Et dieu créa soeur Mary

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

Christopher Durang must have been taught by a memorably awful nun, because he just can't let go of the concept. The play, "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You," was presented -- at least in Hollywood -- in precisely the same tone as Diane Keaton's lecture scenes here. Sister Mary was an exaggeration, a lampoon, a bitter satire of a serenely confident, doctrinaire and highly judgmental nun -- and as played by Lynn Redgrave, she was hilarious. But the movie insists that we take this exaggeration absolutely seriously -- while, as mentioned, maintaining the same tone in the "explains it all" scenes. The two approaches clash headlong and in the last twenty minutes, the movie goes off the track, plunges into the gorge, and explodes. There are no survivors. It could have worked, if the tone of the scenes with the four former students, and their encounter with Sister Mary, been pitched the same as the Sister Mary scenes. Or if the Sister Mary scenes been presented more realistically. This way simply doesn't work at all.