Sister Mary Explains It All

Those who have suffered through years of the Sister Marys and the Baltimore Catechism and the ridiculous and simplistic beliefs that are Catholicism will either love this film, or be utterly shocked that their system is so beautifully ridiculed.

The fact that Catholic League President William Donohue blasted Viacom, the owner of Showtime, for showing this is justification enough to watch. Anything that gets Donahue's shorts twisted must be good.

Diane Keaton was just marvelous as Sister Mary. It has to be the best performance I have seen from her.

Of course, I always like to see Laura San Giacomo, who was also great as the good little girl who grew up to the real world and found that there is no God.

Brian Benben, Wallace Langham. and Jennifer Tilly were also fantastic and made this film the real joy that it was.

I would be remiss not to praise Max Morrow as the young actor who was just precious.

Christopher Durang wrote a great play and screenplay that really ties it all together for the mess that it is.

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 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.

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!!!