Sister Mary Explains It All

Supposedly the play on which this movie is based was a laugh-riot on stage, but the filmed version is a mess. The playwright as well as the cast and director can't seem to figure out whether this is a comedy, a tragedy, or a melodrama. As a result, the film is all of these -- and therefore, none of these.

I love good satire, and I was hoping that this would be a gritty spoof of those tunnel-visioned fundamentalists who take themselves so seriously that they begin making up their own religion, never realizing that they have sadly strayed from any orthodox teachings. But I was severely disappointed in this mish-mash.

Back to the old hell book with this script!

I am a former Catholic, so parts of this movie that I found funny were mysterious to the person I watched it with (who knew very little about the Catholic church). For example, most of the parroted, rote-style question-and-answer bits ("Who made you?" "God made me.") were from the Baltimore Catechism, which was used extensively in Catholic schools during the "golden age" of Catholic education in the 1940s and 1950s. But this movie was set in 1984, if my math is still good, and I don't know of any parish schools affiliated with the Church of Rome who could have gotten away with using it by then.

Ditto with some of the doctrinal "humor." To people who aren't Catholics, it just isn't funny. It's confusing and will probably do more to *alienate* Catholics from the faithful of other beliefs, which definitely isn't needed.

Finally, the ending was upsetting and needlessly tragic. It was not worth the emotional investment in the characters.

Oh, and a note to the person below who said a nun would not take a male name under any circumstances (meaning Ignatius) -- that simply isn't true. I have known many women religious who took male names. In many orders, the common practice up until Vatican II was to use the first name of Mary for every sister, and then add a second name -- a male saint's name, such as Patrick, Charles, Aloysius, or -- yes -- Ignatius -- to make Sister Mary Patrick, Sister Mary Charles, etc. In fact, I have a good friend who was a sister in the 1970s whose name in religion was Sister Mary Matthew.

What *is* incorrect, in this context, is to call such a person a nun. A nun is a member of a cloistered religious order. Such religious are bound by "solemn" vows and lead lives of contemplative prayer, away from the outside world. Female religious who serve their order in schools, hospitals, or other visible venues are not nuns. They are sisters, and they are bound by "simple" vows.

While I do not wish to flaunt my familiarity with the Catholic church, I do want to point out that because of it, I was able to recognize that this movie simply does not work as a "humorous" film when shown to a non-Catholic audience. There are too many "inside" jokes.

Finally Chris Durang's controversial 1981 one-act play SISTER MARY IGNATIUS EXPLAINS IT ALL FOR YOU has been brought to the screen - the small screen - by the boundary-pushing SHOWTIME, appropriately enough. Durang himself penned the screenplay and effectively opens up what is inherently part lecture, part stand-up, and part vaudeville. The major problem faced is how to deal with the "audience" that the theatre provided in the form of ticket buyers each evening.

Durang re-sets the action of his "Nun's Story" at Christmas, the eve of Sister Mary's 25th Annual lecture, and works in a variety of wayward Catholic parishoners attending Sister's obligatory holiday talk-fest. Among them are a pair of teens who have been having pre-marital sex, a nearly deaf devotee of Sister's who just likes to see people smile, a bitter divorcee (producer Victoria Tennent), as well as a dysfunctional couple (Martin Mull is the hubby, and his expressions during Sister's rants are priceless) who'd rather be shopping. Primary among Sister's guests are four students from her 1959 class, who have decided to re-enact their Nativity pageant in order to embarrass the strict nun. This quartet consists of a variety of folk Sister now classifies as "going to burn in hell" and are led by the particularly bitter Angela DiMarco (a stunning turn by Laura San Giacomo), whose name has been changed from the play from Diane Symonds, one of the few text changes made. Once they arrive, Sister's best laid plans go awry and the lecture reels wildly out of control.

Marshall Brickman's precise direction (including some nifty flashbacks to sepia-toned 1959) keep Durang's humor intact, but it is the "star turn" of Diane Keaton as Sister Mary who single-handedly destroys the tone of Durang's greatest work. The role is a demanding one, no doubt, but Keaton's approach is erratic, random, and leans toward humor where pathos is required. The delicate balance of SISTER MARY relies upon how "real" Sister seems to us. Keaton treats the character as a stand-up comedian, we never see a glimpse of her soul. Sister Mary really is a frightened and insecure woman whose reality and way of life is slipping quickly away. Half grandmother, half dictator, the habit's original owner Elizabeth Franz was one of the few to hit the exact right notes and she's sorely missed here. While I'm glad to see the piece finally lensed, I'll have to be happy with my memories of the stage production for the "real" Sister Mary Ignatius.

I love reading other people's commentary. Of course, the downside is seeing opinions that differ from one's own. I had to say, this movie was pretty darned funny.

Of course, the folks who have seen the play on stage will say the movie was a poor replica; it is their duty as "insiders" to knock any reproduction of what they felt was especially theirs. The screenplay was by the same man who wrote the play, and he sculpted it very carefully. To knock the movie is to knock the playwright, which to any Durang fan is quite the slight.

As for the heavy-handed approach to Catholicism; why not? I'm sure, if Durang had suffered through a Jewish school of the same nature, we would be seeing a film and/or play based on his days with the Semite community. He just happened to be Catholic, and wrote a brilliant satire of what he knew.

And of course, there is the erratic pacing of the film. Odd sequences, strange juxtapositions, etc. It is all very confusing at times, but it all serves a purpose. If one has dealt with Durang before, one knows that his delivery is always quite odd, and always biting. The performance by Keaton actually emphasized the strange nature of his writing, and while it might not have been as stellar as some stage performances, it deffinetely served its purpose.

Basically, it is an odd film. The words of Christopher Durang presented by quite the cast of actors, coupled with a pretty decent director, brought a brilliant play to (recorded) life. I can assure you that any misscomfort you feel was fully intentional. It takes you on a rollercoaster from hillarity to shock to horror, all the time driving home a very blatant message.

And by the way, non-Catholics get the jokes, too.

Just to add two bits to this. I, too, studied with a nun with a male saint's name, Sister Joseph Maureen. That's why I always quipped -- even before seeing Durang's play -- "The ones with the male saints' names are the worst." Sister Joseph Maureen was such a terror that I was sent to a psychologist at 7.

As to who is and isn't a "nun," for 99 percent of those in the Roman Catholic Church, both contemplative (cloistered) sisters and apostolic (out in the world as teachers, nurses and, nowadays, other occupations) sisters are referred to as "nuns." Indeed, in 1984, when I wrote my master's thesis on modern nuns, apostolic sisters freely referred to themselves and others in the apostolic orders as nuns. The distinction is not much observed in everyday speech.