In any case, the film chronicles well the politics of the day, and how Luther's writings and preaching were used by many in Germany to further their own goals, much to Luther's dismay. Many times in his life, Martin wished that he could have kept his mouth shut about the tragedies he saw within the church, as people died because of his stand. Still, he could not keep silent, stating famously instead to the Emperor of Germany, "I can and will not retract. Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God." That scene, the Diet of Worms in 1521 is very well depicted, portraying Luther as history records him — an imperfect man full of doubts about many things, sometimes including his own sanity, but sure that people within his beloved church were tearing it apart for money. If only it could have been as he thought it at first - that people were acting without the knowledge or approval of Pope Leo X.
It is easy to assume that Martin Luther's speeches have been "toned down" for modern audiences. They are more sermons on "love" than strict theological exercises. And yet what I know of Martin Luther suggests that the tenor of the messages is largely accurate, which says more about modern American protestant churches than about Martin Luther, I think.
The film is rated PG-13 for "disturbing images of violence." It is worth noting also that Luther and his fellow monks are depicted as much more earthy than we expect our preachers to be today. In once scene, Martin is struggling in prayer and cries out against his spiritual adversary, "You devil, you s--t!"
I heartily recommend this movie for everybody 13 or older. For protestant Christians, it is a fascinating examination of the foundation of the worldwide protestant church. For all others, it is a well-made historical epic of one man of principle reluctantly taking on an enormous establishment determined to silence him at any cost. As a bonus, it happens to be more historically accurate than most historical bio-pics.
Article comments
1 - andy
I would say that Southern Baptists are probably closer to the doctrines Luther thought than the modern day Lutherans are though.
2 - Sean Hackbarth
But not the Missouri Synod Lutherans as I can attest to.
3 - Michelle
Naturally the films gets a lot of media attention here in Germany (I think it started on Thursday). Though, a lot of it isn't historical fact - for instance (as I recently learnt) Luther never actually said the words: "Here I stand. I can do no other."
I didn't decide yet whether to see the film or not. I can't really imagine Joseph Fiennes as little fat monk.
4 - Phillip Winn
Michelle - the statement is much-debated. Some say he never actually nailed the these to the church door (instead of sending them privately), some say he never said "here I stand..." and so on. Given the era and so on, there will be way to have a definitive answer one way or the other, but I happen to believe that the evidence support both events as true.
Other disagree, but I don't know that we can say anything like "Luther never actually said" or did with any degree of certainty.
Heck, some people disagree even on some of the stuff he wrote - claiming it came from others and Luther put his name on it. What can you do?
But see the movie - it's excellent, even if Fiennes is considerably more attractive than Luther was.
As far as the doctrines go, I don't know that I'd say holding to Luther's doctrines is a great prize, frankly. His 95 Theses contained much that was specifically aimed at the egregious practices of his day, practices that do not continue even in the modern Roman church post-Trent.
While he was the "Father of the Reformation," he was by no means the most influential scholar thereof over time.
Better, I think, to be close to Scripture than the Luther.
5 - Michelle
For an atheist like me that's not really the question;-) Anyway, I've read about a lot of historical mistakes - which I can't recall here, because I'm everything but a history buff (in fact I hate history). The comment that made me thinking was from a Luther expert I saw on tv: If you watch this movie, get some other information, too (e.g. read a book). So, I'm thinking, why not read a book in the first place and skip the movie altogether?
6 - Phillip Winn
Sorry, the second half of my comment is directed at andy (#1), not you.
For you, why see the movie? Because it's a fun movie, and far more historically accurate that many other historical bio-pics. ;-)