Luther (1974) User Reviews

The Seen Luther Vs. The Unseen Pope

[boblipton · 6/10 · 1 April 2021]

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.

Gruelling.

[chaswe-28402 · 6/10 · 4 August 2018]

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.

Finney versus Keach

[Zriter59 · 7/10 · 25 September 2009]

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 --

Sincere accurate portrayal of the birth of Protestant Christianity

[smorgano · 20 July 2000]

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.

Begin the Reformation.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 7 July 2010]

I clicked the "spoilers" box on this comment but I don't know why. Are there still some of us who don't know what the Reformation was or who began it? Maybe so. Our shared cultural data base is shrinking at an alarming rate. Forty percent of those, between the ages of 18 and 29, surveyed two weeks ago in a Marist poll couldn't identify the country that the United States had won its independence from. So -- the Reformation was a kind of populist Protestant revolt against the authoritarian Catholic church.

"Luther" is a filmed play directed by John Osborne and so one shouldn't expect epic battles -- which figured largely in the historical event -- or overwhelming special effects.

Mostly we see Stacey Keach as a Catholic monk belonging to the Eremite Order (from which we derive our word "hermit") gradually coming to terms with the fact that the Catholic church has gotten kind of WORLDLY.

I mean Martin Luther is intelligent. He's a doctor of philosophy in Germany, and he read Latin, Greek, and is working on Hebrew. He's also a perceptive human being. He's always constipated and talks about farts. (There's a bit of scatology in the movie.) He sees signs of corruption in Mother Church in the early 1500s. First, the treacherous Medicis seems to play a part in who gets named Pope -- and the Pope then, not as now, was a powerful figure.

Then he sees people worshiping relics like the Shroud of Turin. A wooden splinter from the original cross. A single hair from the Virgin Mary. More relics than there are Saints to provide them.

Then he notices indulgences being sold by the church. What is an indulgence? You pay your money and you buy forgiveness for a sin you've committed. If that's not enough, you can buy an indulgence for a sin you are ABOUT to commit. And if THAT'S not enough. you can sell your indulgence to someone else at a profit. Not only have indulgences become currency but there's a futures market in indulgences.

Furthermore -- and this is the core of Luther's Reformation -- there is a hierarchy of authority in the Catholic church, with the Pope at the top. The Pope is represented by material things like golden candle sticks. And what he says -- the way he interprets scriptures -- goes.

Well, I'll tell you, Luther doesn't see it this way. God doesn't pass down his policies through the Pope. God is in everyman. (The Quakers were to take this reasoning to its logical conclusion.) A lot of the peasants, who are losing money to the wealthy church, agree with Martin Luther and a revolution follows. Luther condemns the revolution and endorses the efforts of the state of Germany to suppress it. The suppression succeeds and Lutheranism becomes largely a religion of the middle class, rather than the poor.

Through it all, Luther has doubts about himself, the church, his impulses, and just about everything else.

You have to hand it to Stacy Keach as Luther. He's always reliable but he's never been so good, before or after. And the supporting cast is equally good. Hugh Griffith, with his exopthalmic eyeballs, is incomparable as a tummler for indulgences.

But remember that this IS a filmed play. Everything takes place in dark interiors. They look cold and forbidding and they make you wonder why anyone would want to be a monk. I certainly wouldn't.

There's an early scene after Luther offers his first mass, in which he has a conversation with his estranged father. The scene suggests that one's attitude towards God mirrors one's attitude towards the father. And maybe it's true, Freud aside. Maybe one's attitude towards authority is shaped in one's childhood, at least in part. (Cf., George Lakoff's "Moral Politics.") Maybe justice is a matter of metaphors. Of course we have to be wary of metaphors otherwise we wind up in the "river of time" fallacy, in which time is like a river -- therefore, since you can travel up river against the current, you can go back in time.

Well, never mind all that. The Reformation seems to have been a mixed blessing. On the one hand it's given us freedom to listen directly to God, which always involves doubt. (What's He trying to say?) One the other it has deprived us of certainty. (What the Pope says must be true.) Just exactly who is in the best position to interpret God's will? Bless you all, my children.

Fact over fiction

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 6 September 2021]

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.

Insufferably paced, finely crafted character study

[the_usual_suspect · 3/10 · 2 February 2005]

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

When actor (Glover) improves a play and film...

[JuguAbraham · 8/10 · 31 March 2015]

Interesting film and play. Playwright Osborne did not intend to add the character of the knight (serving as part chorus, part psychological alter-ego) but the idea apparently came from Julian Glover the actor who plays the part. Apparently Glover added the part in the stage version as well. And that character is fascinating. According to IMDb, Tom Baker made an uncredited appearance as Pope Leo. But that bit is never shown in the version I viewed. Director Guy Green extracts good performances from all the characters, especially Stacy Keach. And cinematographer Freddie Young adds his touch with interesting camera angles in crucial scenes.

luther

[mossgrymk · 3/10 · 9 April 2021]

Movies don't come duller than this stiff filmed stage play that revolves around the sexy topic of the Reformation, to the accompaniment of the always pulse beating Gregorian chant.

He Betrayed His Revolution

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 1 March 2009]

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.