Luther

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.

This movie is an excellent character study of the Augustinian monk, Martin Luther, and his pivotal role in the political, social, economic and religious revolt against the medieval Roman Catholic Church. This revolt, which historians later called the "Reformation", and the events that precipitated it are portrayed in an amazingly accurate fashion. To those more accustomed to contemporary "historical" movies that incorporate a fair amount of fiction in their plots, this movie may seem slow moving; fact is rarely as exciting as fiction. Nevertheless for those interested in a well-directed piece of authentic Church history with outstanding character development and exceptional acting, this is the movie to see.

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.

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 --

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.