Posted on 10/26/2003 4:35:13 PM PST by PJ-Comix
I have a dream!
I have a dream that one day the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood and figure out that there is a BIG difference between Martin Luther and Martin Luther King.
One of the big problems that the movie Luther is having is that a lot of people don't realize that long before Martin Luther King, Jr made the scene, there was a Martin Luther. Therefore many people will take a pass on Luther, figuring it is some sort of Civil Rights flick. Too bad. Despite some inevitable historical and religious inaccuracies, Luther is well worth watching. And you don't have to be a Lutheran to enjoy Luther although most of the small audience of the theater where I watched this movie seemed to be composed of sweet little Lutheran ladies.
I guess the producers of Luther figured they better not alienate their audience by presenting some of the more uncomfortable aspects of Luther. Although Martin Luther can be seen in this movie struggling against the unseen devil, he wasn't shown hurling ink at him as is widely believed. Actually, Martin Luther himself claimed that he tossed something much more solid at the devil but I sure won't tell you what it was. After all, I might run for public office again and I don't want to unnecessarily antagonize Lutheran voters. Do you realize that just 537 extra Lutheran votes for me in Florida and today I would be signing presidential proclamations instead of penning movie reviews and trying to delicately avoid offending religious sensibilities?
I really appreciate the efforts of the producers of Luther to recreate the look of the early 16th century. The scenes of decadent Rome captured the feel of that era. Also the clothing and general appearance of the people seemed authentic. The biggest problem of many of these historical movies are the phony looking hairstyles of the actors and actresses. It would have been tough to accept Luther as real if he had been depicted with something like a John F. Kerry hair helmet. Come to think of it, John F. Kerry's hair helmet even looks fake on John Kerry himself.
Although Joseph Fiennes doesn't physically look much like Martin Luther, he played him convincingly except in one important aspect. The Martin Luther portrayed in Luther came off as some sort of a touchy-feely New Age type of guy. Desiderius Erasmus, the scholarly theologian of that same era, would more closely fit the touchy-feely description but definitely not Luther. In fact, Erasmus gave this friendly advice to the angry Luther in 1519 when Luther was beginning to break with the Roman Catholic Church:
"Old institutions cannot be uprooted in an instant. Quiet argument may do more than wholesale condemnation. Avoid all appearance of sedition. Keep cool. Do not get angry. Do not hate anybody."
Luther responded to Erasmus' entreaty by denouncing him as someone who "thinks all can be accomplished by civility and benevolence." This Luther bore little resemblance to the Joseph Fiennes Luther.
One reason for Luther's bitterness might have had to do with his father, Hans Luther, who beat the crap out of him on a regular basis. In the movie, Luther's father is presented as merely a cantankerous character but if he had lived in our times, Hans Luther would probably have been arrested for child abuse.
However, as bitter as Martin Luther was, he didn't come near as close as John Calvin did to needing an intensive anger management program. Somebody in Geneva, Switzerland once placed a poster that read, "GROSS HYPOCRISY" on Calvin's pulpit. Calvin then ordered a suspect to be arrested and, despite lack of evidence, he was tortured 24/7 until he "confessed." At that point he was lashed to a wooden stake with his feet nailed to it and had his head chopped off. So I guess that compared to Calvin, Luther was a touchy-feely guy.
In the movie, Pope Leo X is made out to be the bad guy. As soon as he heard about Luther tacking the 95 theses on the Wittenberg church door condemning the sale of indulgences, he ordered that Luther must be crushed. In real life it wasn't as black and white as all that. To put it in modern terms, Pope Leo X was a party animal. The sale of indulgences (tickets to heaven) was performed ostensibly to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica or to fight the Turks. In reality, the indulgences were sold to raise money to support Pope Leo's wild and crazy lifestyle (and to pay off the debts incurred by other high level clergy). As a bar buddy, Pope Leo X would be a great guy. As a pope he wasn't exactly evil but acting like a Papal Bluto Blutarsky wasn't exactly everybody's idea of how a pope should behave.
To raise the indulgence sale money, Albrecht of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz, who was in bigtime debt to the Fuggers, a German mercantile family, sent out a showman Dominican frian, Johann Tetzel (Alfred Molina) to do a tour of northeastern Germany and sell indulgences. Tetzel put on a great show in this endeavor. He put on the 16th century equivalent of a Las Vegas act with lots of entertainment followed by a big sales pitch to invest in indulgences to save people's souls or the souls of relatives. Tetzel was allowed to pitch the indulgences as he pleased but he was warned to stay out of Saxony because the ruler of Saxony, Frederick III (Peter Ustinov), didn't want any more Saxon money to be given to Rome. Tetzel followed this instruction but he came close enough to Saxony for several Saxons to cross the border and buy some soul-saving indulgences. This pissed off Frederick so when Martin Luther posted the criticisms of the sale of indulgences in the Saxon town of Wittenberg, he found a protector in Frederick the Elector.
When Pope Leo X first heard of Luther's 95 theses, he (in real life) shrugged it off as nothing more than some local German dispute between Augustinian and Dominican monks. Pope Leo X, a Medici, didn't really care much about religious doctrine one way or another. Just as long as he could continue with his extravagant parties and funding a host of artists (including Michaelangelo), he could tolerate Luther's doctrinal criticisms. If Pope Leo X had any underlying philosophy it was "SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!" It was only after Luther caused the indulgence money flow to dry up that he tried to counter the rebellious Saxon monk.
The most unusual thing about Luther is that this movie somehow made it under the radar without any public outcry despite its unflattering portrayal of Roman Catholicism. Mel Gibson's The Passion from all accounts I've heard doesn't come anywhere near condemning the Jews the way Luther blasted the Roman Catholic authorities. So while all attention was focused on the yet-to-be-released The Passion, Luther slid into movie theaters with nary a yelp of protest.
I don't know what all the controversy is concerning The Passion. That stuff happened so long ago that most Americans today don't blame the Jews for crucifying Jesus. Take myself as an example of modern American religious tolerance. I do not blame my Judaic ex-running mate, Joe Lieberman, for killing Christ. Instead I blame Holy Joe for KILLING my 2000 presidential campaign by wasting his Saturdays by ceasing to work. Hey Joe! Couldn't you have at least gotten some sort of papal dispensation or whatever you people call it to loaf around in the synagogue wearing your yamaha hat on Wednesdays when people are busy at work instead of Saturdays when the voters have free time to hear you speak? A few extra Saturdays spent getting your ears worn out listening to South Florida yentas bitching about nothing in general would have given me way more than the extra 537 Florida votes necessary to win the election.
Yeah, I went to church regularly during the campaign season but at least I used the time to hustle for votes. Holy Joe wouldn't even flick on a light switch on his Sabbath day. Get a clue, Joe. Religion as far as politicians go is strictly for show. You'll never catch me going to church when I'm not running for office which makes me as devout a Baptist as Bill Clinton. However, I am more than willing to tolerate really weird religions if it results in campaign cash in my pockets. It might seem a bit silly to worship some pot-bellied green guy as God but you better believe I'll firmly plant my lips on Buddha's Big Butt if it means that the Buddhist monks will fork over campaign donations.
The only religion I really hate is the Jehovah's Witnesses. Why? They won't vote. So why should that bother me? Because if you ask the Haitians living in Florida what religion they are, at least HALF will tell you they are Jehovah's Witnesses. At least 90% of the Haitians who voted chose me over G.W. Unfortunately at least half the Haitians eligible to vote were taken out of the voting pool because they are Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore I claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses stole over a hundred times the 537 Florida votes that I lost the election by.
As far as the movie under review, did Luther and the Reformation finally succeed? Take a look around you at the plethora of white bread sandwiches and summer sausages for a clue. Only Protestants could invent and consume such food items.
Despite Luther being the root cause for some really bland food, I liked Luther the movie quite a bit for presenting an interesting historical and religious drama. I enjoyed the big screen portrayal of those times although the religious dispute wasn't quite as black and white as presented in the movie. Therefore, on my Chad Rating Scale of one to ten chads with ten chads being best, I give Luther nine chads.
No animals but several major religions were harmed in the production of this "Al Gore At The Movies" review.
A friend of mine, Mohamadou Thiam aka Bamba, is a Senegalese musician. Anyway, soon after I first met him about 9 years ago he told me the story of some religious poet in Senegal who was spurned by the people and then walked out into the desert and then dropped dead under a tree. Well, somehow I thought this was supposed to be a funny story so I started laughing loudly until I noticed that Bamba was actually crying. Then I realized he was serious and sad and it wasn't supposed to be a funny story. Man, did I feel lousy so I apologized. But, in retrospect, the fact that I did misinterpret his story is sort of funny in itself. Hey, I'm used to people telling FUNNY stories so that is what I expected.
Also no Jeb Bushes were harmed in the production of this movie review.
Hold on, Sparky! Catholic bashing is always OK in present-day America. It's actually encouraged in many quarters. The difference with Mel Gibson's "Passion" is that this involves a Christian telling the truth about the behavior of unbelievers. That stuff (truth) is not acceptable.
So, to recap: telling the Truth opens one up to vicious attacks. But criticizing Catholics is a big yawn.
Anyone who can still find it in theatres should take it in. It documents one of the most important events in Christian history.
Y'mean that dead troublemaking liar Michael King?
click here for the truth
Hey, it's not Like Evangelicals get a lot of respect from Hollywood either.
Somehow I think white bread sandwiches and summer sausages are prohibited by law in your particular burrough.
Ironically, my nabe has plenty of Lutheran Churches, as it once had a large Scandanavian population.
That must have been quite a while ago. So who goes to those Lutheran churches nowadays?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.