Written by 
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 Christianity Today review by Myles Wertz calls their version of Bonhoeffer “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.
“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 Bonnohoffer’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 attempts 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.