O
oudave
Guest
Hi
I am watching the movie Luther. Has anyone seen it yet? if you have what did you think of it?
Dave
I am watching the movie Luther. Has anyone seen it yet? if you have what did you think of it?
Dave
- Status
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
Hi Dave,
Which version?
Luther (2003) with Joseph Fiennes; or
Luther (1973) with Stacy Keach?
I saw last month Luther (2003) with Joseph Fiennes as Martin Luther, and thought it was an educational movie fit for PBS or the History Channel which made the Catholic Church look real good.
The movie down played Martin Luther’s insanity and his complicity with the German princes as a willing dupe against the Vatican so the princes could break away from the Pope.
It would be cool to compare and contrast the movies: Luther with Luther, to see what each emphasized or de-emphasized of the reformation.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
saw the movie with Ralph Fiennes, and got disgusted because of egregious historical inaccuracies, which always gets in the way when I try to watch movies based on history. If they can’t get the history right, I figure, they can’t get the character and the biography right either.
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
Then I am envious of Mel Gibson who can drop $30 million dollars of his own money to make a religious movie as he interpreted it.
My version of LUTHER would be as historically accurate as possible, but alas I have never even seen $30 million let alone have it to produce a movie.
C
catsrus
Guest
Kevin, you should give Mel a call. (his “pubs” claim he’s a regular, approachable guy) I do hear he’s looking for another historical project and who could do it better?
P
Peace-bwu
Guest
I have been praying for over a year that Mel Gibson’s next project will be a historically accurate (from the invasion of Mexico to present day scientists investigating the tilma) of Juan Diego and Our Lady of Guadelupe. He would do such an awesome job portrying that epic time span. It would be amazing! Especially if he did it in a format of Scientists studying it, as the story unfolds, the miracles surrounding it,adn at the end the Pope naming Our Lady of Guadelupe the patroness of the Americas. Can you imagine the opening scene centered on the enormity of human sacrifices to the Aztec god, the invasin of Spain, priests trying to do missionary work amid the Spanish invasion, the story of Juan Diego, Our Lady and the tilma, the castillian roses … gorgeous. parallel the skeptical scientists (their job is to be unbiased, of course) with the skeptical priests asking Juan Diego to ask Our Lady to perform a miracle, The abortion mills paralleled with the human sacrifices to the blood -thirsty Aztec gods, They were sacrificed alive, dismembered terrible and familiar to our society’s murder of one in four unborn babies to the “gods” of materialism, greed and selfishness.Kevin, you should give Mel a call. (his “pubs” claim he’s a regular, approachable guy) I do hear he’s looking for another historical project and who could do it better?
Its funny before I knew about Gibson working on “The Passion of the Christ” he started popping into my head every time I prayed the Rosary. I’m not into celebrity worship so for a week I just kept thinking "what an awful distraction, why am I thinking of Mel Gibson of all ppl.??? Then I started praying for him and I remembered that he is Catholic… The prayers quickly turned into being about him doing the story of Our Lady of Guadelupe. A few weeks later I heard about the Passion and was amazed, I believe the Holy Spirit was calling me to pray for him, crazy though it may sound. I know, off the topic but you brought up Mel Gibson…
I will watch the movie, Luther. When my husband (former Lutheran) and I saw the previews, he was a little disgusted, assuming that they would portray the Catholic Church as Evil and Martin Luther as the savior of the world, a genius.
I wish I had gone to film school !
J
JohnPaul0
Guest
I had heard the Mel’s next film was going to be about the Maccabbes, but I haven’t heard anything lately.
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Imagine if the followers Adolf Hitler made a movie about his life today. They could make him look great and Saintly too just as the 2003 Luther movie of did of Luther. All you have to do is leave out the other side or just portray the issues that make your man look good.
The 2003 movie about Luther is historcally accurate so to speak, just totally unbalanced and without perspective. The side of the Christs Catholic Church is just not presented or made.
When the major contributor to the Luther movie was in fact a Lutheran organization you would expect it to be bias towards the Lutheran church and only present their side. This is just what happened. No surprise here.
Watch the 2003 Luther movie and compare it to the 1973 version. Note the diferances and similarites. Compare both to history and try to learn from all three.
Remember, Hollywierd is out to make money, not historically fair and balanced movies. Even the 1973 movie is somewhat bias towards Luther and kind to the man though much more accurate then the newer propaganda movie.
C
_Christopher
Guest
My blog entry on this topic went something like this…
–
I watched Luther last night due to a Protestant friend’s suggestion.
I was sympathetic to Luther’s feelings about the abuses in Rome and he could have been a great reformer of the Church, in my opinion…might have even been a canonized Saint if he hadn’t gone off the deep end. He reminded me in the beginning of Jesus getting angry that the money changers were taking advantage of people in the temple.
There were some inaccuracies however. The main one off the top of my head was the touching scene at the end where the “emperor” was demanding that the German Bible be censored and the people offered to be beheaded instead. It wasn’t the fact that the Bible was in German that they wanted it supressed (the proof is that Luther’s was not the first German Bible, but the movie portrayed it as such), it was rather that Luther inserted heretical doctine into the text. He actually inserted the word “alone” after faith in Romans, for example.
Since this was a Lutheran movie, I understand the Lutheran slant, and I appreciated seeing their point of view, but some items were just inaccurate. They portayed the Church as demanding that everything should be “Roman” as opposed to “German,” but that’s not the point at all. Its not that the Church is correct because it is in Rome, it is correct because Jesus set it up and promised the gates of Hell would never overcome it. The Vatican doesn’t have to be in Rome at all, and in fact, for one point in history it wasn’t even in Rome.
The movie didn’t even mention Luther’s “faith alone” ideas or his other heretical writings. They portrayed the Church wanting to burn Luther at the stake simply for speaking out against the sale of indulgences. They also didn’t mention Luther’s probable mental illness and inability to feel forgiven through confession, which drove him to “faith alone.”
The movie also carefully left out Luther’s extremely hateful writings about the Jews and also his hateful writings about the peasant revolt, etc. I know he is a hero to the Lutherans, and some Protestants in general, but he wasn’t the angel he was portrayed to be.
But to be fair, the Pope at the time was a joke and the Church had their part to play in the tragedy that occured.
–
I watched Luther last night due to a Protestant friend’s suggestion.
I was sympathetic to Luther’s feelings about the abuses in Rome and he could have been a great reformer of the Church, in my opinion…might have even been a canonized Saint if he hadn’t gone off the deep end. He reminded me in the beginning of Jesus getting angry that the money changers were taking advantage of people in the temple.
There were some inaccuracies however. The main one off the top of my head was the touching scene at the end where the “emperor” was demanding that the German Bible be censored and the people offered to be beheaded instead. It wasn’t the fact that the Bible was in German that they wanted it supressed (the proof is that Luther’s was not the first German Bible, but the movie portrayed it as such), it was rather that Luther inserted heretical doctine into the text. He actually inserted the word “alone” after faith in Romans, for example.
Since this was a Lutheran movie, I understand the Lutheran slant, and I appreciated seeing their point of view, but some items were just inaccurate. They portayed the Church as demanding that everything should be “Roman” as opposed to “German,” but that’s not the point at all. Its not that the Church is correct because it is in Rome, it is correct because Jesus set it up and promised the gates of Hell would never overcome it. The Vatican doesn’t have to be in Rome at all, and in fact, for one point in history it wasn’t even in Rome.
The movie didn’t even mention Luther’s “faith alone” ideas or his other heretical writings. They portrayed the Church wanting to burn Luther at the stake simply for speaking out against the sale of indulgences. They also didn’t mention Luther’s probable mental illness and inability to feel forgiven through confession, which drove him to “faith alone.”
The movie also carefully left out Luther’s extremely hateful writings about the Jews and also his hateful writings about the peasant revolt, etc. I know he is a hero to the Lutherans, and some Protestants in general, but he wasn’t the angel he was portrayed to be.
But to be fair, the Pope at the time was a joke and the Church had their part to play in the tragedy that occured.
R
Rogo
Guest
At one point in the movie, when Luther was quoting the Bible, it came out like this: “…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell.” Full stop. It makes Jesus out to be the devil, basically. I wonder if this example of bad editing was done from ignorance or intentionally. Which would be worse?
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I second the motion
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
I’m sure Mel Gibson is an approachable guy and he would probably buy me a pint with his hard earned money; but I wouldn’t put the touch on him for $30 mil of his money so I could make a movie.Kevin, you should give Mel a call. (his “pubs” claim he’s a regular, approachable guy) I do hear he’s looking for another historical project and who could do it better?
M
Maccabees
Guest
I Like that story!
M
Maccabees
Guest
Ralph Fiennes is way better looking and a lot slimmer than Luther.
Who did that casting?
John Goodman should have played the portly heretic.
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Can Goodman play a deranged mentally ill monk?
D
Dj_Roy_Albert
Guest
I usually don’t see any movie made within the last 20 years with religion as its theme, they usually upset me & make me want to barf.
I boycotted Kevin Smiths’ ‘Dogma’ when it came to our town - the theatre is now out of business & has been just months after the movie played there. :dancing:
I boycotted Kevin Smiths’ ‘Dogma’ when it came to our town - the theatre is now out of business & has been just months after the movie played there. :dancing:
R
romano
Guest
Peace-bwu said:
Great post! Terrific idea! Yes! I’ve just finished reading Warren H. Carroll’s ‘Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness’ (1983) which is a difficult book to find but well worth the trouble. It exposes as nonsense all of the anti-Catholic propaganda that everyone has been pumped full of and tells the whole horrifying story of those Aztecs. It would make a fabulous movie!Well, since The Passion came out of Mel’s reading of Catherine Emmerich, maybe a reading of Carroll would get him fired up enough to make another great and meaningful movie. Someone should find out if he’s read the book. Or send him a copy.
- Status