(Opinion) Angel Studios can’t seem to catch a break from controversy. Its first big hit, the film “Sound of Freedom,” was heavily criticado by sex-trafficking survivors for its deceptive portrayal of the issue.
They’ve also faced acusaciones of unsavory business practices. “Sound of Hope” was desautorizado by its executive producer, actor Letitia Wright (Shuri from “Black Panther”), for partnering with conservative media company The Daily Wire for distribution.
Most recently, the team behind “The Chosen” TV series parted ways with the company after a judge agreed with them that Angel had breached their contract.
Now, “Bonhoeffer” is the latest of their films to receive backlash. The Bonhoeffer family came out and denounced it as a “history-distorting biopic, which turns Bonhoeffer into an evangelical saint.” The review by Myles Wertz in El cristianismo hoy calls their version of Bonhoeffer’s life story “an empty container into which our own desires — in this case, desires for a faith that serves political ends.”
Are these critiques of the new “Bonhoeffer” warranted? Some more than others. But they really are a sign of how the studio’s storytelling philosophy encourages the least productive conversations around their work.
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Donate $75 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive the “Reimagine Church” 2-Book Bundle including ‘Invisible Jesus’ by Scot McKnight & Tommy Phillips and ‘Need to Know’ edited by Danielle Strickland. To donate, haga clic aquí.
“Bonhoeffer” — written and directed by Todd Komarnicki (“Sully”) — follows the life of pacifist preacher and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (played by Jonas Dassler) as he speaks out against Adolf Hitler and works to undermine him as the power of the Nazis grows within his beloved Germany. Told as a series of flashbacks while Bonhoeffer is in prison, we watch as his convictions develop — from childhood to seminary to the pulpit.
The film does a good job of capturing much of what has made Bonhoeffer such a universally beloved figure. Bonhoeffer is portrayed as a man of deep faith and conviction, something revealed in his words and deeds. He talks about his faith all the time, and it animates everything he does — from his dislike for his seminary professors and his objections to racism to his public protest and private undermining of Hitler’s regime. In an age where Christians feel like faith is being erased from public life, and many secular people feel like Christians aren’t speaking truth to power, everyone can find something to like here.
In fact, it’s difficult to square the actual Bonhoeffer film with criticisms of it being right-wing or “Christian nationalist.” Any politics it does espouse are rather left-wing, from its heavy emphasis on comparing the evils of American racism to Nazi Germany to its heavy condemnations of fascism at every turn (which has been the preferred label of the American left against the American political right). The “Bonhoeffer” actors even signed an open letter condemning Christian nationalism.
Reading the comments about the film by the Bonhoeffer family, it seems like they haven’t watched the movie. The criticisms deal mostly with the film’s marketing, which uses the words “Pastor. Spy. Assassin,” which are very similar to the title of the heavily-criticized book about Bonhoeffer’s life by conservative pundit Eric Metaxas. Aside from that, I can’t find that the book or Metaxas had any involvement with this movie. Other claims they make are just misinformed. They say that Angel Studios is an evangelical film studio. In fact, its founders were Mormons and its owners are from multiple different faith backgrounds.
More plausible criticisms of the film are around its historical accuracy and message. Myles Werntz objects to the film portraying Bonhoeffer, who was a committed pacifist, as someone who overtly threw those out the window to try to kill Hitler when the time came: “Rather than depicting a man of deep theological convictions and subtle intellect, ‘Bonhoeffer’ tells the story of a man for whom moral convictions are a flexible and useful tool, a man whose actions are determined not by concerns for the church’s witness but by perceived historical necessity. It is the story of a Bonhoeffer willing to do anything — including disavow the teachings of Jesus as he understood them — to assassinate Adolf Hitler.”
I’m disposed to agree with this critique of the film’s message, particularly at a time when — as he puts it — “in the aftermath of two assassination intentos on a former president … we do not need further justification for political violence.” That said, it seems to be a bit of an overstatement to say that portraying Bonhoeffer as involved in the plot to kill Hitler is “historically inaccurate” given that, as Wertnz notes, Bonhoeffer’s involvement is the subject of debate.
It’s also true that “Bonhoeffer” encourages people to watch it based on a primarily ideological lens since it’s primarily a message-driven hagiography. Ever since “Sound of Freedom,” Angel Studios has developed a fairly consistent pattern of historical biopic movies that all pretty much follow the same treatment of its subjects–to the degree you can almost call out the tropes as part of their signature.
Like most Angel biopic protagonists, Bonhoeffer is not a fully realized character so much as a mouthpiece to scold the audience into following his example. He scolds his seminary professor. He scolds his mentor. He scolds the compromising clergy. He scolds the British. It’s tragicomic that the studio has come out with enough faith-based biopics that you can pick out as its own “trope” — and that it’s one of a two-dimensional scold. Practically every scene is Bonhoeffer with his plastered disapproving expression on his face either lecturing someone or being lectured to by someone, whether it’s about his professor’s stuffy religion, the church’s compromise with Hitler or the American South’s racism.
To be fair, Bonhoeffer is better than protagonists like Tim Ballard (“Sound of Freedom”) or Mother Cabrini (“Cabrini”). We do spend more time understanding what Bonhoeffer believes and why he believes it. We watch him on part of his journey to having his convictions on an extended stay with the Black Church in America. But that journey still primarily results in a two-dimensional figure.
That’s a big part of why Angel Studios’ hagiographies can be so boring. The main figure exists to shame us into imitation by their virtue and their moralizing. They aren’t people we can relate to because they remind us of ourselves. Their stories take us on an emotional journey. They are either fully-formed at the beginning of the film or they tell us what their arc is rather than showing us. They are just a walking sermon that gets repeated ad nauseam for the whole movie’s runtime (or, in Bonhoeffer’s case, he takes a break from that sometimes to get lectured at by someone else).
Generally, the film is also made in a very basic style. Every shot is a traditional wide, medium, close, over the shoulder regardless of whether the scene would benefit more by holding on a wide shot (to create a sense of isolation or place) and doing a lot of close-ups. The actors read their lines more than embody them, coming across like they’re as bored to be there as we are watching them. The speed of the scenes and the timing of the cuts never pick up or slow down.
This is especially obvious in the scene where Bonhoeffer hears jazz for the first time.
“I’ve played piano since I was a child, but I feel like until now I’ve never heard music,” he says.
We’re supposed to feel the contrast between his stuffy existence and the life-giving and exciting jazz culture. Yet the way it’s shot and edited is as stiff as a Buckingham Palace guard. Contrast that with movies with a real musical sensibility like “Babylon,” “Baby Driver” or the new film “Wicked,” where every frame, cut or zoom is made to feel like music.
This lack of character, thematic or stylistic rhythm leaves the movie wanting. The story moves along like a collection of scenes that begin, move on and end, with no rhythm or rhyme. No true emotional or thematic arc we are invested in. Such that the movie plods along to the end rather than feeling like it is racing or rising or falling to a conclusion.
With all of that, is it any wonder that the movie’s message is getting all the attention?
Of course, many Angel Studios fans think that’s a feature, not a bug. I’ve been criticized for calling movies like “Sound of Freedom” and “Cabrini” boring. Their fans push back that the movie isn’t there to entertain us. It’s there to inspire us to make the world a better place.
There are a couple of obvious problems with this. If someone is saying a movie is “boring,” it means the movie hasn’t engaged the heart enough to make the message really at all effective. Secondly, when you make your mission to change hearts and minds, it’s easy for your art to become dishonest. That’s why there’s a stigma against “propaganda.” When the goal of your art is persuasion rather than truth, then beauty and truth are often sacrificed. If these historical films are inaccurate about their topics, that might be partly why.
But fans who are “message first” have more control than most studios over Angel Studios content. “Angel Guild” members get to vote on movies that submit themselves for consideration to get distributed by Angel Studios. And because the studio has pitched itself as an alternative to Hollywood which exists to “amplify light,” its most passionate supporters are clearly the ones that are picking ideology as one of its highest priorities.
There’s also a “live by the sword, die by the sword” problem that Angel Studios keeps running into with its model of the “wisdom of crowds.” They know a big part of their audience is conservative Christians. (Their biggest successes are still “Sound of Freedom” and “The Chosen”).
They keep trying to signal to that group (hence, partnering with The Daily Wire and evoking Metaxas’ book in “Bonhoeffer” marketing materials). But they also want their movies to be for everyone. That’s why most of their movies focus on apolitical themes (“Sound of Freedom” equal to sex trafficking; “Sound of Hope” equal to foster kids) or left-coded political ones (“Cabrini” equal to feminism and immigration).
Unfortunately, we live in such a polarized time; the association with the political right means the left will react to it with suspicion and vice versa. If Angel Studios wants to “amplify light,” they need to have a strong vision of truth and beauty that it can reflect with its movies. They also have to a strong sense of who their audience is and not be ashamed of such an audience. Until then, their voice won’t add to the conversation; it will just get lost in the noise.
This commentary, which originally appeared at Religión desconectada, does not necessarily reflect the views of The Roys Report.
Joseph Holmes is an award-nominated filmmaker and culture critic living in New York City. He is co-host of the podcast The Overthinkers, where he discusses art, culture and faith with his fellow overthinkers.
Spanish 
English
33 Respuestas
The title alone gave me pause. The notion of Bonhoeffer as “assassin” and carrying a German Luger is nothing short of ridiculous. The nuanced scholarly fight over his pacifism and how he may or may not have contributed to the plot is complicated. I haven’t seen any clear evidence that he was instrumental in planning, organizing, or executing the plot.
Alexander, please read Eric Metaxas’ book on Bonhoeffer – you will find more than enough evidence of Bonhoeffer’s involvement in attempts to assassinate hitler. You can also listen to the Bonhoeffer documentary from about 2003 (on youtube) where the actual people who were actually there gave there undeniable testimonies regarding this. Bonhoeffer laid down his life not only for the cause of Christ, but also for the cause of God’s purposes for Israel. And, Eric Metaxas was indeed heavily involved in this movie, thank God, you can hear him talk about it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoJZKC17KuI
Sadly, Eric Metaxas is known to be a very inaccurate source on Bonhoeffer. I have not done deep dives into which facts metaxas has gotten right and wrong, but I know among scholars who study Bonhoeffer’s works, Metaxas is considered a joke. While many of the things he has said may be true, the fact that he is saying them does not mean they are true. Check other sources.
“Among scholars”? Do you really think that is a sound argument against Metaxas? Appeal to Authority is not just for breakfast anymore. It’s just incredibly lazy.
To correct my own statement a bit, rather than saying Metaxas was heavily involved in the movie, I should instead say that the new Bonhoeffer movie was based on Eric Metaxas’ book, therefore the movie was heavily influenced by Metaxas’ book (thankfully).
I followed all of the links and was sickened, not by any twisting of who Bonhoeffer was and what he stood for, but by the immoral appropriation of his legacy by cryptoChristian Leftists such as Jim Wallis. These people never fail to amuse me between bouts of vomiting. Their smarmy celebrations of self as exemplars of Christian ( and Bonhoefferian ) legacy, and their contemptuousness toward Trump and his voters are rich, indeed.
So, it’s Trump who is ungodly, not Biden, who asserted that trans rights are “the defining civil rights issue of our generation,” who as far as I am aware never advocated the slightest limitation of abortion, who hadn’t the slightest interest in enforcing America’s borders, something which enabled the murderers of Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungary, Rachel Morin and more than a few others to find their victims. Oh, yes, and what about what the journalist, Miranda Devine, author of “The Big Guy,” calls the Biden crime family? Any immorality there?
I don’t believe Donald Trump is America’s savior, even temporally, but God undeniably has put him where he is about to be to give us wretched Americans a little more time and freedom to get our houses in order, and we should thank Him for that.
Debra,
Eric Metaxas is a partisan huckster who will twist anything to his benefit. The Bonhoeffer family and foundation have condemned him.
I recommend engaging with scholarship rather than a grifter – integrity is a watch-word among those who genuinely follow Jesus of Nazareth!
greg
Greg, the facts Metaxas wrote in his book align with the testimonies of the real people who were involved who spoke in the 2003 documentary. I would encourage you to watch the documentary and also read Metaxas’ book. The book is a great gift to the body of Christ, thoroughly documenting Bonhoeffer’s life laid down fully, sacrificially for Jesus and the Jewish people. God honors those who honor Him, and it was good and right for Metaxas to write the book that honored God’s faithful servant.
But, have you read Other books and bio’s besides Metaxa’s? If you haven’t, then you’re getting a skewed (ONE man’S interpretation) of history! Getting to the truth of things requires multiple angles and viewpoints which comes together in a consensus…(like the Bible does).
Metaxa’s book is flawed and there’s a scholarly consensus on that. No one, especially not Christians, should put all their trust in just his interpretation…
Yes Andrew. A good rule of thumb is objectivity and the authors expertise and insight on the subject matter. Have noticed reference sources utilised often these days to support all types of positions and arguments which simply are subjective, partial, and not overly researched.
Greg, how do we know when those claiming Metaxas is a huckster are not hucksters themselves? Accusations are easy. Supporting them are hard. Don’t be that guy.
Thanks to the reviewer for his comments about camera angles. Film is an art form, and a good movie needs more than a compelling message. It should be a feast for the eyes. The great ones, Christian-themed or not, excel in every category — casting, outdoor scenery, indoor sets, screenplay, timing, costumes, plot, editing, music, special effects, character development, and cinematography.
Julie—I highly encourage you and your readers to view the interview Glen Beck did with Eric Metaxas last night (November 23, 2024) via this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPOyq7rsPzc
Perhaps this will refute those individuals commenting negatively on Bonhoeffer and Metaxas … but probably not. After all, they have their views and “they” are right all the time … (“Right?”)
And speaking of “right,” Julie … I really hope you’ll watch it and really pay attention to the positive words about President Elect Trump. Perhaps at some point you’ll see the assassination attempts and specifically, the first one, as God’s protection for our nation – much like Bonhoeffer knew was true of God’s nature as he faced the gallows for making a stand against evil.
Greg, thanks for the link. I found the long [90 minutes] interview informative. Metaxas makes some excellent points. His comparisons of Bonhoeffer’s era to our current time, however, seem tenuous at best,
It’s nearly 83 years since fifteen demonically crazed men a.hitler’s accomplices) met at the Conference Table at Lake Wannsee, Berlin, Germany on 01/20/1942 and decided in just 90 minutes to enact “The Final Solution” in which they planned to systemically carry out the execution of 11 million European Jews who were crudely numbered on two sheets of paper by country — on that Table.
By 04/30/1945, 6 million people of these listed were dead and 5 million were yet alive, having either escaped imprisonment or had survived the Camps. And a. hitler and his new bride along with many others who participated in this heinous, unspeakable evil were on their way to South America in “Yellow Submarines.” Even The Beatles knew.
YHWH is watching, and He will send HIs Son Yahshua, Who will return soon to fight for His Land, His People called by His Name, and His Covenant of His Son Yahshua’s shed blood on Calvary’s Tree.
May the memory and descendants of Dietrich Bonhoeffer be Blessed as this message goes out yet again of a man who chose rather to act that to sit back and “sing louder” there in the sanctuaries of Germany and beyond as the trains roared by …
“If you forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If you say: Behold: we knew it not! Doth not He that ponders the heart consider it? and He that keeps thy soul, doth not He know it, and shall He not render to every man according to his works?” Proverbs 24:11,12
“Gentlemen, I have come this morning to the inexcusable conclusion that we have fought on the wrong side. This entire war we should have fought with the fascists against the communists and not the other way around. I fear that perhaps in fifty years America will pay a dear price and become a land of corruption and degenerate morals.” – General George S. Patton July 21, 1945)
“In another letter Patton wrote to his wife, he said:
‘I will probably be in the headlines before you get this, as the press is trying to quote me as being more interested in restoring order in Germany than in catching Nazis. I can’t tell them the truth that unless we restore Germany we will insure that communism takes America.’”
Angel studios = Mormon , Glen Beck is Mormon.
A question I have is: Why this story NOW? Why this distraction?
I was very much looking forward to this movie…. not anymore.
The movie was delayed by Covid resulting in a loss of funding and it took more years than planned
Thank you for the heads up. I had no idea that the movie involved Eric Metaxas. I’ll pass thanks!
Eric Metaxas book is poor scholarship and unreliable, according to actual Bonhoeffer experts. https://www.christiancentury.org/reviews/2010-09/hijacking-bonhoeffer
any work using Metaxas as a source will necessarily be non-factual, whether intentional or not. You can’t make true things from false sources.
Jen Manlief,
Christian Century is a well-known left-wing organization. If I gave you a link about Bonhoeffer written up by Breitbart or Infowars, would you pay any attention to it?
Hi Brian, Christian Century has a left-center bias, and a high rating on factual reporting. It’s also rated as high credibility by media bias fact check. the comparison to Breitbart or Infowars is a false comparison, as Breitbart is rated far right with mixed factuality and low credibility, and Info wars is rated to be conspiracy and pseudo science.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-christian-century-magazine-bias/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/infowars-alex-jones/
Jen Manlief,
The entire fact-check culture is left-wing, as I know you know. Show me actual errors in Metaxas’ book, and “I don’t like him! He’s for Trump” doesn’t count.
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/items/8f9a6f3b-efd7-46f3-b4be-49fe0fb8e0c3
Brian, also, it would be worth examining why “the entire fact-check culture is left-wing”, and why that seems to be a problem to you, or a reason to dismiss it.
If facts are facts, they can stand up to being checked. And why is the “right-wing” unconcerned with the truthfulness of statements? I hear all the time about “democrats lying!”- why is the right NOT fact-checking and showing where the dems “facts” are false?
If only the left is fact-checking, it could mean that they’re being overly critical. It could also mean that they are addressing false or un-factual statements made by the right. either way, it’s worth looking at the fact checks and seeing if they’re true. (also, “bias” doesn’t equal “false” necessarily. believe it or not, the “left” says and does a lot of “true” things. just as the “right” does.)
I didn’t use politifact, I used Media Bias Fact Check- here’s a link to their methodology. it’s quite solid. The concept of fact checking is not false or biased because some fact checkers are false or biased. You are dismissing sources without examining their veracity, because you don’t like their conclusions. That is misguided.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
Tim Challes does a nice job of synthesizing the criticism of Metaxas- namely that he reshaped Bonhoeffer into an evangelical to be palatable for evangelical audiences (or less charatibly, hero wish fulflillment) by ignoring and erasing much of the true Bonhoeffer.) He cites his sources, so feel free to look them up and dismiss those too- but Challes is pretty conservative.
https://www.challies.com/articles/counterfeit-bonhoeffer/
This critique is long and scholarly, but sums up the major problems with Metaxes work in this paragraph: “There are two central problems here. The first is that he has a very shaky grasp of the political, theological, and ecumenical history of the period. Hence he has pieced together the historical and theological backdrop for the Bonhoeffer story using examples from various works, sometimes completely out of context and often without understanding their meaning. He focuses too much on minor details and overlooks some of the major ones (such as the role of the Lutheran bishops and the “intact” churches). The second is that theologically, the book is a polemic, written to make the case that Bonhoeffer was in reality an evangelical Christian whose battle was not just against the Nazis but all the liberal Christians who enabled them (in fact, Metaxas is much kinder to the secular humanists, but that’s probably because they were members of the Bonhoeffer family).”
https://www.challies.com/articles/counterfeit-bonhoeffer/
Jen Manlief,
In general, when I’m told to not believe my own eyes, I tend to think we have a problem. One recent example of “fact-checking” that was widely ridiculed across the entire spectrum was the NYT’s attempt to “gotcha” RFK for criticizing chemical additives permitted in U.S. breakfast cereals but banned in almost every other country:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nyts-fact-check-rfk-jr-170854242.html
As for why the fact-checking industry runs so far to the left in general, it’s easy to understand why: it’s a salve for the same demographic that is the backbone and powerhouse of the left: affluent, educated, childless urban elites that have had comfortable lives from cradle to the present and don’t have to worry about crime, inflation, competition for scarce jobs, manual labor in inclement weather, healthcare being priced out of affordability. Remember when we were mocked by the childfree donor class for complaining about the price of baby formula, two years ago?
I don’t need a “fact check” to tell me I’m wrong when I say that two men can’t create a baby or that an embryo isn’t a human being, unless I am looking for a good chuckle.
Brian, thanks for the reply. I find it fascinating that in almost all of your cited examples you are choosing to believe propaganda rather than facts. I could post link after link showing that crime is down, inflation is going down faster in the US than any other developed country after the global pandemic, competition for jobs has a lot to do with the oligarchy class crushing unions, and healthcare reforms being shut down by the GOP- but you wouldn’t read the links, and google is free if you’re actually interested.
It’s also fascinating that your algorithm fed you “childless liberals” mocking parents for the price of formula, and my algorithm fed me republicans shaming women for not breastfeeding as the moral and right solution. just goes to show, the algorithms know what will engage us.
I wish you well, I guess, as you seem to insist on going by your feelings rather than facts. I hope that works out for you. I did notice that I provided actual critique of Metaxas book, (with sources) as you asked for, and rather than engage with that, you continue to dismiss the sources on no bases other than “they’re left”. I note that you do not suggest that they get the facts wrong, or they are suggesting untrue things.
Brad describes the “powerhouse of the left” as “affluent, educated, childless urban elites that have had comfortable lives from cradle to the present and don’t have to worry about crime, inflation, competition for scarce jobs, manual labor in inclement weather, healthcare being priced out of affordability.”
While there are many untruths and oxymorons in this list (Urban, yet not impacted by crime? Jobs are scarce at every level, with recent averages topping 300 applicants per opening in professional services like consulting and banking; healthcare costs continue to be the number one cause of bankruptcy, even among those making over $100k; I could go on….), I have found it both sad and amusing that “educated” has become an insult.
Are the well educated supposed to feel bad? Should they have aimed to be uneducated? What do you say to all those “first generation” college students – that they made a bad decision?
My first instinct is that it’s an insult hurled out of jealousy, but I want to be open to what I could be missing. Why is being educated bad?
Haz que tenga sentido.
Jen and Brian,
Thanks for link and comments. Perhaps they demonstrate that the article’s title is accurate — Bonhoeffer’s life and legacy are the subjects of much disagreement.
Paul Ryan says, Court clears German Bonhoeffer who was executed for opposing Hitler.
In a ruling seen by many Germans as righting one of the great wrongs of postwar history, a Berlin court has formally exonerated Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran theologian who joined the Resistance against Hitler and was executed for his activities in the closing days of World War II.
Until last week, many in Germany had assumed that the death sentence for treason, passed by an SS tribunal in the concentration camp of Flossenbuerg in Bavaria, was still technically valid because previous efforts to void convictions by Nazi “people’s courts” did not apply to SS courts.
But in the ruling last week, the Berlin court determined that the conviction had already been overturned by a 1946 ruling in Bavaria that applied to many sentences handed down by Nazi courts.
I admit I’m uncomfortable with the reviewer’s comments about Bonhoeffer’s family. With all the controversy around the book and film, sounds like they have reason to be concerned about their loved one’s legacy, including who is telling, altering, and/or promoting it.
Whys is it that evidence against what a religion or religious person thinks/believes is attacked as “left” (fill in any words with “left” in it here) and biased, but a religious person’s view is not? Is there anything more bias than seeing the world through a religious lens? This is not to say there is no value or voice to the religious, but it is always amazing how they do not see that they have only one view and anything that pushes back must be discarded at all costs (and usually referred to as satan).
Metaxas is not a serious author or historian. This is not hard to arrive at, but why is it Christians are so easily swindled by him and many others like him? For religions to remain relevant in a modern world (especially around history and politics), they will first have to confront their own bias and how that could leave them open to manipulation. Look no farther than the great reporting on this site. Who is worse? The leaders abusing the people or the people in the pews propping them up at all costs?
Having actually seen the film, I thought this review was pretty much spot-on. Somewhere between the grotesque, overwrought marketing and packaging and the heavy-handed didacticism of the film itself, the mood got lost.
Every cinematic dramatization is going to play a bit fast and loose with the source material, otherwise it’s not drama. But as a biopic with a historic, heroic sweep, this particular film just fell flat. The title character came across as a moral scold. The portrayal of his youth and spiritual growth toward eventual martyrdom came across as written on official paper. Rather than showing us the man and his development, it told us too much through dialogue and monologue.
The end did hit emotionally for me because I knew just enough about the man to know how tragic the timing of his death was, and yet how much God has used his writings, his life, and his example to shine a light for future generations across multiple traditions and worldviews. But equally tragic is how the film failed a transcendent real-life character and the fullness of his life. Many of us believe this man a saint, and I do hope this worthy but perhaps challenging material eventually falls into a more capable filmmaker’s hands.
In terms of getting a film “based on a true story” right, there’s no single right answer, but as seen here, there are a whole lot of wrong ones. Personally and perhaps subjectively, I found Terrence Malick’s “A Hidden Life” far more compelling and honoring of the dignity of another, less sung man of the era. Is there a director of Malick’s artistic stature somewhere out there who might also be interested in Bonhoeffer’s life?