As cartas de Madre Teresa

It deserves be better.

This is the first though about this profound good intentioned film. The subject is more than generous, the effort of Juliet Stevenson is precious , the frame - dialogue between two priests- is nice, but the film has not convincing. The emotion is not send to the viewer, the feeling to be a travel across letters is too obvious and the desire to feel the story remains a sketch. But a film about Mother Teresa remains, always, useful. In this case, as a good try.

Normally I don't see a movie if it doesn't get great reviews, but this time, I decided to see The Letters on the recommendation of a friend. I was pleasantly surprised leaving me to wonder why the harsh reviews? I was entertained, I learned much that I didn't know, I was absorbed, I cried, laughed, it was beautifully filmed and the actors were wonderful. Most of all, I left feeling uplifted. This constitutes a good movie in my books! I believe a critic's criteria for judging a movie is somewhat different from the viewing public. Some of the most beloved and enduring movies of all time suffered from critics' initial panning. And haven't we all seen movies that got great reviews, and we left feeling duped because they were so bad? So my advice is to see The Letters and judge for yourself. You won't be disappointed.

Greetings again from the darkness. All we need is one more miracle. Having been beatified with one "confirmed" miracle, it's that missing second one that stands between Mother Teresa and Sainthood. At times the film from director William Rilead plays like a highlight reel for Mother Teresa's induction into the Catholic Hall of Fame, as the dual emphasis is on all the good things she did for the poor, as well as the surprising sense of isolation and abandonment she felt most of her life.

The film is structured in flashback form as a priest played by Rutger Hauer is charged with researching the case for canonizing the late Mother Teresa. He crosses paths with Father Celeste van Exem (Max von Sydow), who shares the saved correspondence from Mother Teresa that provides the title of the movie. These very personal letters spanned 50 years and act much as a journal of her work and emotions.

Most of the movie takes us through the progression of Mother Teresa's life. A slump-shouldered Juliet Stevenson portrays the nun as a woman on a mission from God … despite the obstacles from her detractors: jealous and disapproving nuns, many in the Catholic Church, and even some of the local citizens whom she desired to help. Her commitment to assist "the poorest of the poor" placed her in some tough situations and undesirable environments. She seemed to take on the suffering of those she was serving.

Given her proclamation that "It's God's will, not mine", the Vatican approved her plan to go outside the Loreto Order to serve the poor. Two years later, her application for a new order was approved, resulting in the congregation of The Missionaries of Charity. Her mission then had structure and backing, and so began to make real progress.

Capturing the essence of this woman is what the film does best. We absolutely understand how she became "an icon of compassion for all religions" by giving "voice to the poor". Perhaps, given the times we are in, this ability to serve multiple religions could itself by considered a miracle. As with any person who serves others, Mother Teresa had (and has) her detractors and critics. She (like her Catholic Church) opposed contraception … despite the needs within the community she served. Others accused her of mismanaging the millions in contributions, and spending too much effort recruiting new Catholics. Again, those accusations are not the purpose of the film, which instead profiles a woman who helped so many who otherwise would have been ignored in their misery.

As a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1979, her commitment to the cause resulted in her most public recognition and brought her full circle from an early line of dialogue: "I may not be wanted here, but I am needed." Regardless of the Catholic rule book requirements, it's difficult to imagine a modern day person more worthy of being considered a Saint.

Disclaimer: I was a small investor in this film (I was cold-called about the film 7 years ago when Bill Riead was in the early stages of making the movie, and decided it was a good project). So I have a small financial interest in this movie.

I add that I am not catholic (nor even religious), and knew little about mother teresa before I saw this film, so I have no connection to the church, or mother teresa's particular cause.

As to the movie, let me start by saying the movie is not a great piece of filmmaking, and has obvious flaws. For example, the narration is stiff and tiresome in places, and the script feels unsophisticated compared to what we're used to these days.

ON THE OTHER HAND, despite its flaws, I found the movie to be quite powerful. I think the professional critics have really missed something here. I find it hard to believe that anyone could watch this movie and not be inspired by what this woman did, under the conditions that she did it. If you don't feel like crying at times, then you must have a hard heart. :-) The suffering of those people was off-scale, as was the personal sacrifice of mother teresa, who had to fight to be released from her cush job as a nun/teacher at a fancy girls school, to give her life to the poorest, sickest rejects of society. We should all be more like her.

I also want to plug some of the acting: I thought Stevenson was strong (within the limitations of the script), but it was many of the Indian actors (previously unknown to me) who stood out as charismatic and excellent.

Bottom line: lower your expectations as to the entertainment value of the film, and go see it for the way it will make you feel. And take your kids -- it's a very good message.

I would never have known about this movie had I not come across it on Netflix. I haven't watched any of the other films about Mother Teresa, so I can't compare, but none of these biography movies are big names, I think. Maybe because Mother Teresa herself isn't that big a name?

I'm not really sure how she's perceived in the rest of the world, but I grew up in Bangladesh, where she greatly revered. Indeed she's revered throughout South Asia, probably the most in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) where she was based. But I know Bangladeshis specifically revere her because she helped the refugees who fled from present-day Bangladesh to Kolkata during the Independence War, and after the war, she came over and built orphanages and shelters for women.

This biography shows how she got started with her work - how she left the life of a cloistered nun in a convent and went to work in the slums. The movie didn't directly reference the Bengal famine of '43, but that had to be a huge motivator, because people were dying en mass on the street due to starvation.

The biography then follows her through a few milestones of her work and how she came to form and lead the Missionaries of Charity convent, all the while highlighting her growing sense of loneliness and despair and feeling of abandonment as she expressed in her letters to her spiritual adviser. I thought the movie had a strong emotional core. And I also thought Juliet Stevenson gave a fantastic performance as Mother Teresa (although I wondered if she overdid the accent a tad?). And I really connected with her performance and the story of this woman who really was as selfless as they come.

She always insisted that she was doing God's work, that it was His will that she do this work, not hers. I take this to mean that the calling she felt to help the poor was a force much greater than herself.

There are a few minor gripes I have with the film though. First, I was looking forward to seeing Kolkata/Calcutta in film. Bengal and Bengalis don't get much attention in International films. While there were a very few spoken lines in Bengali, most of the characters (even the slum dwellers) spoke in English with each other. I understand this was done for the ease of the audience, but they spoke perfect posh English and they came off as somewhat genteel and polished, which was at odds with the fact that they lived in slums.

I was also disappointed that their names were pronounced the Hindi way rather than the Bengali way. And there were lots of scenes when people are shouting in the background and the subtitles say "speaking in Bengali", but the words were unintelligible and in some instances they sounded Hindi. Maybe they just didn't get enough Bengalis on board while making this movie, and that was disappointing. But I suppose this is how most people from third world countries feel when they see their countries not depicted quite right on the screen.

Finally, there was a glaring anachronism that I noted. Characters referred to Bangladesh during scenes taking place in 1949 - right after the partition. Bangladesh ought to have been referred to as East Pakistan. Unless I am deeply misinformed about the history of my country, the name Bangladesh didn't come into usage until many years later when East Pakistan started thinking about Independence. (And it was only after independence that it became officially known as Bangladesh.)

However, I suppose these gripes are rather minor in the larger context of the film. I'm glad to have watched at least one movie where I learned about how she got started and formed her congregation.