The Movie: "Luther" [Archive]

OrthodoxyUSA

14th June 2005, 09:54 AM

I watched this film last night and was supprised that it was NOT pro-Protestant.

I wondered if anyone else had seen it and what your impressions were...

I was pleasantly suprised at the great acting... the cinematography was excellent and the storyline was "reasonalbly" historically acurate.

According to this movie (IMHO): Luther would have been very happy as an Orthodox. He quite possibly could have healed the schism, had he stayed "inside" the Vatican Church and become a Cardinal and possibly Pope.

Forgive me....:liturgy:

Lotar

14th June 2005, 10:08 AM

I thought it was decent. It was financed by the Lutheran church, but they did keep it pretty accurate.

It was a sad thing that he was excommunicated, his ideas were not at all radical at that time.

sin_vladimirov

14th June 2005, 10:38 AM

I have not seen it, but I think its good!

LOL

OrthodoxyUSA

14th June 2005, 10:49 AM

I was shocked at the number of people that the "Protestants" killed.

80,000 - 100,000 Vatican Catholics according to the movie.

From the movie we are left with the idea that Martin Luther was also shocked and very depressed by this.

Forgive me...

Suzannah

14th June 2005, 11:10 AM

If this is the film that has Joseph (or is Ralph) Fiennes, then yes, I saw it, and absolutely loved it...I found the relationship between Luther and his spiritual father to be, well, Orthodox....LOL! It was also very touching and for me, this was the most pertinent point of the film...their relationship illustrated for me, the depth of love and concern in Luther's own heart....

I really enjoyed that film...

RedneckAnglican

14th June 2005, 11:53 AM

Good Flick...I gave it a thumbs up!...:thumbsup: this message has been brought to you by Thrivent...(inside Lutheran joke...sorry)...

OrthodoxyUSA

14th June 2005, 11:57 AM

Good Flick...I gave it a thumbs up!...:thumbsup: this message has been brought to you by Thrivent...(inside Lutheran joke...sorry)...

Hey Redneck,

They could easily do a "part two"....... much more happened later.

What's Thrivent?

edit: Never mind, I think I found it http://www.thrivent.com/

Forgive me....:liturgy:

RedneckAnglican

14th June 2005, 12:18 PM

[QUOTE=Orthodoxyusa]Hey Redneck,

They could easily do a "part two"....... much more happened later.

What's Thrivent?

edit: Never mind, I think I found it http://www.thrivent.com/

Forgive me....:liturgy:[/QUOTbasically the Lutheran insurance company...they put up the money for the film to be made...I think Part II is very doable...maybe with some more on Melanchthon...

DivineFiliation

14th June 2005, 12:35 PM

Shakkai sneaks in here to avoid the stones

I liked the movie.

Shakkai sneaks back out quietly to OBOB.
lol

Rilian

14th June 2005, 12:40 PM

From the movie we are left with the idea that Martin Luther was also shocked and very depressed by this.

I didn't see the movie, though I would like to at some point. Was this particular thing you're talking about regarding the Peasant's Rebellion?

RedneckAnglican

14th June 2005, 12:47 PM

I didn't see the movie, though I would like to at some point. Was this particular thing you're talking about regarding the Peasant's Rebellion?

yep...the movie depicted the carnage in a VERY dramatic way...

DivineFiliation

14th June 2005, 01:20 PM

I was a little surprised, however, how quickly he got married.

RedneckAnglican

14th June 2005, 01:28 PM

I was a little surprised, however, how quickly he got married.

me, too...i would've thought that that wouldv'e taken much longer...

according to wekipidia they knew each other for about 2 years before they got married...

OrthodoxyUSA

14th June 2005, 01:34 PM

I didn't see the movie, though I would like to at some point. Was this particular thing you're talking about regarding the Peasant's Rebellion?

Yep, that's it...while Luther was "locked away" for his own safety.

Forgive me...

elizabethevangeline

14th June 2005, 01:38 PM

Yep, that's it...while Luther was "locked away" for his own safety.

Forgive me...

It's been awhile since I've seen it. I was struck by the politics that mangle or manipulate religion.

It was a good movie.

Xpycoctomos

14th June 2005, 02:07 PM

OrthodoxyUSA

14th June 2005, 02:15 PM

I was impressed by the cinematography and acting too. I liked it, although it made Luther look like a much better man than it seems he really was. It didn't do a good job at showing he irrationality and quick mood swings etc. Even as a devout Lutheran, while I've always thought he was a genius and never questioned his faith, he is not a man I would have like to have met... and he wasn't a man I would ever hope to be like. So the movie was too sympathetic to Luther and created a man who never existed... at least not with such consistancy... but hey, it's a movie and it had it's excellent points!

John

PS: my views of Luther as a man have nothing to do with view of Lutheranism. Just thought I would make that clear. My admiration for him fell long before I ever considered becoming Orthodox.

I thought that the mood swings and irrationality were pretty well done while showing him alone in his cell. I do believe that this was "too early" in his life to show the madness that followed. That's why I would think that a Part 2 would be an excellent addition.

All in all, so many things could have been avoided had he led his group back into the Eastern Orthodox Church. A shameful waste.

Forgive me...:liturgy:

Rilian

14th June 2005, 02:24 PM

yep...the movie depicted the carnage in a VERY dramatic way...

My impression from reading the history of the period and one of the biographies of Luther is that he was somewhat politically naive and that he hadn't really considered the gravity of what he was doing and how it would affect society. I also think he would use rhetoric that he did not necessarily intend to be taken literally, or that he didn't fully consider what people would read in to it. I think that was the case with this writings on the Peasents Rebellion. I always had the feeling he was truly shocked and horrified by what happened and couldn't fully come to terms with it (the carnage left by the revolt and Munzer's uprising). That all paled in comparison to the Thirty Years War which was to come. There was plenty of bloodletting on all sides through both conflicts.

Lotar

14th June 2005, 03:33 PM

I was impressed by the cinematography and acting too. I liked it, although it made Luther look like a much better man than it seems he really was. It didn't do a good job at showing he irrationality and quick mood swings etc. Even as a devout Lutheran, while I've always thought he was a genius and never questioned his faith, he is not a man I would have like to have met... and he wasn't a man I would ever hope to be like. So the movie was too sympathetic to Luther and created a man who never existed... at least not with such consistancy... but hey, it's a movie and it had it's excellent points!

John

PS: my views of Luther as a man have nothing to do with view of Lutheranism. Just thought I would make that clear. My admiration for him fell long before I ever considered becoming Orthodox.

Irrational moody Luther was after his daughter died. The movie was set when he was still a likeable guy.

Lotar

14th June 2005, 03:38 PM

I was a little surprised, however, how quickly he got married.

Everyone was surprised. There wasn't any courtship, they just up and got married. Philip Melanchthon (Luther's best friend) didn't even get invited. :D

DivineFiliation

14th June 2005, 04:08 PM

MariaRegina

14th June 2005, 09:13 PM

How long has this movie been out? Is it still showing?

Lotar

14th June 2005, 09:23 PM

How long has this movie been out? Is it still showing?

It's been out a while. It's on dvd/video now.

Lotar

14th June 2005, 09:26 PM

On a side note, this movie holds a special place in my heart, because of a sequence of events it helped put in place.

1.) Saw the movie and got interested in Luther.
2.) Saw a compilation of his works at the books store, and bought it.
3.) Read an essay by him that opened my eyes to the Sacraments.
...
398027115.) Became a catechumen.

:thumbsup: :D

Xpycoctomos

15th June 2005, 11:59 AM

All in all, so many things could have been avoided had he led his group back into the Eastern Orthodox Church. A shameful waste.
Yeah... but, he wouldn't have. There was too much he and his people were not willing to accept.

I thought that the mood swings and irrationality were pretty well done while showing him alone in his cell. I do believe that this was "too early" in his life to show the madness that followed. That's why I would think that a Part 2 would be an excellent addition.

Irrational moody Luther was after his daughter died. The movie was set when he was still a likeable guy.

I stand corrected guys. I would like to watch the movie again now :)

OrthodoxyUSA

15th June 2005, 12:27 PM

How long has this movie been out? Is it still showing?

The back of the DVD says 2003.

Forgive me....

OrthodoxyUSA

15th June 2005, 12:28 PM

Yeah... but, he wouldn't have. There was too much he and his people were not willing to accept.

I stand corrected guys. I would like to watch the movie again now :)

If he had been exposed to Orthodoxy first hand, I think he would have.

Forgive me....

Qoheleth

15th June 2005, 12:53 PM

If he had been exposed to Orthodoxy first hand, I think he would have

Well, my long winded take on this is , Luther and the confessors who authored The Book of Concord understood themselves—and described their confession to be—the continuation of the catholic church of the West. This means (and here is the most profound thing lost among Lutherans) that they did not see themselves as limiting their confession to what they wrote, but intended that confession to be read and heard and believed within a broader context. Part of that context, regrettably, was the medieval church which was imbued with scholasticism.

So they speak in those categories and, in many cases, operate with those assumptions. Case in point: filioque, infant communion, etc. In this regard, they still had inconsistencies to work out and, had they maintained course, I would speculate in hope that they would have. Or, perhaps they didn’t maintain course because of these inconsistencies. In either case, the Lutheran church is not what they intended; and there is no church body that is what they intended.

This must say something to the question of “fullness.” I think what it says is that their best hope (whether they saw this or not) was reunion with the East—which, in many respects (Christology, soteriology, sacramentology) they were headed toward.

Q

OrthodoxyUSA

15th June 2005, 01:18 PM

Well, my long winded take on this is , Luther and the confessors who authored The Book of Concord understood themselves—and described their confession to be—the continuation of the catholic church of the West. This means (and here is the most profound thing lost among Lutherans) that they did not see themselves as limiting their confession to what they wrote, but intended that confession to be read and heard and believed within a broader context. Part of that context, regrettably, was the medieval church which was imbued with scholasticism.

So they speak in those categories and, in many cases, operate with those assumptions. Case in point: filioque, infant communion, etc. In this regard, they still had inconsistencies to work out and, had they maintained course, I would speculate in hope that they would have. Or, perhaps they didn’t maintain course because of these inconsistencies. In either case, the Lutheran church is not what they intended; and there is no church body that is what they intended.

This must say something to the question of “fullness.” I think what it says is that their best hope (whether they saw this or not) was reunion with the East—which, in many respects (Christology, soteriology, sacramentology) they were headed toward.

Q

I didn't think that was long winded...

I agree that their best hope was reunion with the East, and this movie did very little to bring the Eastern Church into focus. In fact the only part that did is when Luther is questioning his teacher about the Greek Saints... that they were outside "The Church" and what was to be thought of thier salvation.

I would like to know more about Dr. Luther's dialog with the Orthodox Church.... anybody got any references?

Forgive me.....:liturgy:

Lotar

15th June 2005, 01:40 PM

Luther didn't have a dialogue with the Orthodox Church. It was Melanchthon's students who eventually did.

Rilian

15th June 2005, 01:40 PM

This must say something to the question of “fullness.” I think what it says is that their best hope (whether they saw this or not) was reunion with the East—which, in many respects (Christology, soteriology, sacramentology) they were headed toward.

It's interesting, because I think some Lutheran scholars seem to be headed in this direction. I read a short article about Tuomo Mannermaa the other day and his writing on deification. His work I think is included in this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802844421/ref=pd_sxp_f/102-9446005-5144953?v=glance&s=books) book and there's a review of it here (http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9912/reviews/dorman.html). There's another article here (http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti84377.html) here on the same topic.

OrthodoxyUSA

15th June 2005, 01:43 PM

Luther didn't have a dialogue with the Orthodox Church. It was Melanchthon's students who eventually did.

Oh? Where did Iget that idea?

Forgive me...

Zinnia

15th June 2005, 03:14 PM

According to my research, Luther did have a dialog with the Orthodox, and regarded them highly. I am still perplexed why he didn't become Orthodox, but there must have been a reason, for him.

Xpycoctomos

15th June 2005, 03:50 PM

Well, my long winded take on this is , Luther and the confessors who authored The Book of Concord understood themselves—and described their confession to be—the continuation of the catholic church of the West. This means (and here is the most profound thing lost among Lutherans) that they did not see themselves as limiting their confession to what they wrote, but intended that confession to be read and heard and believed within a broader context. Part of that context, regrettably, was the medieval church which was imbued with scholasticism.

So they speak in those categories and, in many cases, operate with those assumptions. Case in point: filioque, infant communion, etc. In this regard, they still had inconsistencies to work out and, had they maintained course, I would speculate in hope that they would have. Or, perhaps they didn’t maintain course because of these inconsistencies. In either case, the Lutheran church is not what they intended; and there is no church body that is what they intended.

This must say something to the question of “fullness.” I think what it says is that their best hope (whether they saw this or not) was reunion with the East—which, in many respects (Christology, soteriology, sacramentology) they were headed toward.

Q

Very thoughtfully written. I never thought of it that way, but what you say makes complete sense.

Xpycoctomos

15th June 2005, 04:09 PM

Zinnia...Im not sure so I am jsut guessing. there may have been certain resistance to his terminolgy and doctrine of Justification by Faith. Being that he had a western scholastic mind that naturally categorized things he may have been uncomfortable with the fact that he rarely found Faith set above Works as the East never really set them against each other.

There may have been other problems like we didn't reject relics, praying to Saints (and that this wasn't optional for us either... this is not adiaphora for us) and perhaps he just felt like geographically it was too timely and too difficult to get into a real communion with them... so he just thought "Let's reform the Church here and God willing, we will meet up down the road". I don't know, this is all TOTAL speculation on my part and I think Rilian and Q will better be able to answer this question..

John

Lotar

15th June 2005, 04:36 PM

According to my research, Luther did have a dialog with the Orthodox, and regarded them highly. I am still perplexed why he didn't become Orthodox, but there must have been a reason, for him.

He did regard the Orthodox Church highly. In fact, the origin of the phrase "the better half" comes how Luther refered to the Church in a debate he had with a RC theologian.

But, he never did have dialogue, nor even tried. It may have been because of the political situation of the time, which would have made it virtually impossible anyways. It may have been because he so strongly believed we were the same, that he felt there was no need. Or, he may have known we were different, but liked using the Church as a tool of propaganda.

There was a Greek man from Italy that visited the Reformers, and told them that they were virtually the same and there would be a union, but I believe Luther had already died by that time.

Zinnia

15th June 2005, 04:50 PM

He did regard the Orthodox Church highly. In fact, the origin of the phrase "the better half" comes how Luther refered to the Church in a debate he had with a RC theologian.

But, he never did have dialogue, nor even tried. It may have been because of the political situation of the time, which would have made it virtually impossible anyways. It may have been because he so strongly believed we were the same, that he felt there was no need. Or, he may have known we were different, but liked using the Church as a tool of propaganda.

There was a Greek man from Italy that visited the Reformers, and told them that they were virtually the same and there would be a union, but I believe Luther had already died by that time.

Well, it seems every book I read about Luther says something a little different. I don't know if Luther went over to the Orthodox to have dialog or not, for sure. It was just something I read a few months ago. Thanks for the response.