Martin Luther in film: Luther (2003) and its portrayal of supporting characters part 1

In the cast of the movie Luther (2003) are combination characters (several historical figures blended into one for simplicity) that also serve to thread the scenes together. Film critics usually laud these supporting characters. Why not? They play the richest, most invented parts.

Jonathan Firth as Aleander

Most critics found Jonathan Firth’s portrayal of the Vatican diplomat Aleander pleasant. He was ubiquitous in the movie. He advised the pope. He advised cardinals. He advised the emperor. He played a major advisor for the emperor at the confrontation at the Worms Reichstag in 1521. He was several historical figures morphed into one. Of course a nuncio would not advise the emperor and in fact Aleander was not present during the actual confrontation in Worms.

The historical Aleander was however in Worms at the time and his dispatches to Rome are highly entertaining. One dispatch breathlessly reported, “All of Germany is in an utter uproar; nine-tenths of the people are shouting, ‘Luther,’ and the other tenth--if Luther is of no consequence to them--at least have ‘Death to the Roman court!’ as their slogan…” The real Aleander, disdained by the emperor and the princes alike, was terrified. Hardly the slick ubiquitous operator portrayed in the film.

Benjamin Sadler as Spalatin

The character of Spalatin played by Benjamin Sadler is used like the character of Aleander. In the film Spalatin threads scenes together and as the secretary of Frederick the Wise he is an information bearer. Spalatin is portrayed as somber and humorless in the film. Letters of his time reveal he was in true life humorless and even thin-skinned. He began his service to Frederick the Wise as a tutor to the royal boys in a petulant way. The boys were interested only in the rough ways of the knights. Frederick the Wise however was an excellent judge of men. Though Frederick cherished knightly virtues he knew some men did not and were nevertheless men. He gave Spalatin more responsibility than tutoring because what Spalatin possessed was integrity, great tact and high intellect.

Spalatin was also completely loyal and trustworthy to both Frederick the Wise and Luther. He was a colorless man among firebrands and correctly portrayed as bland. From the perspective of historical accuracy however the portrayal falls short. Spalatin was not at the Wartburg. He did not just run into Luther in the countryside, town squares etc. He did however correspond constantly with Luther. Hundreds of letters exist, almost entirely those from Luther to Spalatin. Spalatin’s hundreds of letters to Luther are implied. Spalatin’s face-to-face encounters with Luther were not rare, but they were usually dinners with Luther at the old Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg. And of course he attended the wedding of Luther to Katherina von Bora.

Bruno Ganz as Staupitz

The character of Johann von Staupitz was anything but bland. Staupitz was Luther’s spiritual mentor. More than that, as documents prove, he was wise with a biting sense of humor. Once when Luther complained his work load was going to kill him, Staupitz quipped that God could use workers in heaven too. Another time (this incident portrayed in the film) as the young Luther agonized over God’s harsh judgment of him, Staupitz snapped that God did not hate Luther but rather Luther hated God!

The Swiss actor Bruno Ganz excels in the part. His performance is the most nuanced in the film. Cooper-like he is communicating his thoughts even when he has no dialogue. The part is moderately accurate, covering actual interplay between the wise Staupitz and the fiery, troubled Luther. Staupitz however is also used as thread, appearing in situations that have no historical support. He was in fact the Vicar-General of the Augustinians. In addition, as an old reliable friend he served Frederick the Wise's blossoming  young university. The historical Staupitz was far too busy to be Luther’s chaperone.

Q. What does it say about film critics that they laud the most inaccurate portrayals?

Martin Luther in film: Luther (2003) and its portrayal of Frederick the Wise

Critics gushed over Peter Ustinov’s portrayal of Frederick the Wise as a befuddled but witty 80-year-old. Deft as he was, Ustinov did not have many options because he was past 80 himself. In fact, during the ‘Luther affair’ the real Frederick the Wise was a 60-ish prince, in poor health but iron-willed and second in power only to the emperor.

Other than Ustinov’s off-the-mark casting and simpering, befuddled behavior was the movie’s portrayal of Frederick ‘historically’ correct?

Let us not try to count the misrepresentations. Here are but a few of the howlers:

At 28 min. into Luther (2003):

Frederick looks timidly from a window in his castle at a performance of players in the courtyard. Although the castle at that time (1517) was a mere 20 years old, the window is ancient. He sees Luther loitering under a tree and turns to his court painter Lucas Cranach. “Is Luther open to persuasion?” he asks Cranach, although his private secretary Spalatin is at the time talking to Luther! Moreover, Frederick had been well aware of Luther since the Reuchlin controversy in 1513. He surely already knew a great deal about Luther from Spalatin, who did indeed know Luther very well.

At 56 min. into Luther (2003):
Luther has just fled Cardinal Cajetan in 1518. Cajetan writes Frederick demanding he send Luther to Rome. Frederick, while playing among his relics in the presence of Spalatin, once again asks about Luther’s recalcitrance. Reference is made (once again and erroneously) that Spalatin and Luther were law students together (at Erfurt). Luther went into the monastery before he was to become a law student. Frederick reassures himself Luther is merely practicing his right as a professor to debate important issues. Spalatin worries about an answer for Cardinal Cajetan. Frederick impishly replies there are two ways to respond to one ‘stronger than yourself’, to not reply at all or to say no in ‘such a kind and thoughtful way it befuddles them’. The truth is far more complex. In the next two months letters flew back and forth all over the empire and Rome. Frederick scoffed to his cousin Duke George, “I fancy I can do as [my jester] Clauss Narr says, go on drinking my wine and being a heretic all my days…” [Smith, 143] “Drinking wine” was proverbial for ignoring trouble. Frederick did however answer Cajetan and there was nothing impish or coy about “As for sending him to Rome or banishing him, that we will do only after he has been convicted of heresy.” [Bainton, 78]   

At 1:00 hour into Luther (2003):

Charles Miltitz arrives from Rome, brandishing the coveted Golden Rose as a bribe for Frederick. In fact Miltitz did not bring the Golden Rose but held it back with the condition that Frederick must first agree to surrender Luther. Frederick did however receive the Golden Rose without surrendering Luther. In the movie a ridiculous fabrication continues of Frederick disdaining the rose to Spalatin, waving it off contemptuously and adding this invention, “And while you’re about it, move all the relics out…” In truth, the image-conscious Frederick did covet the Golden Rose. Also it is factual that he displayed the relics as well as collected them for another four years.

The misrepresentations go on and on…but one more howler in particular deserves scrutiny.

At 1:39 into Luther (2003):
This is perhaps the most outlandish scene of all. Worthy of a Custer movie starring a charming, convivial Errol Flynn. After the conclusion of the Peasants’ War in 1525 the movie Luther finds Frederick the Wise alone in his study. Frederick whimpers, “Martin Luther?”, then exclaims, “We meet at last!” Luther presents him with his translation of the New Testament into German. This scene is notable for its concentration of falsehoods. First, a powerful prince at the time was virtually never alone; certainly Frederick could never have been approached in such a way. Perhaps it was his ghost - for by this time Frederick the Wise was dead and buried in the castle church in Wittenberg. That ghostly appearance might also explain the totally inappropriate drab surroundings for a great electoral prince. We must pretend Frederick the Wise was alive to continue exposing the falsehoods. The point has been made again and again by historians that the real Luther never exchanged one word with the real Frederick. Furthermore, Luther’s New Testament had been printed in September 1522, over two years before this preposterous scene. “This will separate us from Rome forever,” laments an amazed but troubled Frederick (or his ghost). Frederick goes on to predict all the dire things that may happen. This concocted scene really is brain-warping. Don’t use it as a source to study for a quiz. 

Q. Is there a significant ethical difference between a fabricated scene that may have occurred and a fabricated scene that runs counter to historical evidence?

Martin Luther in film: Luther (2003) and the Peasants’ War

VHS/DVD Product blurb for Luther (2003): “Even when threatened with violent death, Luther refuses to back down, sparking a bloody revolution that shakes the entire continent to its core.”

The movie Luther (2003) lasts 1 hour and 55 minutes. Ten minutes of that (1:25 to 1:35) connects the unruly behavior in late 1521 in Wittenberg (spurred by Karlstadt) to the eruption and tragic culmination of the Peasants’ War in 1525. The dialogue leaves no doubt at all that Luther’s stand on the Bible is responsible for the chaos and slaughter of 100,000 peasants.

Bits of the dialogue flow as follows:

• As Luther returns to Wittenberg disguised as Junker Georg (young knight George) he sees two men dead from hanging. A blacksmith explains: “No reason…they got in the way of a mob of peasants looting a monastery. The whole world has been turned upside down by that madman Luther…his damned ideas have set the world on fire…”
• Later Luther, trudging among slaughtered peasants, mutters, “I have finally torn the world apart…The blood they shed is as nothing compared to the slaughter I have unleashed.”
• Luther says to Spalatin: “100,000 dead peasants.”  

There are so many falsehoods in the movie’s ten minutes of chaos and disjointed history a blog is not adequate to address them all. What do recent historians say?

• Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, 208: “The Peasants' War did not arise out of any immediate connection with the religious issues of the sixteenth century because agrarian unrest had been brewing for fully a century. Uprisings had occurred all over Europe, but especially in south Germany, where particularly the peasants suffered…” [Note that Saxony is in east central Germany].
• Hajo Holborn, The Reformation, 170: “The French Revolution was not caused by the philosophy of the Enlightenment, nor was the so-called Peasants’ War caused by Lutheranism…” and “social conditions…had promoted unrest and revolts among the peasantry of southern Germany before the Reformation.”
• Scott and Scribner, The German Peasants’ War, 2:“The peasant rebellion was undeniably an anti-feudal revolt…”
• Martin Brecht, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 180: “…we must once again be clear about what Luther said. He accused the peasants of breaking faith, revolting, and abusing the evangelical name. It was the right and responsibility of the government to take action against this.”

That Luther disapproved of the Peasants’ War is true. That Luther caused the Peasants’ War is a falsehood. Still, don’t be surprised if a patron of the movie Luther (2003) sputters righteously in your face, “Luther himself admitted he caused the deaths of 100,000 innocent peasants!”

Q. How can one argue effectively against bumpersticker history?

Martin Luther in film: Luther (2003) featuring Joseph Fiennes (introduction)

Those keenly interested in the Martin Luther phenomenon or just the Holy Roman Empire of Luther’s time should not dismiss the impact of a movie—flawed or not--that may be seen by tens of millions. Not just at the time of release but well into the future. A dismissive attitude will not help answer questions or remedy any wrong conclusions arising from such a movie.

***

Peter Ustinov as befuddled Frederick the Wise

Luther (2003) is such a movie. The cast in Luther (2003) is rock solid. Peter Ustinov is charming, although he portrays an iron-willed 60-ish prince second in power only to the emperor as a befuddled but witty 80-year-old. Certainly film crics loved impish Ustinov’s off-the-mark portrayal. The most right-on nuanced characterization is Luther’s mentor Staupitz by the gifted Swiss actor Bruno Ganz. Fiennes correctly portrays Luther as an educated monk from a peasant background slowly gaining confidence under his mentor Staupitz. Regarding Luther’s initial confrontation with the emperor at Worms, Fiennes’ portrayal is totally valid, displaying Luther’s momentary fear and trembling in an exalted aristocratic circle of which he knows nothing but gossip. The actor is also correct in showing an initially passionless acceptance of Katherina von Bora as his wife. This norm for the time, tiptoeing uneasily into an arranged marriage, was more traumatic (even troubling) for an ex-monk.

***

There can be few qualms with the lush cinematography or the actual historic settings of many scenes. Even the NY Times admitted the film, shot on “100 sets in 20 locations throughout Germany, Italy and the Czech Republic, is ravishingly beautiful”. The Times further described it a “handsome, fact-filled historical epic” that “tries to cram a textbook's worth of 16th-century German history into two hours”. Variety noted the failure of “obscure characters who lack the sharp introductions and through-lines needed to make them interesting”.

***

The movie uses dramatically-licensed tricks of compressing time, combining characters for convenience, juxtaposing and juggling elements in time and creating conversations for which there is no proof whatever. History after all can be confusing; it’s so much easier to concoct a fiction. One also gets the unmistakable impression the movie was four or more hours long and ruthless editing cut it to two hours, truncating characters and time. In spite of these shortcomings the movie overall is a well-intended dramatization of the Luther phenomenon.

***

But would you dare take a test on the ‘facts’ therein? A resounding NO.

***

Other than the above gimmicks common to screen bios there are flatout fallacies. The most vile fallacy is that the Reformation caused the Peasants War. This and other fallacies in the movie will be discussed in succeeding blogs.