Martin Luther has been the subject of much praise, much criticism, and almost constant intrigue. While there are not as many books published annually about Luther as there are about Abraham Lincoln, there is no shortage of Luther scholarship. There are also notable Luther flims: here's a clip from the 1953 movie, and one other clip from 2003 Martin Luther.
I want you to think about how the filmmakers and directors deptic Luther, and how the surrounding historical moment of the movie's production shaped each portrayal of the reformer.
Answer this question: To what extent does film capture the historical context of its subject(s), and to what extent is a film a commentary on the historical moment in which it was made? While the focus of this question is Martin Luther, cite other movies in your answer that help to illuminate and explain your assertions.
Some of you will be reading part of Paul Waibel's short book on Luther. Coupled with considerations of each film, you will want to visit this link to Paul Waibel's site. Be sure to read this review of Waibel's book.
We'll compare and contrast the cinematic presentation of Luther and Waibel's interpretation of him.
UPDATE: Due to technical difficulties, and in the interest of time, this assignment only requires critical analysis of the Luther films in conjunction with the observations of Spielvogel on p. 380. DUE in Comments by Monday 10/6 @ 7:50am.
Posts
41 comments:
The Martin Luther movie in 1953 was produced at a time of a mass fear of the government. The United States was in the Cold War with Russia and McCarthyism was spreading. This movie could have been in response to the mass accusations of communist peoples in America. Luther in the movie is accused of slandering the Catholic Church just like people were put on trial for accepting communist practices. The Crucible by Auther Miller was written in the 1950’s and was made into a Broadway play in 1953. This play also highlights the Cold War in America. The 2003 version of Martin Luther has very similar diolough as the 1953 versioin. In the 2003 movie, the motives of Luther and his relastionships to certain characters was not as clear or realistic as actual historical events depict. An example of this comes for the commentary of the movie by Jackson Spielvogel. He states “the movie does not show clearly that his new theological doctrine of justification by faith alone was the foundation of Luther’s rebellion . . .”(380 Spielvogel). After 9/11 the United States entered a War on Terror. This movie could highlight the rooting out of terrorists by the United States government. The War in Afganistan goals were to find Osama bin Ladden, destroy al- Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban. In the movie, Charles V is rooting out Martin Luther and later Lutheranism to protect the Catholic Church and its docterines.
Sarah McD.
Period 7
It is obvious that the films were made from a protestant perspective and that makes them very biased. This causes me to question the accuracy of the movies. Also, Spielvogel mentions how the movie is based on many myths about Luther instead of historical fact. Although the use of films gives more insight into different historical periods and events, one must be careful about how much the believe to be true. The movie Luther depicts the Catholic Church as the bad guy, whereas if you ask any Catholic about that, they will say that Luther was the one that was wrong. I believe the movie would have been better if the creators had take a more unbiased approach to the movie, but I also realize that that would be very difficult.
Katie LeVrier
The movie Luther was good. it encompassed the split from the catholic church very well. Spielvogel comments indirectly that the movie Luther depicts Luther as being based on myth and i believe that he is saying that they're making him more than he really is. i disagree with that. i think that Luther was incredibly brave to have had the courage to split from the catholic church and challenge its ideas. These acts usually led to death.
David Lim
Period 6
Due to the dates of the events of Martin Luther's life we can never know exactly how everything that "went down" and can never be truly accurate. However a historical event that is put into a film is the view or opinion of the director of the film so it is completely commentary. Other movies that are commentaries of true stories are 300, Braveheart, God's and Generals, The Patriot, MacArthur, The Sands of Iwo Jima, Peral Harbor, Midway, Saving Private Ryan, The Green Beret, The Fourth of July, Amistad, Days of Glory, Elizabeth the Golden Age, Flight 93, Khartoum, The Nativity Story, The Passion, The Crucible, and Candle in the Dark.
Ryan
The most important thing to remember when talking about films and if their historical is that films are first and formost concerned with how much money they will make and how much the public will like the movie. Because of this, many films had had to alter the context of the story to appease the public. In the movie Luther, it portrays the specific events and emotions very well, but there are a few elements added or changed to make it more appealing. The relationship between the woman and her lame daughter are just added to make Luther a more personable character. And despite popular belief, Luther did not actually nail the 95 thesis to the door of the church, but it was spread by the printing press. The two movie clips were simular in the diolough that was spoken and the emotion the character exudes. The critic Spielvigel does not believe that the movies on Luther justify the exact cause of his outburst against the church and its selfish practices. Very simular to the alteration of history being made into moviesis when books are made into movies. Sometimes one minor detail as in hair color or the setting of one scene is changeg, but sometimes more than half of the movie differs from the novel.
The movies that portray Martin Luther both accurately portray his life. Although the movie created in the fifties does not give such an intense and full view into the intensity Martin Luther lived with, it does a decent job of showing the events that took place in Martin Luther’s life. The recently created movie not only gives a great depiction of Martin Luther and the struggles her faced, but also does an excellent job of incorporating the every day of Luther’s time period into his life as a member of the church. Both movies must have had some kind of historical motivation for their creation other than the life of Luther. During the fifties, Americans were on the edge of their chairs as the idea of communism was spreading all throughout the nation and through the government. Joseph McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin, was the driving force behind this fear as he claimed he had a list of names of people within the government that were communist. The manipulation of the government during the 1950s can be paralleled to the imperialistic acts of the Catholic Church the Martin Luther stood up against during his life time. The current depiction of Martin Luther could possibly be motivated by the current struggles within the Catholic Church today. From problems with priests and little children and struggles of church theology over current issues today such as gay marriage, the church has had some difficulty over the past fifteen years or so. This struggle could possibly be the motivation behind the recent Martin Luther film.
- Harris, 5th period
The 1950 Martin Luther movie could stem from the spread of communism and the fear of the government controlling its people with too much power, much like how the Church was using indulgences, relics, etc. as a way to make money and have control over one's religious habits by a number of rules. Luther of 2003 seems to convey more emotion and realism, probably only because of the advance in movies and technology. The 2003 film paints a much more realistic picture for the viewer. Spielvogel just point out some of its inaccuracies and flaws such as the nailing of the 95 thesis and the downplay of the Peasant's War. Just like any movie, the director must make decisions (most likely) based on money so these events were more dramaticized in order to make it more enjoyable. Historical films are very popular today but just like in Luther, many films take out things or add them in order to make more money and garner more praise.
I found the films on Martin Luther to be representations that were as accurate as possible in order to illustrate the viewpoint and recieve positive response from mainstream moviegoers. In the 1953 film, I percieved Luther as a more bridled and less emotionally polar character than that depicted by the 2003 rendition. Aside from the remake being more colorful(no pun intended, Mr. Sinitiere), I viewed the representation of Luther to be more accurate in intensity and moments of peace. According to Speilvogel, the film is from a Lutheran point of view, to which I agree, and he believes that the portrayal strays from historical fact. Although that may be true to an extent, it is difficult to differentiate between legend and history. For example, in Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, the famed "let them eat cake" line is percieved as the director viewed it: in a sequence representing a tangent from reality. Filmakers can only depict what they believe is reality, whether fact or fiction, which can alter the realistic nature of a film.
Rebecca Bres
Period 7
Like many others, I too believe that the 1950's movie portrayel of Martin Luther was profoundly influenced by McCarthyism and the Red Scare. For this reason, the Catholics (representing the communists) were probably illustrated in a worse light than they were in the 2003 movie. However, the 2003 version also painted the Catholics in a very bad light, perhaps because of a biased viewpoint. As for the accuracy of the movies, I think they both do justice to Martin Luther. When audiences go to theaters to watch historical movies, they must take everything with a grain of salt. Directors and producers have to make stories appealing in order to make money, and sometimes this involves a slight twisting of facts. I wouldn’t recommend the movies to a history major, but for common audiences, I feel like the movie is fairly educational and interesting at the same time.
Susan
Period 5
The movie about Martin Luther depicts Luther’s intense passion for his own salvation. The director does a good job at presenting Luther as an individual who is very upset with the corruption in the church. However, when making a movie, Hollywood must think of the best way to present information to the public so that the public will like it and come see it. They want to make the most money possible, and if that means altering history just a little bit, they will do it. I think it’s a good thing that many producers choose to make movies about history, but it is imperative that the viewer does not believe every thing presented in the movie. Speilvogel does not agree with everything in the Luther movie, he believes it strays from the historical evidence.
Mary Papasakelariou
Period 7
Spielvogel hits the nail on the head when he talks about the movie unhistorically presenting luther's main reason for his displeasure with the church rests in indulgences opposed to his real reason, Faith "sola". Luther while appalled at the selling of indulgences would not have divorced the church based on this reason alone. His reading of the people really helped him to understand where the church was portraying this message wrong. The book naturally portrays a far more accurate occurance of several key points including the diet of vorms, the trip to rome, and key meetings with Charles V and Frederick the Wise.
John B
In the movie Luther,it shows how Martin Luther broke away from the catholic church. I think that because the movie was made in 1953 there can be a connection made between McCarthyism and this split. Luther was accused of many things just like innocent people were accused of being communist, and how people feared that the government had too much power and control. I also think that the movie was very accurate in portraying Martin Luther's life. Especially with the haircuts they had because they had no hair in the middle of their heads, but hair on the outside just on their foreheads and on the back of their heads in a circle.
Mary Martin
A film can do the most curious things to the historical events that it portrays. A movie does not capture the historical event so much as it captures the emotion of the event. The problem with this is that with the emotion comes a loss of historical accuracy. The reason for this is that the times have changed and the things that would strike chords with the people of the time of the event may, and probably mean nothing to people of this era. A good example of this is Shakespeare and the humor and puns in his works, modern readers and audiences do not catch such things the first time they see or read the plays. A film is sometimes a commentary on the time it was made in. Movies are generally not concerned with a commentary of their times but with making money. The 1953 version of Luther was produced during the second red scare, Luther could be seen as a falsely accused communist defending himself in court. The modern version of Luther was produced during the War on Terror. The terrorists are not organized and thus can not be viewed as the church and America as Luther. The modern version does not comment upon its time.
Tyler Thomas
Period Five
Both Luther films portray Martin Luther accurately. Even though Martin was portrayed well much of the story used in the movies was fiction. All movies based off historical characters or events never end up creating a movie solely based on the true facts of the event. In most cases those types of movie have created the fictional parts for the audiences pleasure. In the case of the most recent Martin Luther movie, religious movies in America were being created around the same time and the audience was not only those affiliated with religion. The director had to create a true history move not just a religious one. The scene of The Diet of Worms in each film truly showed the passion and emotion that Luther had for the Lord and his own beliefs away from the church. The films might not have been historically accurate throughout but the beliefs and ways of Martin shown were true.
Davison C. 5th
When the first major motion picture of Martin Luther was released, the United States was at the height of the Red Scare and the Cold War with Russia. These two aspects later brought on the mentality of McCarthyism into the American public. The Martin Luther trial for his recant could be a possible paralleling scene in the movie to the McCarthy communist trials in the early 1950's. Another example on how current events affect the modern culture is that the musical movie The Sound of Music was released in 1965, the same year the United States began fighting against communism in Vietnam. The producers may have had a strong view on that type of government and wanted to express their stance through this movie, and show through the characters portrayal of their thoughts pertaining to the Nazi regime.
The movie Luther seems to represent a classic conflict of intrests that pertain to historical films. An honest attempt is ususally made to make the film historically accurate; however, profability is a key concern of producers so certain parts of the fim are overally emphasized or dramatized. In Luther this dillemmna is apparent in several scenes, as Jackson Spielvogel points out. One instance is the over simplification of Luther's motives for reforming the church. The film makes it seem that the church's practice of paying for indulgences was the chief cause of Luther's rebellion; however, Martin Luther's reason for reform was his belief in salvation by faith not by works. It was the doctrine of the church that works and faith were keys to salvation. On the whole though I believe the film accurately portays the life of Luther and the context of his struggle.
Walker
The film precisely depicts Luther as being upset with the Catholic Church and you can see that by reading the 95 Theses that he nailed to the church doors. I think the movie is interesting especially when Luther makes jokes about going and seeing people sell indulgences on his trip to Rome. In our class we didn't get to the part where he was at the Diet of Worms hopefully we will get so see it because it is easier to visualize that way. I think it was nice how in the movie Luther helped out the crippled daughter Greta by keeping her in his prayers. I think the movie is a good visual and I think for our class it would be interesting to watch the 1953 version that way we can compare that one to the movie we saw. Although Spielvogel says the movie is based on a myth, it becomes realistic in the movie. That is what i think about the luther movie.
-Kirstyn
period 4
I think movies can depict history postively and negatively. In the 2003 film I got a great picture of how Martin Luther had to deal with realizing the true meaning of faith. The film allows people to visualize the historical content and possibly get better insight into the era. Howeve, some movies that model historical events do not depict the real events, yet tell a story. Take Titanic for example, a great love story but hardly any historical content. However, a positive thing, like in the movie The World Trade Center is depicts the true story of 9/11 and focuses in on a true story about a group of firefighters. Also, the movie Farenheit 9/11 tells facts and such about the terrorism and can give insight yet does not draw you in as much as the previous. All this to say that historically based movies allow us to visualize the long ago eras and get insight on the ones we have lived through.
Shannon D.
I think the movie Luther made in 2003 shows a good portrayal towards what it was like back then. But I have too disagree and say sometimes that movies seem to over exaggerate or delete important scenes. In our text book it said Luther was traveling back when lightening struck him when he was on a horse and in the movie it just showed him walking down the road. Therefore we can see that the two stories dont corolate and other things dont also.
A documentation in movie form of Martin Luther's life is necessary to portray the interesting story of the foundation of the Protestan belief. Both Luther films provide a fairly accurate story in accordance with the known story of Luther.
As I read in previous comments, the 1950s film can be seen as a parallel between Catholicism/Protestantism and Capitalism/Communism. As America was experiencing the Cold War at the time of this movie's production, the historical themes of Luther's movement seem relevant in this time era.
His difference in ideas about religion from the Catholic Church have maintained its place through time. Even passed the Cold War, these unanswered questions on theology always appeal to the world.
-Austin Price
I think that the movie does a good job showing people an accurate view of Martin Luther's life. I think that because of the time difference people of different times can compare the movie with situations of their time. For example, the 1953 movie captured people who could compare the movie with the events of the Cold War. While the 2003, was best compared to the feelings portrayed by people after the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, I believe that movies made at different times still have relevance and should be made because they can show the feelings of another time periodd.
Jennifer Doughtie
Period4
I think that the movie "Luther" portrays, in a general sense, of the truthful historical facts. But, in the movie business, it seems that movie producers and directors share one common thread in making successful films, drama. In "Luther", the over-dramatized scenes and simplified motives of Luther could give away some false historical fact in the real reasons and real ways this whole thing went down.
Connor W. period 6
Both Luther movies appear to basically have the same lines. They both portray Luther as a reformer who won't back down for his cause. The Martin Luther movie in 1953 was made right around the time of the Cold War. Maybe the director of that movie was trying to make a parallel bewtween the radical McCarthyism era and the Protestant Reformation. The 2003 Martin Luther moview, according to Spielvogel, contained many inaccuracies. While mainly using stories about Luther instead of verified facts, the director seems to want to play to the audience's entertainment instead of using the whole truth. The movie clearly shows that Martin Luther was dedicated to his cause, but it doesn't exactly show the many reasons of why he wanted to reform the church. Another historical movie, Marie Antoinette (2006),director Sofia Coppola "ignores much of the political context surrounding Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution." (Spielvogel 541). SOme movies focus less on historical aspects becasue the audience wouldn't like it. The more recent Luther film was created during a time of tension ( the War on Terror), similarly to the Cold War.
Leslie S. Period 7
When movies are made to portray events in history, the audience may sometimes view the historical details in a different way as a result to the way the movie was produced. Because movie makers are focused on making money, they stress the parts of a story that make the movie more enjoyable and more emotional. This way, the audience will be more engaged and the movie will make more money. However, this may take away from the historical content that the movie could provide. Things that were important in the time the events actually happened may be things that people of our time may not exactly care about. Because some of these details are taken out, the accuracy may be altered. The 1953 movie and the more recent version can have different effects on the viewers.
A. Tripp
Period 4
More often than not, historical facts can be interpreted in more than one way. An example of this is when movie directors and producers create films based on historical events. Some would feel that pieces of historical documentation are often exaggeration and that we must not interpret them so literally. Others would say that historians have written the exact details, with no variance or exaggeration. The contrast between the 1953 film and the 2003 film about Martin Luther shows this. In the 1953 film, Spielvogel writes that Luther is portrayed in a less radical manner, as a more tempered character. In the 2003 film, Luther is portrayed as more erratic. In addition, when making a movie, the writers may just add elements, characters, scenes, or events to make the movie more appealing, attract more viewers, and generate high revenue.
- Dan Dao p. 7
Each one of the Luther movies is very similar in most aspects. Both films show Luther in the correct light, showing him as a powerful reformer in the 1500s. However, the significant time gap between the two movies shows a lot about the differences in each movie. For instance, the 1953 movie was produced in the time of the Cold War. This was the time that Joseph McCarthy accused many innocent people of having to do with communism. The writers of the 1953 Luther movie probably could have been making parallels between the American government of the 1950s and the corruption of the Catholic Church that Martin Luther decided to attempt reform against. According to Spielvogel, the Luther movie produced in 2003 “re-creates the scenes largely based on legends about Luther, rather than on a strict adherence to historical facts.” The producers and the director probably wanted it to be more of an “entertaining” movie, rather than an informational document. Because of this comment, it makes me believe that there could be some historical inaccuracy in the 2003 movie. That’s why the 1953 movie and the 2003 movie could have very different effects on the audiences.
Jenna H.
Per. 7
the movie Luther gave a clear interpretation of what happened during Luther's split from the Catholic Church. It was mostly accurate for a movie but they did change minor things to in order to have the viewers attention. Minor things like the horse and the lightning in the beginning were left out but all directors have to make these changes when making a historical movie. For example, Troy's directors added and left out things in order to make it a more interesting movie for the viewer. But the 2003 film of Luther was made accurate and well.
Seth H
I thought the 2003 Luther conveyed the life of Luther quite well when we watched clips from it during class. When reading Spielvogel’s commentary on page 380, I saw that he highlighted many things in the movie that were not historically accurate, such as Luther’s spilling wine at his first communion, seeing Pope Julius II on the streets of Rome, or his nailing his theses to the door. When watching the 1953 movie clip, I saw some of the same discrepancies. I believe however, that even though Spielvogel says that Luther goes more with “legends” of Martin Luther’s life than with historical fact, and even though it may carry the wrong tone about the reasons for Luther’s stand, that it still captures the historical context of the time period pretty well. It sticks to the root story of Luther’s life and still conveys important things like his conversion, when he saw how corrupt Rome was, and the diet of worms. The inaccuracies the writers and directors of Luther added in were in order to help the movie flow and to give in a good plot. This is the case with most historical movies, for example war movies like Pearl Harber and Saving Privite Ryan, both of which have historical inaccuracies due to making the story-line workable.
Leah Wakefield per 5
For the most part the movie was historically accurate; Joseph Fiennes seemed to embody a radical character to almost the very degree of insanity that the real Luther possessed. The film follows the life of Luther chronologically and includes all of the necessary players in his life. However, one needs to remember that this is a film; it was made for entertainment purposes. Therefore the people and their actions are made more dramatic; so that the audience will no loose interest and the film can fulfill one of its main purposes, to make money. Martin Luther was seen as a heretic, whose only purpose was to tear down and destroy the church, yet he became a beacon of light for the peasant class in a corrupt system. The Martin Luther movie in 1953, a time when mass hysteria took over the United States, maybe this movie was meant to remind people that when someone or something seems to be destructive in a society, it could actually help fix the existing problems.
ellie rosenthal
p.7
I think that movies made at different time periods are still accurate despite of the period of time that they were mdae in. The Luther movie made in 1953 compares to the feelings of that time period while the other one is more about what is happening now in our time period. Both movies give the same feeling of what happened just in different ways.
Braeden Brock :)
The Martin Luther movie in 1953 was produced during a time in the United States when many people were scared of the government because of the intense amount of hysteria that was being raised in the Cold War period. The second depiction also takes a completly different toll on people because of the greater amount of technology that was present. I believe that Spielvogel was wrong on his critism because all movie directectors must alter scripts and scenes to create their movies and sometimes that alters peoples views. Kendall s
Both films depicting the life of Martin Luther do a very credible job in presenting the series of events and motivations surrounding this age in history. In relation to the times that these movies were made, we can draw insight to the society of the time. For instance, for the movie released in 1953, America was absorbed with an emotion of terror and skepticism that came with the wave of Communism during the cold war. With the release of Martin Luther's story, this would have brought about a publicised example of how one voice could catapult a society into disaster and reform (like McCarthyism had done). Furthermore, the 2003 movie followed a new wave of societal uncertainty that came with the terrorist threats. The movie Luther could have brought about sentiments of worry about the nation's stability, or perhaps addressed the opinions of religion that were becoming more strongly circulated in America, and still are to this day. Although Luther's age gave way to a religion that our founding fathers followed closely, the society in America today looks toward a religious reformation somewhat the opposite, towards a lack of national religious reliance. The more recent movie could be a testament to America's desire to change the standards of Christianity in America as Luther was determined to remove the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church.
I think that the Martin Luther movie was a very good portrayal of the times that we are studying. It is difficult to make it so that the viewer can understand what is going on and at the same time have the correct information. Sometimes the creators can exaggerate with the film and add their own interpretation. Also in the movie the creators try to create a more severe environment for the viewers.
Kevin Smith P.4
i believe that both movies did a good job on the capturing the historical aspect luther's era and the trials he was faceing. However,they are from the protestant view but that doesnt nessisarily make it false. the movie that took place in 1953 was produced aroung the cold war and the 2003 took place a couple of years after 9 11. i dont think that these movies were filmed because of what was going on around them but if it were then it could have been because it was a crisis that thr government was having to deal with. also it could have been made out of rememberance like the movie pearl harbor.
Nicole S. per.4
For both the Luther movie made in 1953 and one in 2003, the main idea was the same: Luther's defiance toward papal authority in pursuit of true salvation. In both movies, Luther acknowledges faith and not the purchasing of indulgences as the sole method of achieving an assured path to heaven. The dialogue in regards to the speech at the Diet of Worms was almost exactly the same in both movies as well. However, a few historically inaccurate events, which Spielvogel points out, did occur for the sake of sales and entertainment. One of which was the nailing of the 95 theses on the door which in reality did not happen yet was spread by printing press. A minor detail yet inaccurate nonetheless. Another is the evanescent appearance of the Peasant's War in the films. The directors, according to Spielvogel, did not address what was "at stake" for those involved in the war or even why the war had happened. On the whole, I think both films illustrate Martin Luther's cause very well taking into consideration the necessity to captivate audiences while compromising some minor historical details. For example, the dialogue in the Passion of the Christ, made in 2004, accurately corrolates with its historical reference, the Bible. However, the devil is personified as an androgynous albino and nowhere in the Bible is Satan cited in that way. The main idea - unfathomable anguish Jesus undeservedly endured during the crucifiction to mercifully save all humans - is still illustrated. So, in my opinion, Luther, along with other historical films, accurately depict the facts while contorting only few events for the movie's appeal.
Amy P
7th period
I enjoyed the movie Luther, although it might not have been entirely correct I think it gave the viewer a good idea about what is going on. Since there is no way to give a completly accurate view on what happens I feel some of the move was more opinion rather than fact.
Jeff price
In my opinion, both the 2003 and the 1953 movies portray the Luther story very well. I believe, in light of the history of the Catholic church and the strict religious orders of the day, the 2003 movie provides a better depiction than the 1953 movie. Though, this is clearly due to the advancements of technology and film work. I also think the 50's movie reflects the political stage of the world at that time. It is clear that Luther is taking a stand against what the common ideology, just as the American 50's saw an influx of alternative ideas, many of which can be seen with Martin Luther King Jr. Not only do they have the same name, both were leaders who fought against attacks to the common people. Though I do agree with Spielvogel there were many detail misconceptions in the 2003 movie. Though the details will probably always be lost to time and only Luther's principles will remain. So on account of this, I think both movies gave accurate descriptions of the intensity of Luther's stand.
anna b.
Martin Luther is depicted very differently in the lapse of fifty years in filmmaking. In the earlier movie he is depicted as a jovial lighthearted man, who defends himself in front of an interested crowd. The peasants are quite happy going about their daily lives and somewhat comically checking out the daily gossip on the church wall. But in 2003, Martin Luther is depicted as a devoted monk who struggles with the sinful nature of the church. Martin Luther (2003) shows the harsh conditions of the time as the peasants are dirty, the living conditions are hard, and religion is all that separates happiness from hopelessness. The film in 2003 gives a realistic view of the emotional subjectivity by the church through indulgences and other declarations on the people. The church officials are cruel and attacked Martin Luther and death is mentioned, while in the earlier movie it’s a relatively happy atmosphere. Martin Luther is more realistically portrayed as a persecuted monk who found the truth of God and opposed the supreme power of the European world. The 2003 movie is more in line with history as Martin Luther is called in dialogue a “drunken German monk that needs to be sobered up” therefore the 2003 movie follows very well with with Spielvogel's writings and other historical accounts.
Iris Webre
Period 5
Historical facts are understood in many different ways. For example, when the movie directors and producers create films based on historical events, some would think that it may not be accurate. The scripts of the 1953 and the 2003 Martin Luther films are very similar although they portray the legends about Luther, rather than historical documentation. Other movies based on historical commentary include 300, which was not completely accurate.
Post a Comment