Sinclair Lewis really had his finger on the pulse of American Evangelical Christianity from early on. Either he was a prophet or the grandiloquence and rhetorical tactics of faith charlatans has changed remarkably little in the century since he first wrote Elmer Gantry in 1927, a novel about a con man exploiting Christian fundamentalism in rural Kansas through charismatic displays of transparently false piety and intense fire and brimstone preachings. Give him access to the modern media and a megachurch pulpit and he would be no different than Billy Graham or Joel Osteen. Such a subject was a worthy if difficult thing for a film adaptation in 1960 -though the Production Code was slowly losing its influence it was still powerful enough, enforcing strict rules over the depiction of Christians and Christianity in Hollywood movies. It wasn't a deterrent for Richard Brooks though, who both wrote the script and ultimately directed the film. But while he allowed some concessions, including a disclaimer at the beginning claiming its depiction is not meant as critique of the revivalist tradition as a whole and a warning against children watching the film (aside from a few allusions to sex work, there's nothing inappropriate for kids in there), he was largely able to stick to the thesis of the book -the film standing as one of the first major cinematic rebukes of American Evangelism.
Because there had to have been audiences watching this movie when it first came out who, in spite of the disclaimer, recognized the huckster at the centre of the story as somebody within their own Christian community. That titular figure is played by Burt Lancaster in a performance that has echoes of Andy Griffith in A Face in the Crowd and which won Lancaster an Oscar for Best Actor. He acts as a travelling salesman with a particularly aggressive style of marketing involving fervent and hyperbolic declarations until his targets are worn down. He can also quote the Bible rather well, especially the passages justifying his statement or position. He soon finds himself enamoured with a revivalist called Sister Sharon Falconer, played by the great Jean Simmons and based off Aimee Semple McPherson, who runs a roadshow church. Eventually he seduces her and joins her as her partner in worship to some consternation and theological debate of those in her circles, especially given the emphasis on spectacle and profit.
The dynamic between Gantry and Falconer is very interesting -given that she is a true believer, while he only seeks to manipulate and exploit a vulnerable flock. There is some humanity to him, even the indication a part of him believes in himself and this purpose -and certainly seems genuinely in love with Falconer- but the con is what really matters, the thrill of riling people into a frenzy with vivid talk of torture and damnation, counteracted by Falconer’s own exaltations of redemption through the Lord. The two of them take their parishioners on an exhausting journey that is often devoid of much direct Biblical allusion or storytelling or emphasis on those themes of love and kindness that other kinds of clergy tend to prefer.
It is the oratorical style of populist politicians, and their preaching methods are implicitly political. The movie avoids direct discussion, but the moral conservatism is plain to see (consider the attitude towards sex work), the markers of Evangelism -which has always been as much a political movement as a religious one, even if it wouldn’t be hyper-charged until the Reagan era- very easy to spot, along with of course the obvious hypocrisy and corruption. And while Brooks is careful to distinguish these characters, and draw a line between them and other Christians through rhetorical and theological challenges, where he does not compromise is in the effect on Gantry and Falconer’s followers. It is easy to mock the apparent gullibility of those who would fall under the spell of such clear charlatans (and who still do today given the size of those mega-churches), but the manipulation is real and tangible, not to mention quite insidious in context. Like the book, the movie is set in the 1920s -when people in rural places like Kansas were much more cut off from the rest of their country, when literacy rates were low and poverty rates were high. They are uniquely susceptible to the charismatic persuasion that Gantry offers, the fear and intensity that he inspires, and consequent motivation to give money, just as their ancestors did when the church sold indulgences to guarantee entry into Heaven. Both Lewis and Brooks were keenly aware of the history of the corrupting power of religious dogma in opportunistic hands directed at uneducated masses.
Lancaster’s performance is appropriately, tangibly slimy, and yet another good example of his willingness to take on more morally ambiguous characters than a lot of his leading man peers. He has perfected the phony toothy smile and virtuous cadence of such a figure as this, not particularly masking the disingenuous tenor of his real attitude. Yet while deceptive in his very nature, neither he nor the script portray Gantry as inherently evil or predatory in that vein of Robert Mitchum in Night of the Hunter. As the film goes along, and especially as Gantry is made to struggle he is humanized, and his performance even lent some sense of honesty. I don’t know whether this was a Production Code compromise or if it is indeed true to the book but it does feel like the commentary reverting on itself a touch. If it is meant to communicate his charlatanism even muddying his own self-perception it is not quite conveyed enough by Lancaster. Although the detrimental impact on Falconer and her ratcheted sense of piety comes across much more deftly.
Simmons is tremendous in just about anything I’ve seen her in, and she plays the part of the fanatic exceptionally well; and also the temptations posed by Gantry that she gives in to. Their romance is cheaper than a lot of others in movies of this time expressed through similar sentiment, the sexual component implicitly more prominent -she is a virgin before Gantry it is noted. That theme comes up also in a subplot in which Gantry is blackmailed by a sex worker called Lulu, played by Shirley Jones, who’d had an affair with Gantry years prior and knew his real character. Jones won an Oscar for this film as well -Best Supporting Actress- and there is certainly an interesting menace and sexual power play throughout her scenes with Lancaster, much as she is also a bit of lovelorn trope. The cast also includes singer Patti Page in a small role as one of Falconer’s disciples, Dean Jagger as a more traditional Christian follower who is disillusioned by Gantry’s effect on Falconer, and Arthur Kennedy as the journalist who most directly confronts them on their scheme.
It is a very curious scene that comes on the heels of a story published in which Gantry is identified as a phony scamming his followers -yet Gantry defends himself vigorously. It is highly reminiscent of a similar standoff scene in Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master, perhaps influenced by this movie. Gantry has a strong will and arguments against allegations of falsehood and illegitimacy. And through these sequences and the theological discussions around their methods by others, the movie comments insightfully on Christianity and its own contradictions quite well. Gantry and Falconer can defend themselves and they can point out the needless strictures of the system, even if they are coming at it from a dishonest place. The vivid talk of corruption and damnation does have real roots in their doctrine -why shouldn’t they emphasize it? If their belief is so valid, why shouldn’t they stoke fear when the Bible acknowledges the legitimacy of that fear? It is reasonable and intelligent, and though the perspective never openly takes an atheist or non-Christian stance, it ruffles feathers in the conversation on that religion at a time when the church was still a very powerful force in the moral fabric of American culture, and cinema especially. This was just one year after the biggest Hollywood movie was Ben-Hur, remember. It is exciting to see such topics interrogated honestly, even if in relation to and from thoroughly dishonest characters.
Gantry’s evangelism comes with consequences -the fervour he builds backfiring once his reputation is hit by sexual scandal, disrupting his ministry -and the film suggests he does take stock of this, and is on the route to a kind of redemption that is a touch too easy. Obviously it doesn’t take much after a time for him to be welcomed back, Christian fundamentalists are generally quite forgiving of men’s transgressions as has been seen in countless later real-life examples such as Jimmy Swaggart. Elmer Gantry in making substantial use of available media, is a proto-televangelist. His shift of character in the last part of the movie is not very convincing, as well as Lancaster plays it -Brooks has perhaps too much sympathy for him in spite of all he has done. But that cost is still stressed. The renewed zeal he brought out in Falconer, who comes to believe they were brought together by God, has fatal repercussions. Her story, perhaps the more important one, is a tragedy. A faithful woman with a following duped by a con man, whose amplified true belief fuels delusions up to the end. Elmer does appear remorseful in the aftermath, a spark of perhaps genuine religious conviction appearing in his inclination to leave ministry. And yet there is a Messianic tone to this, his followers more devout than ever in spite of his retirement. It is a perturbing note that the movie ends on, that might illustrate the roots of modern American evangelism and cult of personality. Elmer Gantry certainly had a lot of it.
I don’t know how much of this was intended by Brooks, Lewis seemed to have a more cynical take on the idea of Elmer’s redemption that probably fits more honestly the type of figure he is and world he preaches in. In a way Brooks himself may have fallen over his character’s spell. Elmer isn’t entirely disingenuous though, and he is only a part of the problem -the movie highlighting the easy ways that religious intensity can be harnessed and manipulated, especially amongst those in such places where faith is one of the few pillars of life. Elmer Gantry reads as a cautionary tale made both too early and too late. It predicted a lot of the megachurch televangelist sect of American Christianity, but also recognized that those tenets had been firmly established in American Christian culture long before the movie was made or even the book was written. In lieu then of making a difference it raises awareness at least quite well, and in a time when few movies had the courage to tackle subject matter like it. And those Oscars were well-deserved, Lancaster has rarely been more engaging. It’s a story we could honestly use today, as we see so many descendants of Elmer Gantry, wealthier and more influential than he ever could have dreamed.
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/jordanbosch.bsky.social
Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/jbosch
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Comments
Post a Comment