Per our class discussion, Nathan Barber's questions, and Marnie Hughes-Warrington's ideas about the utility of films and history from her book History Goes to the Movies (2007), analyze the following clips from two of the most popular movies about Martin Luther. One clip is from 1953, the other clip from 2003.
Your assessment should discuss the time period in which the movie appeared, directors, funding, cinematography, etc. In terms of the relationship between historians and historical filmmakers, you should refer to the previous post this year on Luther.
You also want to discuss whether or not, to use Hughes-Warrington's categories, either Luther film commits one (or any) of the "six filmic sins" (p. 18) and how.
Finally, here are some "reel" questions about cinematic history from an on-line project out of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania; pick which question you think is the most important and explain why.
Leave your answers in the comments section.
[Photo credit here.]
Posts
10 comments:
The 1953 Luther was made after WWII during the time of the Red Scare and McCarthyism. Its director, Irving Pickel was a methodist minister. It was distributed by Lutheran Productions. The 2003 Luther was done around the time of the start of the War in Iraq. the Director was Eric Till. It was funded by Thrivent Financial for Lutherans and the cinematorapher Robert Fraisse is French. The filmic sins committed for the 2003 Luther are: presenting history as the story of individuals (Luther v Church), highlighting the emotional dimensions of human experiences (interrogation at Diet of Worms), being charcterized as offering a closed and simple past (no other alternatives or possibilites to history), and offering a 'poor information load' (it didn't present anything we didn't already know). I think the mst important question is "Does creative imagination destroy authenticity?" because it really makes me wonder whether or not you can balance those two.
I think the 1953 version of Luther is not outdated, even though it was made over 50 years ago. The black and white imagery imparts a sense of timelessness, and the acting is very natural and believable. The focus of the movie is simply on Luther and his philosophy rather than on the emotional relationships and dramatic elements that make today’s movies popular. Furthermore, Niall McGinniss makes an excellent Martin Luther. His good, straightforward acting tells the story of Martin Luther. In the 2003 version, Luther is highly romanticized as a heroic figure. Joseph Fiennes portrays Luther by making the audience both admire and feel pity for him. What happens to him because of his actions is revealed in a pretty dramatic form. For example, when Luther seems plagued by demons, he is seen tormenting himself in his cell, yelling to unseen voices. Although some of the scenes between Luther and the devil seem unsettling, I think those scenes are used to magnify some important points in the film. Moreover the costumes, scenery, music, acting, and characters all compliment the film nicely. I say all this to say that the movie is very emotional and a pleasure to watch and it makes you want to stand up and applaud Luther at the end. I think an important question is who chooses what students learn in history class because the knowledge they learn from the past shapes who they are and what they know in the future.
The first Luther movie was made in 1953 right after World War II. Irving Pichel was the director for the 1953 Luther movie. This film is in black and white and seems more natural and realistic to the viewer. The 2003 Luther movie came out during the War on Terror. Eric Till was the director of the 2003 movie. This movie was funded by several Lutheran organizations. Many historians such as Paul Waibel have written books on Luther; however, I do not believe that many historians have helped in producing a historical film based on Luther. I feel that both movies commit the filmic sin of presenting history as a story of an individual, Martin Luther. The 2003 version commits the filmic sin of highlighting the emotional dimensions of human experiences such as Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. Also, both versions commit the filmic sin of offering a closed and completed past. The most important question is “Do Americans need a knowledge of history?” It is important for people to know the past in order that they do not or at least try not to make the same mistakes that people did in the past. Also, no matter what the source, people should learn about history, even if the source is a over dramatic film. –Meagan Smith
The 1953 Luther movie seems better to me and has to be understood in a post-WWII context. The political atmosphere of the time made a movie about a German reformer more relevant as opposed to the 2003 film, which must be looked at in a post-September 11th context. This does not deal so much with the war on terror as it does the situation of the church during this post-modern time period. Both movies were funded by parts of the Lutheran church, but the acting in the first one serves to better explain the philosophy and emotion of Luther. Does creative imagination destroy authenticity? is the best questions in my opinion, and the films may commit the sin of offering a closed and simple past.
The 1953 version of Luther's biographical film holds obvious, innate social significance. Moreover, the post WW2 context created an atmosphere in which German people were looking for vindication apart from Nazism's legacy of hatred. We are, ultimately, free to assign whatever value we would like to the consequences of such attributes, however, the social atmosphereof the filmmakers almost undoubtedly impacted the art itself. This would have altered the portrayal and perception of Luther. In 2003, as da Cartah so cogently elucidated, the film was funded by a branch of the Lutheran church. Apart from that, the movie's post-September 2001 creation necessarily distorts the filmmaker's take on the significance of religious liberalism, doctrinal debate, and liberation theology. Such notions have existed for years in relation to S social spirituality; however, the film serves to illuminate such ideas. In closing, in conclusion, each film focuses the lens and points to cinematic light at the man and monk named Luther, exposing an angle of his ideas, life, and legacy.
Xeris, Chris, and Daniel haven't posted yet?
Martin Luther 1953 was produced by American Lutherans at the dawn of the Eisenhower era, at a time when films such as The Ten Commandments and A Man Called Peter reflected the heightened religiosity of the United States, and at a time when audiences were willing to be educated about the past, sometimes through films that adopted fairly didactic forms. The latest version of Luther (2003) is perhaps the most ecumenical of the films, coming as it does four decades after Vatican II and just a few years after the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification." It is the only film to make any reference at all to the Greek Orthodox, and thus to those Christians who were entirely uninvolved in the Reformation; and it goes out of its way to present Catholic characters who are at least somewhat sympathetic. For example, when Johann von Staupitz releases Luther from the Augustinian order to which they belong, he frantically explains that he is doing this to save Luther's life; if Luther had remained under his authority, von Staupitz says he would have been obliged to turn him over. In contrast, when von Staupitz expels Luther in the 1953 film, he gives Luther a stern reprimand for disgracing their order.
The most important question is "does creative imagination destroy authenticity?" because it addresses the most relevant objection to the production of historical films. My favorite historical films are by far JFK and Nixon and if only Oliver Stone had made a movie about Johnson we could have had the TRIUMVERATE.
"The class discussions held over the last few days have allowed me to see the potential fallibility present in the historical bigography genre, and the danger of assumings that any one particular account as absolute truth. As a reult of the countless mediums such as art, literature, and music capable of influencing and skewing one's perception of historical occurences, it is essential that an individual weigh all possible accounts and assess numerous historical opinions in order to help weed out personal bias and belief before drawing his own conclusions based solely on definitive fact." The post WWII context of the 1953 Luther movie holds obvious implications to the representation and bias of the movie and its portrayal of Luther. The most important question is "does creative imagination destroy authenticity?" and it is important to take into account the innevitable presence of subjective artistic license and biased perspective.
Luther was created in 1953 shortly after the end of World War 2. Lutheran Productions distributed the film. The film focuses on the fight of Martin Luther and his beliefs. It does its best to portray historical facts in an accurate recreation. The film made in 2003 was funded by Thrivent Financial for Lutherans. The film arose right after the beginning of the War in Iraq. Both films were made in a time of war. The latter film seems to focus more on Luther's personal struggle and emotions rather than historical fact. Perhaps current films feel they have more freedom to alter fact so long as they entertain. I found Hughes-Warrington's "six filmic sins" very beneficial in analyzing a historical film. Some of the most important sins were applicable to the Luther video: presenting history as the story of individuals, and highlighting the emotional dimensions of human experiences. The second Luther film presented the Reformation as Luther's personal internal struggle. I think it is important to study people's emotions and reactions to an event because it gives a new perspective. Although this new perspective can be useful, we must not forget to study accurate full accounts.
The first Luther film was produced after World War II. At this time, hatred of Germany was at its prime, which I'm sure had its affect on the bias of this movie in its depiction of the Germany government, even at the time of Luther, as extremely overbearing, unfair, and controlling. The latter Luther film was made relatively soon after the United States declared War on Terror, a time of hatred towards religions other than Christian Protestantism, namely Islam. Because of this, the depiction of Luther as a hero and a man who suffered for his God definitely comes from the bias towards other beliefs.
I believe that both of these movies have the same 'filmic sins' of presenting the history as the story of individuals and of offering a closed, completed, and simple past. These sins lie hand in hand as they each describe how the films showed the stpry of the Protestant Reformation through the life of one man. Luther did not conclude the Reformation, nor was he the only driving force in it.
The most important question is: How do such films contribute to our knowledge of the past? Of the present? I believe that knowing how much truth you can take from a film displays it relevnce to life;
After reading the six filmic sins, I agree with her point that film makers easily blur historical situations in order to increase the appeal of their story and profitibility. They are not bound to create a historically accurate film, and thus are free to conveniently alter the facts as they wish. Consequently, the producers of both Luther films were capable of emphasizing certain aspects of their film with the purpose of either promoting Germany or the Lutheran Church. In addition, one of the more important questions concerning historical films is the definition of history. If we consider anu movie relating to past events historical, than doesn't that technically mean all movies are under the same category?
Post a Comment