is, without over-complicating it; and I find this rather nifty, because Martin Luther's philosophy also focuses on the simplicity of religion. However, in my opinion the largest thing that the film accomplishes is not the historical account of things, but rather the depiction of the atmosphere and the "vibe" of the time period. First of all, it shows the great value that was put on religion during the early sixteenth century. This can accurately demonstrate how people's psyche worked at the time period, and allows for a theoretical explanation of their behaviors. It explains the familial and spiritual values of the common people, but it also explains the serious decisions made by political leaders that were influenced by religion. The film successfully shows how religion used to be at the epicenter of everything, and how everything was filtered through a different prism. If today one's religious views and position only affect that person, and the community that he is part of; before, a different opinion in regards to religion would mean a large conflict, because religion lied at the basis of everything, and when it was challenged - a lot was being put at risk. Furthermore, it depicts the manners of people of the time and helps the viewer have a better understanding of the social structure; which to my surprise was less conservative than I had expected. However, not being a historian, I cannot state whether or not the film does and accurate job of depicting the culture of the time period. Secondly, the film does a great job of opening up Martin Luther as a character - Instead of being an abstract figure in the heads of people, he becomes a real person who went through law school, a monastic lifestyle and rebellious, religious activism. The viewer is showed how real people can have an impact on the world. However, despite being very inspiring, I was a little bit disappointed in the lack of depth in Martin Luther's character. I had expected to be presented to his "realness," but instead I was introduced to a pretty much perfect human being. When there is an obvious protagonist in the film, a character who is too perfect for the world, the film becomes a little bit boring. In modern day cinema, this phenomenon occurs rarely, because producers have figured out the audience prefers real and relatable to perfect and unreachable. However, this practice did not yet come into action when the film was shot, and so we, as the audience, do not get too much depth to the character. The film, in my opinion, is very biased - it presents Martin Luther as the good guy and the founder of Protestantism, and it presents Protestantism as the dominant religion; This is not necessarily true, because Luther was one of the many activists who had this approach to religion. The film is more theological than analytical and objective; but despite being so one-sided, it actually provides a better insight into the Protestant culture and philosophy. However, all this aside, the film is done very masterfully. Despite being rather old and black and white, it has amazing cinematics. The scenery is not beautiful and authentic, but it is actually the real-life places in which the events of the film were taking place in. The camera movements are very professional and modern - from the following shot, to close-ups. The non- diegetic and diegetic sounds create a great atmosphere and are of a surprisingly high quality. However, one thing that I did not enjoy was the abundant use of voice-over, as it is a rather cheap trick that often goes against the "show don't tell" policy. The costumes were also fantastic. I personally am not sure whether or not they are historically accurate, but they did create an aesthetic and a very unique atmosphere to the film. I particularly enjoyed the final scene when people came together to sing the hymn - not only did it show us the full grandness of the church and the power that the unity of people with common belief create; but it also shows great diversity. I had chills when I was watching this. It highlights the themes of togetherness and unity; and it brings everyone together. Finally, I want to say that I really enjoyed the acting in this film. I always noticed how movies that are aimed at portraying a different time period often have trouble with casting, as it is incredibly difficult to play something that you have never experienced for yourself, and make it seem real. Once again I would like to mention that I have no way of knowing whether or not the film is culturally accurate, but it certainly does seem so - from the actors' accents and manner of speech to their gait, everything seemed so organic, that at times I was forgetting that the film was shot in the fifties and not when the events were happening. Overall, I think the movie is a must watch as it provides a valuable insight into the cultural and historical background, as well as into the theology of Protestantism. However, it must be viewed with caution, as it leaves many things out and is also very biased.

This excellent film brings to life Luther's growing realization that the religion, to which he had dedicated his life, was flawed. His character is shown to mature in believable stages, culminating in acts of ferocious courage.

The costumes, sets and hairstyles were authentic and help transport the viewer to the past very effectively.

Luther's message and wisdom are amply portrayed and serve as a basis for anyone to examine their beliefs.

The film does not suffer from dating, even though it was made over 50 years ago. The black and white imagery imparts a sense of timelessness, worthy of the subject matter. The acting is, almost without exception, very natural and believable.

Before he could be formally blacklisted Irving Pichel fled to Europe where he channelled his feelings about the UAAC into this forthright account of an obvious historical precedent.

With the camera in the able hands of Oscar-nominated Joseph Brun, Niall MacGuinness gives a performance of evangelical zeal in what was probably his only leading role in a film.