Sister Mary Explains It All

For a Christian , ignoring the confession , it has high potential to be pure blasphemy. For a not Christian, I suppose, it can be bizarre and absurd. I saw in the last scenes not as a film/play about Christianity and its message, not as a film about bigotism but as a story about teaching as refuge against life. Diane Keaton gives a splendid portrait of profound loneliness, need of power in absolute forms, about isolation in herself of a sister- obvious, Mary ignatius is a sister, not a nun and a precise indictment against sins, cruel mistakes of Romano - Catholic Church. It is not a black comedy, but good occasion to reflection. About soulless faith , about refuges and real meaning of education. A not comfortable film about forms of moral blindness .

Great movie, especially if you're a recovering Catholic!! Excellent job by Keaton. She was so believable I found myself ducking to avoid getting hit by ruler. Over all I laughed, I cried, I confessed my sins. Worth renting!!!

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 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.

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.