Philipp_Flersheim

Noble apes against bad humans. No: bad humans against noble apes! Lots of computer-generated noble apes. Real humans. Real bad humans in heavy makeup: eye liner half way down their cheeks. Scary! Dirt. Bad weather. Cold. Looong slow takes. Remnants of a bygone civilization: useless pylons, deserted houses, a snowplow. It is all so tragic! Nothing much happens for looong slow periods. Then: bursts of action. Sparse dialogue, much of it in sign language. More bad weather. Apes take care of little girl. Noble apes! Snow. Humans look scared. Apes look angry (or sad). It is all so tragic! And thought-provoking! But which thoughts? Do I want to know? Do I care? Can't say I do. Yawn.

Exceptionally, this film was produced under the aegis of the High Command of the German Army rather than by Joseph Goebbels' so-called 'Ministry of popular enlightenment and propaganda'. Very likely, if Goebbels' outfit had been responsible, a few heads would have rolled. I have never seen a cruder, more primitive piece of junk. Even the Germans of the early 1940s must have noticed that 'Sieg im Westen' could in no way stand up to the comparatively sophisticated propaganda spread by the ugly little doctor and produced by people like for instance Riefenstahl. This piece begins with a good 15 minutes of potted Germany history from the Thirty Years War onward. The next bit claims that the English and the French of the 1930s - lead by appeasers of the calibre of Chamberlain and defeatists like Gamelin - were out for war with Germany. The occupation of Poland, Denmark and Norway are quickly dealt with, and then follows the western front. I suppose the Wehrmacht was worried about giving away their military secrets; that's the only explanation I can think of for why the Sichelschnitt-plan is presented as an inept copy of the Schlieffen-plan or why the account of the taking of Fort Eben Emael is fantasy from start to finish. And so it goes on. Is this in any way interesting? Perhaps because it demonstrates the attitude of the German army command: They must truly have despised the viewers of this garbage.

'Luther' is not a universally good film, but its strengths outweigh the weaknesses by far. So what is weak about it? Mostly the plot. This ticks off all the important episodes of Luther's life: 1. His decision to become a monk, 2. His journey to Rome, 3. His appointment to a chair at Wittenberg University, 4. The 95 theses, 5. The imperial diet of Worms in 1521, 6. Luther's benevolent captivity as 'Junker Jorg' in Wartburg Castle, 7. The Peasants' War and finally, 8., the diet of Augsburg where Melanchthon presents the definition of the Lutheran faith. Fair enough, but what is missing in all this a narrative arc that builds up suspense and leads to a proper conclusion. On the plus side is the acting: Joseph Fiennes is an impressive Luther, Bruno Ganz is equally good as Staupitz, and Peter Ustinov is fantastic as Elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony. I also liked Torben Liebrecht as Emperor Charles V - a minor but important role. Another strength is the incredible care the film takes to get the sixteenth century right. In this respect, watching it probably comes as close to time travelling as you are likely to get. Everything - the way people look, the fashions, the interiors - is exactly right. There are a number of films that achieve this for Tudor England, but this is the first one I have watched where Renaissance Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, comes to life. The film does take some liberties: Thus, you get the impression that at the diet of Augsburg of 1530, the majority of the princes defied Charles V. In reality, only one elector (Saxony), a couple of other princes and some free cities supported Lutheranism. The vast majority of the diet condemned the new faith - a decision against which the Lutheran minority lodged a formal protest, which is why they are called Protestants. Also, the closing credits claim that Luther inaugurated an age of tolerance, or words to this effect. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be sure, in the Empire, religious wars were brief (1546-47, 1552) and the settlement of 1555 worked reasonably well. But this settlement did not establish tolerance; it established the regional segregation of Protestants and Catholics. Neither did it prevent further religious tensions: Especially in its early stages, the Thirty Years War had a strong religious component. Claiming that the Reformation brought religious tolerance is nonsense. Still, this does not change the fact that all in all 'Luther' is a very good film.