Review: The Nun’s Story (1959)
The Nun’s Story is exactly what it says on the tin, but it also isn’t. Audrey Hepburn plays the protagonist Gabrielle, who comes from an upper-class family in 1930s Belgium. Her father is a doctor and she aspires to be a nurse. She particularly wants to work in the Congo (a Belgian colony at the time). The film follows her life in the convent, her struggles with the religious life, her eventually going to the Congo and the onset of the Second World War and how — but I won’t spoil the ending.
It is of course a quality film. It really draws you in, like how the novel Jane Eyre quietly brings you into the world of the protagonist. Like Jane Eyre, the film concerns a Christian woman, both are young and unmarried, and both are wilful and determined. While The Nun’s Story is more specific in time and place, both works of fiction address the struggles of women at the time of writing; The Nun’s Story is a fictional account of the life of Marie Louise Habets (based on a biography).
It is a very detailed film — a sure sign of quality ofc — yet the repetitive rituals of the convent do not become boring to the viewer. The set design is excellent and the use of symbolism and colour: note how the film begins and ends with sombre greys — it is not a film full of stark contrasts; it is interestingly subtle. On the other hand, Nadra Little in her interesting review considers that it is ‘not a subtle film.’ This is also true because it is made clear from the start that Gabrielle is not suited to the nun’s life. A revealing line: ‘I just want to become a good nurse and a good nun and do God’s work wherever I am sent.’ The Reverend Mother’s reply: ‘First become a good nun.’
Ms Little also argues that it is not clear as to why Gabrielle wants to go to the Congo in the first place. I would say that firstly it was a Belgian colony and there was ofc great need over there for hospitals and missionaries. At the beginning we see a picture of a nun with an African child on her wall, before her leaving for the convent. It is clear that she wants to work with children and she wants to make a difference in a place where the people have had little exposure to Christianity. However, the fact that the reasons why she wants to go to the Congo are unclear is the point — her ambition is perhaps misplaced; she is perhaps too focused on this specific goal, rather than following God’s will first. This small but significant detail shows how the film is fascinating from a psychological point of view.
It is very refreshing sort of film to watch — a film in which the focus is not on the protagonist’s relationship to other people but with her relationship to God. (From that point of view I prefer it to Jane Eyre, but maybe I shouldn’t make comparisons across media.) The pace is slow, but it doesn’t feel slow, it is dignified and is certainly worth the two and a half hour run time. Giving up everything to live a life of spiritual sacrifice is about as bold and dramatic as you can get, but it is not done with any fuss. At the start of the film, Gabrielle takes off her engagement ring and leaves it on a table with a note. Very significant but very understated. It is a film which portrays struggle and weakness, not necessarily the characters proudly succeeding — or proudly doing anything for that matter: there is no action/adventure, or romance. Gabrielle struggles with pride, that is the central struggle: one line that sticks in my mind (paraphrasing) ‘When I succeed in obeying the rule, I fail at the same time by being proud.’
The film also, implicitly, addresses the struggle which Gabrielle has against society. This is why I say the film is also not just ‘what it says on the tin’; it is more than the story of a nun, but to some extent it is the story of women’s struggle in general. In the 1930s, with women’s entrance to universities and opportunities to travel and live abroad being limited, becoming a nun was the only way for her to get to the Congo as a nurse. I agree with Ms Little: if Gabrielle lived at a time when women had more opportunities, she probably wouldn’t have entered the convent.
The scenes when Gabrielle does eventually get to the Congo are the most interesting part. Ms Little mentions that the Congolese characters are not presented in any great detail and no black woman speaks any lines. This is true but it does not seem ‘dated’ to me and it is not racist in itself. It highlights how Gabrielle, although she is where she wants to be, is not actually doing what she wanted to do — she wanted to help the natives, but ends up working in the white hospital. If it was a comic film I could imagine her saying — ‘You dragged me out here to the middle of a rainforest for this! I might as well have stayed in Belgium!’ Gabrielle wants those conversations with the black people, but cannot have them. That is the point.
At every stage Gabrielle cannot overcome some sort of struggle: if the initial conflict is against society which holds back women’s careers, then there is her internal conflict, and then there is conflict with her superiors in the convent who put her in the white hospital instead of the black. One of her superiors gives her some bad advice — that to show humility she should deliberately fail her examination. And here is one of the best bits of acting in the film — Hepburn uses only her face to show the internal struggle — in the end she rightly does not take that advice. Hepburn was nominated for an Oscar for her performance.
To be very picky (and skip this paragraph for spoilers) — perhaps her decision to leave the convent comes too quickly. Having said that, it is shown from the start that Gabrielle does not really want to live the nun’s life. On second watch I might think differently. That is my only very tiny criticism. I thought Gabrielle was going to leave the convent and marry Dr Fortunati, and tbh I think that would have been a satisfactory ending. There’s nothing anti-feminist about a female character’s story including marriage, as long as it just seems right (very specific reasoning, I know) and is not the be-all and end-all. Again, I think of Jane Eyre — for some reason I found ‘Reader, I married him,’ a bit disappointing. Gabrielle marrying Fortunati would have been more convincing than Jane and Rochester, in my opinion. However, I suppose it works out well in terms of the story because it means that she comes back to Belgium — just before the outbreak of war — and when her father is killed by the Germans, this opens up a new can of forgiving/unforgiving worms. A very necessary can of worms too, since forgiveness is so central to Christianity the film would be incomplete without it. Also, her being taken away from the Congo is yet another disappointment — if she had stayed and married Dr Fortunati, that would have been too happy an occasion for this sort of film, even if it did go on to portray some of the difficulties within marriage.
As I write, I am realising how much ground the film covers, even just by implication and hinting!
I feel that it’s a sort of anti-film: the protagonist sort of succeeds, sort of doesn’t — takes some control over her life, but remains restricted — it’s a film about unfulfillment and disappointment — what a contrast to current commercial movies! (I should say that The Nun’s Story was commercially successful — at that time ‘women’s films’ were a popular and profitable genre. Alas no more.)
There is another point of subtlety in the film. I think it is critical of Catholicism (or perhaps that is just my Protestant interpretation of it!) Gabrielle’ struggles in the convent are entirely normal. The points she makes — e.g. why should she immediately leave a patient when the bell rings for prayers? — are entirely sane and compassionate, not disobedient. It is critical of a form of Christianity which puts routine before action. Routine and discipline are essential but they should not outweigh compassion. I disagree with Ms Little that Gabrielle is unlikeable: I think she is a likeable and interesting character and she doesn’t do or say anything obnoxious. Sometimes she is too harsh on herself: after trying to deal by herself with a mentally ill woman, who attacks her (she had been told not to open the door without someone else present) — ‘Pride and disobedience!’ she exclaims in frustration. But was it really pride and disobedience? Was it not just compassion? (The woman had been asking for water, and Gabrielle, wanting to treat her with dignity, decided to treat her as though she were sane.) It seems that the Rule mistakes compassion for disobedience — that, I am beginning to think, is Gabrielle’s main struggle. Further: was it not just a misjudgement? We all make mistakes: the Catholic idea of becoming perfect is basically a delusion. In that sense, The Nun’s Story is a progression out of that delusion: but does Gabrielle enter into light or disillusion? We cannot tell. Mirroring the start of the film, she takes off her ring and puts it on the table. The repetition almost seems cynical: has she not just arrived at where she started? Then she walks out of a door and, if I remember correctly, she turns right (a sign of hope?). The day is overcast and the colours are grey. She just walks away, out of the convent, out of the nun’s life, perhaps out of life. The war is still raging in Europe, but perhaps the battle within herself has come to a conclusion.
10/10 Highly recommended — Sunday night viewing
Ms Little’s article: https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2020/01/24/nuns-story-revisiting-audrey-hepburns-most-overlooked-film
