Luther in Film: Martin Luther (1953) with Niall MacGinnis. How accurate is the movie historically?

To accommodate a format of one hour and 45 minutes many events are compressed and characters combined. Several well known happenings are not mentioned at all (for example, Luther’s lightning experience and Luther’s revulsion of Rome during his visit). This movie more than most other movies has fabricated scenes that did not happen, as well as scenes that could have happened but left no proof.

The first such scene is Luther’s farewell party at Erfurt before he enters the monastery. Here in attendance is specifically Spalatin (later Frederick the wise’s private secretary). There is no proof of such a connection between the two during their school days. In fact it would be odd if there had been a connection at Erfurt and the two friends never afterward mentioned it.

George Spalatin rendered by Lukas Cranach 1505

This connection in the movie however is used to make Spalatin the force that drew Luther to Wittenberg and Frederick the Wise. The real force is well known. Vicar Johann von Staupitz, trusted friend to both Luther and Frederick the Wise, was the force. In the movie Staupitz is reduced to a stern figure who strips Luther of his vows and virtually abandons him as a colleague.

There is the outright falsehood that papal nuncio Aleander agreed to let Prince Albrecht of Brandenburg receive his third archbishopric (Mainz) in return for his participation in a very large scale indulgence racket. Thereafter both Albrecht and Aleander appear in scenes that are pure fiction. For example, Albrecht turns up at the Leipzig debate in summer 1519. The ogre (to Lutherans) at that debate was Duke George, cousin of Frederick the Wise but a fierce enemy of Luther.

Erasmus by Dürer 1526

In a similar vein papal nuncio Aleander is in a scene with Frederick the Wise, Spalatin and Erasmus of Rotterdam! Erasmus says that Luther is guilty of two things: he has attacked the tiara of the pope and the bellies of the monks. This quote is documented, but Erasmus said it only to Frederick the Wise and Spalatin.

Numerous other scenes are concocted in the ‘dramatization’, as the producers forthrightly called their movie. Do the fabrications hurt the story? Probably they do not hurt the essence - but don’t take a history quiz using these artifices.

On the other hand, the producers went to great efforts to get some details correct. In one scene, Frederick the Wise is in a room of his castle at Wittenberg. Frederick’s newly built castle church is visible in the background, not as it appears in the 21st century but as the new edifice looked in the early 1500’s! Compare the castle in the movie:

Wittenberg castle church in the movie

 
…with Lucas Cranach’s etching of the castle in 1509 (but flipped because the artist Cranach viewed it from the north; the actors in the movie viewed it from the south):

Wittenberg castle church by Lukas Cranach 1509

(but flipped) 

Q. Great liberties were taken with some ‘facts’ of history. Yet certain items are painstakingly detailed. Can you explain this dichotomy?

Luther in Film: Martin Luther (1953) with Niall MacGinnis

This black and white Martin Luther of 1953, 105 minutes long and nearly 60 years old, is by no means to be dismissed.

Principal writers were veterans Allan Sloane and Lothar Wolff. Serving as consultants were two distinguished scholars of the highly regarded ‘Luther’s Works’ series of Fortress Press in Philadelphia: Jaroslav Pelikan (Yale) and Theodore G. Tappert (Lutheran Theological Seminary). 

Niall Macginnis as Martin Luther

Leading the cast of veteran English actors was Niall MacGinnis, an actor whose film credits truly amaze. If not a star, MacGinnis was a rock-solid supporting actor who appeared in The Kremlin Letter, The Shoes of the Fisherman, Paper Chase, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, The War Lord, Becket, Billy Budd, Kidnapped, The Nun's Story, Lust for Life, Alexander the Great, Knights of the Round Table, Christopher Columbus, Hamlet 1948, and Anna Karenina 1948 among a total of about 80 movies.

Locations of Martin Luther (1953) were in Germany. Studio shots were in Afifa Film Studios, Wiesbaden, Hesse. Another Hesse location was Eltville am Rhein and its  Kloster Eberbach. Also used were Kloster Maulbronn in Baden-Württemberg and Rothenburg ob der Tauber in Bavaria.

Martin Luther (1953) was nominated for two Academy Awards (Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White and Best Cinematography, Black-and-White). In addition, the Writers Guild of America nominated it for its award for Best Written American Drama. Somehow this movie, a joint effort of three countries, fell into Public Domain. From the outset, let it be said that that neglect also caused its Achilles Heel: the quality of prints that survive are not pristine. Even the DVD edition is soft; the VHS edition is poor.

As with prior reviews in this blog, merit of the movie will be evaluated for its entertainment value and for its historical accuracy. In addition, its portrayal of Frederick the Wise will be assessed.

Q. Do you believe it is a detriment to cast 'movie stars' as famous historical figures?

Luther in film: Where Luther Walked [16mm, 1982; VHS, 1992] - Is it entertaining?

In 1992 Ray Christensen and Steve Kahlenbeck transferred the 16mm color film Where Luther Walked to VHS. This is the product viewers of today see. 

Baptismal font in the Eisleben church
Photo by Andreas Thum

What are the merits? The film leads viewers to the authentic locations as nearly as possible. We see the actual baptismal font in the Eisleben church where the priest baptized baby Martin Luther in 1483. For the ‘Road to Damascus’ incident, our guide Roland Bainton actually trudges along a dirt road outside Erfurt near the spot where lightning knocked Luther off his feet. Bainton is much too knowledgable to have Luther knocked off a horse. The film takes viewers inside the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt where Luther struggled through his first Mass. In Wittenberg we witness Frederick the Wise’s castle, the castle church with the location of the famous door, and the town church. We see the countryside on the way to Worms, the site of Luther’s epic battle.

Legendary Wartburg Castle from the North

We see a church in Worms (the actual location of the hearing with the emperor no longer exists) and the countryside on the way from Worms to Eisenach. Near Eisenach we climb ‘among the birds’ to enter Frederick the Wise's legendary Wartburg castle with its long hallway and Luther’s small room where he translated the New Testament from Greek to German. From its spyglass window we see just as Luther saw, the lush, sprawling Thuringian forest. We then return to Wittenberg and the Augustinian monastery (today’s Lutherhaus). In Luther’s large study our guide Roland Bainton reminds us of the mountain of work Luther accomplished there. We return to the town church where Luther preached for so many years. Then we see again the Eisleben church, which hosted his own baptism as well as loomed over the house where he died 62 years later.  

So what is there not to like about such a journey?

• It is possible the original film, intended for church audiences, had degraded over 10 years of heavy use. Quality is very mediocre. Images are not crisp. Audio is not much better.
• Roland Bainton, for all his considerable merit as a scholar and a very readable author, is a faltering, distracting narrator. The spring in Bainton’s legs was long gone when this project was filmed. He tries his best to be spry at 87 and the viewer finds himself cheering for him.
• A further limitation is the film’s length of 35 minutes.

The gratitude given to the German Democratic Republic in the last credits could be a metaphor for good intentions achieving only mediocrity. Where Luther Walked, which might be riveting to Lutherans, serious Luther followers and historians, does not have the quality or the length to satisfy a general audience.

The good news? It’s free. See it in four parts on http://www.righthealth.com/topic/Roland_Bainton

Q. Is it a possible irony that the retarded economy of the German Democratic Republic actually protected many Luther sites?

Where was Martin Luther 500 years ago on his 27th birthday?

Luther woodcut portrait 1521

Historians generally agree that Martin Luther was somewhere in Bavaria or Swabia on November 10, 1510. He traveled with a more senior Augustinian monk (possibly Anton Kresz of  Nürnberg). The two had just begun to walk almost 800 miles to Rome! Their mission was to appeal a ruling of the Augustinian General in Rome regarding the Augustinian reform movement in Germany. The two must have had business in southwestern Germany as well because evidence suggests they traveled west from Nürnberg, then south through Ulm, Memmingen and Chur before they crossed the Alps at Septimer Pass. This pass was more than 3000 feet higher than the easier Brenner Pass to the east.

Septimer Pass : Imagine trudging over the Alps in December in the frigid wind and sleet.

The few scraps of information and inferences about this journey are found in Table Talk (copious notes taken by Luther’s students from 1531 through 1544), volume 54 in Luther’s Works. Luther praised the warm hospitality of southern Germans and lamented the cool, stingy nature of his own Saxons. Luther noted a wonderful clock in Nürnberg that struck the hour. He deemed the cathedral in Ulm ‘extraordinary’ but ‘not suitable’ for preaching. He remembered later that he was not allowed to say mass in Milan. He marveled at the hospitals in Florence. Thus, the itinerary of the trip can be reasonably reconstructed. In those days of walking, a good day’s production was 20 miles. Available evidence indicates Luther and his companion accompished this 800-mile journey by year’s end, arriving in Rome in about one month and a half.

Joseph Fiennes in Luther (2003) agonizingly climbing the  Scala Sancta in Rome

Martin Luther later deemed his four weeks in Rome a plunge into sin but it is clear at the time he was much committed to harvesting its benefits. “My chief concern when I departed for Rome was that I might make a full confession [of my sins] from my youth up and might become pious…” [Table Talk, 237] In Rome he also worked hard to gain all indulgences possible for himself, his parents and grandparents. “…I wished to liberate my grandfather [Heine Luder of Möhra] from purgatory. [So] I went up the stairway of Pilate [Scala Sancta], praying a pater noster on each step…” He rushed all over Rome pelted by almost constant rain to reap what he would years later label ‘stinking lies’.

Sources: Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation (1985) pp. 98-105, but more detailed and authoritative is Heinrich Boehmer, Martin Luther: Road to Reformation, (1946) pp. 58-81. For details, see also E. G. Schwiebert, Luther and his Times, (1950) pp. 174-192.

Q.  Do you believe Luther left Rome in 1511 disillusioned in his church of Rome or strengthened in his belief?

Luther in film: Where Luther Walked [16mm, 1982; VHS, 1992]: Is it accurate historically?

Dr. Roland Bainton

Where Luther Walked has a murky past for being less than 30 years old. Apparently, in the early 1980s the noted Luther scholar Roland Bainton and poet Herbert Brokering teamed up to host Renaissance-Reformation festivals. Both men were also ordained pastors (although Bainton never formally preached). They also co-authored a nicely illustrated book: A Pilgrimage to Luther’s Germany (1983) and participated in a 16mm color film that became Where Luther Walked (1982). The collaboration of Roland Bainton and Herb Brokering ended when Bainton died in 1984 at the age of 89. Brokering, who was younger by 32 years, died in 2009 at 83.

The film Where Luther Walked in 1982 carried the following credits:

PRODUCTION: Filmedia, Inc. - Minneapolis, MN
SPONSOR/DISTRIBUTOR: Aid Association for Lutherans - Appleton, WI
Producer: Ray Christensen, Herb Brokering
Director: Ray Christensen
Editor: Steve Kahlenbeck
Camera: Ray Christensen
Sound: Steve Kahlenbeck
Host: Dr. Roland Bainton
Sometimes Herb Brokering is credited as co-directing the film.
 
It would be hard to find a more knowledgeable English-speaking host than Dr. Roland Bainton. He penned Here I Stand (1950), deservedly the most popular Martin Luther biography read by Americans for over 50 years. At 87 in this filming, Bainton remains the quintessential old Ivy League prof that he was (at Yale), with bow-tie and unruly hair.

As could be expected, Bainton has few gaffes as he guides the viewer ‘where Luther walked’. But there is one:

Bainton says Frederick the Wise would have arrested Luther if he had not become so popular, an opinion totally at odds with 'facts'. This reduces Frederick’s protection of Luther to pure pragmatism. For 31 years prior to 1517 Frederick the Wise had been a seriously just prince who protected justice for all Saxon subjects. During the firestorm over Luther, Frederick explicitly wrote he would not surrender Luther unless the best biblical scholars condemned him as a heretic on the basis of Holy Scripture. Frederick used every maneuver at his disposal to protect Luther.

On the other hand only a narrator with the depth of Bainton’s scholarship could sprinkle us with facts like:

• Instead of Luther’s exasperated confessor saying, “God doesn’t hate you; you hate God!” as is so often portrayed, Bainton correctly attributes the revelation to Luther himself.  Luther recorded more than once variations of the recollection: “Not only did I not love, but I actually hated the righteous God…”
• Luther, delivering his first Mass, froze momentarily on the phrase: ætérno Deo, vivo et vero (eternal God, living and true) - paralyzed by the magnitude of God.
• Luther’s volatile father Hans tried hard to restrain his disapproval at the celebration of his son’s ordination in Erfurt but his son set him off.
• One of Luther’s 95 theses trumpeted the pope should let St. Peter's church go to ashes, rather than take pennies from poor people.
• Frederick the Wise wanted his castle church to become the most spectacular relic showcase of the empire.
• Luther and his Katie raised six children of their own and at least four orphans.

Overall, the film as history is superb. Rock solid narration. Authentic locations. But is it entertaining? A future blog will discuss that.

Q. Within otherwise solid reconstructions, why do producers of the Luther story so often misrepresent Frederick the Wise?