Luther in film: Empires: Martin Luther (2002) How well is Frederick the Wise portrayed?

The film introduces Frederick the Wise just past its halfway point. The narrator accurately enough states Frederick the Wise began “to quietly protect this loudmouthed theologian that lay under his rule”. Left unsaid was the special prestige Frederick the Wise (in 1518 in the 32nd year of his 39-year reign) enjoyed with all the powers of Europe (including the popes). Frederick was without doubt the most highly respected of all the electoral princes of the Holy Roman Empire.

 Heiko Oberman

Esteemed historian Heiko Oberman summed up Frederick this way:

Historians of every stripe have found only one statesman thoroughly praiseworthy: Frederick the Wise. A German and a man of integrity, he is considered to have been a staunch representative of the interests of the empire in a sea of corruptibility and national betrayal. [Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil, 1990, 32, translation of Luther, Mensch zwischen Gott und Teufel, 1982),]

Frederick had a history of being fair and just - long before the arrival of Luther. He was also a virtual pacifist. When told by his advisors a foe could be taken with the loss of only five men, he replied, “One is too many.” He believed ‘it is easy to take a life but impossible to restore it’.

Yet, one of the well qualified scholars in this film insists that the motives of Frederick the Wise are a mystery. After acknowledging Frederick protected Martin Luther, Dr. Euan Cameron states timidly “The motives of Frederick the Wise are something of a mystery.” Cameron continues, “Partly, I think there is a sort of pride…over Luther…his learned, famous theologian.”

Frederick II (the Gentle) of Saxony [1411-1464]
Frederick the Wise’s grandfather was not gentle in resisting the influence of Rome

Dr. Susan Karant-Nunn states correctly that Frederick and his antecedents (the Wettin electoral dynasty) had often opposed Rome and tried to reduce its power in their territory. Perhaps too cynically however (as well as anachronistically) she suggests Frederick seized on Luther’s ideas for a high-principled reason to oppose the influence of Rome rather his own greedy, political reasons. That jaded opinion is through the lens of a modern; it is incompatible with the beliefs of a medieval dynastic prince whose first allegiance was to his territory. Surprising. Dr. Karant-Nunn herself later (in a 2005 journal) warned that there is a "chasm separating the prevailing value system of Luther’s day and that of our own".

In a similar vein Karant-Nunn states Frederick “perceived the usefulness of Martin Luther” and “wants to go on using him as a kind of weapon against the papacy and the church”. The 'church’ was in the mind of the believer (or nonbeliever). Frederick fully believed he as sovereign was responsible for Saxon subjects in Saxon churches. Frederick was as devout as the professor claims Charles V was. She does admit however Frederick was attracted to Luther’s teachings and genuinely wanted him to continue his work.

German scholars are more sure-handed with Frederick the Wise. Dr. Ingetraut Ludolphy, who wrote the best biography to date of Frederick in 1984, explored in depth his motives. His motives sprang from the duties of a Christian sovereign. Many admiring scholars of Frederick preceded professor Ludolphy and many like Luther expert Martin Brecht will follow. Frederick was devout in the medieval sense but he was no choir boy. As sovereign he was a slippery operator among the nobility in an age of very slippery operators. After all, the Italian trickster Machiavelli (1459-1527) was a contemporary. Few were slippier than another contemporary, Frederick's friend Emperor Maximilian (1459-1519). Yet even Maximilian recognized Frederick was special.

Emperor Maximilian by Dürer

George Spalatin, Frederick’s private secretary, wrote of Frederick’s magnetism:

Thus I Spalatin at the Reichstag in Augsburg in 1518 have seen my miracle, how his imperial Majesty [Emperor Maximilian] resplendent in walking and standing before all electors, princes and estates, recognized him [Frederick the Wise] more then all other electors and princes. Such waving, such hand gestures, such behavior from his Majesty if he [Frederick] stood too far from his Majesty causing delay, that certainly, if the waving did not help, his imperial Majesty stepped from his throne and drew this elector closer to him. [Georg Spalatin, Friedrichs des Weisen Leben und Zeitgeschichte von Georg Spalatin (Georg Spalatins historischer Nachlaß und Briefe 1), ed. Christian Gotthold Neudecker and Ludwig Preller (Jena: 1851), 32. Quotes translated from German by this blogger.]

Q. Has the larger-than-life appeal of the Luther saga blurred the enormous influence Frederick the Wise enjoyed throughout the empire?

Luther in film: Empires: Martin Luther (2002) Is it worth watching as history?

Furthering the assessment of Empires: Martin Luther (2002) with Timothy West:

Is the movie worth watching as history?

In contrast to Luther (2003) with Joseph Fiennes, Empires: Martin Luther (2002) has no fabricated scenes with made-up characters. Inaccuracies that occur in the program invariably occur in the narration. Some might dispute some of the statements by the six consultants but criticisms would be regarding interpretations of history. Are the errors in the narration of Empires: Martin Luther (2002) grievous?

As summarized in earlier blogs, several mistakes are present. The ‘Road to Damascus’ experience is factual but re-anacted incorrectly. Luther’s relationship with his mentor Johann von Staupitz is needlessly muddled. Luther’s initial Bible study is bungled in detail. The participants at the 1521 Worms hearing of Luther with the emperor are inaccurate in that Luther’s familiarity with the participants is incorrect. The influence of the indulgence-peddler Tetzel is exaggerated. These are not grievous errors and some have become part of Luther lore.

The grievous errors consist of implying Luther caused the Peasants’ War (a common view but not of historians) and the further extrapolation of his influence as a cause of the English Civil War over a 100 years after his death. Creating these false connections has only detracted from an exposition of Luther’s most serious flaw: violent, inflammable rhetoric against peasants, against nobles, against kings, against Jews, against the Old Faith, against members of the New Faith. Violent rhetoric was common at the time but once Luther had everyones’ ears he had a responsibility to maintain calm. It is no accident that virtually all his closest and greatest supporters pleaded with him to tone down his rage. 

As to the question -- Is Empires: Martin Luther (2002) worth watching as history? – the answer is yes with the reservations just stated.

Overall

Therefore, considering the program’s factual value as well as its positive entertainment value, Empires: Martin Luther (2002) is definitely watchable.  It is less entertaining than Luther (2003) with Joseph Fiennes but more accurate historically.

Luther in film: Empires: Martin Luther (2002) Is it worth watching as entertainment?

Continuing the assessment of Empires: Martin Luther (2002) with Timothy West:

Is the movie worth watching as entertainment?

The concept in Empires: Martin Luther (2002) is fascinating. There is a sparse cast in the actual enactment. The only one who emotes is the skilled veteran Timothy West. West is virtually the same age in real life as the soon-to-die Luther in 1546 and West appears appropriately old and worn out. That does not mean however that it is a tired, cheesy production. The production is superb with settings in 15 locations. 

 St. Cross Hospital near Winchester

The production team filmed medieval interiors in the environs of Winchester in England: the famed cathedral itself as well as a medieval boys school, St. Cross Hospital and Romsey Abbey. Not German but authentically old, although once again film-makers seem oblivious to the fact that many buildings in Luther’s lifetime were sparkling new (in Wittenberg - Frederick the Wise's showcase - without exception). Winchester offered exterior scenes too, including what passes for a street of about 1500 and a German forest of the time. Other scenes occurred in Haddon Hall in Derbyshire.

The Italian scenes were indeed in Italy, in and around Rome. The province of Viterbo furnished a medieval square and Palazzo Caprarola for interiors of a papal palace. Scenes were filmed also in the province of Umbria for countryside as well as the church at Todi. 

Did they film at all in Germany? Yes, and where else but in Luther’s town of Wittenberg? Actually in Luther’s house (once the Augustinian monastery and now the Luther Museum). Apparently they filmed the memorable snow scene with Luther ratting along in a horse-drawn medieval cart in Austria.

As to the question -- Is Empires: Martin Luther (2002) worth watching as entertainment? – the answer is yes. Weighing how well the almost lavish production is integrated into Liam Neeson’s soothing narration and the learned comments of of six enthusiastic consultants, the result is passably entertaining, even for a general audience.

Luther in film: Empires: Martin Luther (2002) Recent Activities of Cast & Presenters

The following summary of recent activity by the ‘ensemble’ of Empires: Martin Luther (2002) demonstrates their ongoing commitment to their special expertise:

Liam Neeson as Hannibal in the A-Team

Liam Neeson, a film superstar, has over 20 screen credits since 2002. He is contractually committed to roles years into the future. One recent role was Hannibal in the A-Team.

 Timothy West as Martin Luther

Timothy West at 76 still constantly garners roles in television and audio media. In 2010 he authored a memoir: A Moment Towards the End of the Play.

Alister McGrath (who chairs the Center for Theology, Religion and Culture at King's College, Un. of London) is a prolific author of Christian textbooks and apologetics. Among several books published in 2010 is The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind.

Michael Mullett

Michael Mullett (Professor Emeritus in History at the University of Lancaster) authored two books in 2010: The A to Z of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation and Historical Dictionary of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
 

 Susan Karant-Nunn

Susan Karant-Nunn is Director of the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies in the Department of History at the Un. of Arizona. In 2010 Oxford Un. Press published her The Reformation of Feeling: Shaping the Religious Emotions in Early Modern Germany.

Mark U. Edwards, Jr. is Advisory Member of the Faculty of Divinity and Senior Adviser to the Dean at Harvard Divinity School. In 2006 he authored Religion on Our Campuses: A Professor's Guide to Communities, Conflicts, and Promising Conversations.

Miri Rubin is Professor of Medieval and Early Modern History at Queen Mary College, Un. of London. In 2010 alone she authored Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary and co-authored Charisma and Religious Authority: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Preaching, 1200-1500.

Euan Kerr Cameron is Henry Luce III Professor of Reformation Church History at Union Theological Seminary in NYC. In 2010 he authored Enchanted Europe: Superstition, Reason, and Religion, 1250-1750 and collaborated on The Life of Irene Nemirovsky: 1903-1942.