First off, you seem fixated on the fact that the movie is mostly all about the title character, but Elmer Gantry is full of characters which you haven't even mentioned, and the two main characters you did mention you didn't really go that deep into who they "are" and what they represent. I'll be the first to admit that I love Elmer Gantry because I honestly believe that word-for-word, it contains the smartest, wittiest dialogue I've ever heard in a movie.
True on both counts, though please don't take either to mean much beyond "this post is getting long and is only meant as a jumping off point for further discussion." I did appreciate Lefferts' character and found him fairly intriguing, and like you I did quite enjoy most of the dialogue, and I spent a lot of time thinking about Gantry, specifically, though I admit that probably doesn't seem to be the case if judging the situation only from my first post in the thread.
But the characters all represent different sides of what's going on in Middle America during the 1920s. Since you've mentioned Gantry and Sister Sharon Falconer, let's start with those two. Gantry is obviously a fast-talking huckster (being a traveling salesman by profession) but when he's in the moment, he does seem to truly believe in what he's preaching about.
Right. Whether or not this indicates a true belief is a sticky question, I think, but I imagine the best salesmen find a way to make themselves believe what they're saying in some fashion.
Ironically, my gripes might simply be an illustration of just how good Lancaster's performance is. Perhaps I, even as a viewer, was duped by the force of Gantry's charisma into thinking he really believed what he was saying on some level!
Gantry first hooks up with Sister Sharon for his own sexual desire for her, but what is it about Gantry which Sharon finds appealing?
I actually found myself asking that same thing ("what is it about Gantry that Sharon finds appealing?"), as I didn't find that part of the film entirely convincing. Then again, perhaps that's the point: she didn't fall head-over-heels for Gantry, he just sort of wore her down. Would've liked to see more of that, either way.
Re: the other questions:
"Is Sharon a serious preacher or a sham?"
I think she's a serious preacher.
"How would you compare Gantry and Sharon on some level of honesty, faith and a desire to truly "save" someone?"
I'd say Sharon's committed to it, honestly and faithfully, and Gantry only
thinks he is. I think he mistakes the fervor of the moment for real religious faith (or doesn't care to think about it seriously at all).
"One other question about these two. Who's responsible for what happens during the fiery finale of Elmer Gantry?"
I really like this question.
I think they both are, though in different ways. Obviously Gantry prodded her and encouraged her to think of herself in a way that probably isn't wise, but she buys into it. Ultimately, it's on her to make her own choices and the downfall is her own, though Gantry's hands certainly aren't clean here, either.
Why did Sharon seem to tempt God into saving her at the end? Gantry was in the middle of trying to settle down and marry Sharon when she saw that shooting star at the end, and from that moment, she seemed to feel truly touched by God. Then she performed a miracle cure and was sure that she was an instrument of God. Did Sharon lose all sense of reality because she truly thought ehe was going to usher in a new era of evangelism or was it more a reaction against Gantry trying to "domesticate" her? There's a lot more to be said but that's a start on those two and their relationship.
Oh, certainly. I think she finally bought into the praise she was always being showered with, and fell as a result. I like to think that the burning of the church is a bit like Jesus turning over the tables of the collectors inside the temple.
The agnostic reporter Jim Lefferts (Arthur Kennedy) is a strong character who's covering Sister Sharon for his big-city newspaper, and he presents what may be seen as the "rational", non-religious side to what they have to offer. Lefferts is a really likable character, but once again, he has an agenda. Now, is that to just make fun of them and publish innuendo that they're making a tax-free living by bilking the rubes or is it to honestly warn people about wolves in sheep's clothing?
I wonder if we really learn enough about Lefferts to know this for sure. I suppose, if I had to come down on one side or the other, I'd say he's meant to be portrayed as rational, level-headed, and therefore his writings are intended to be seen as honest warnings against dishonest men. But you're right, he has a stake in what he does, whether he believes it or not. He's not unlike Gantry in that respect. I suppose this could be an attempt to illustrate just how difficult it is to tell who really believes in what they're saying and doing, or perhaps merely a suggestion that it isn't possible.
Bill Morgan (Dean Jagger) is Sister Sharon's business partner and initially campaigns against Gantry becoming part of their revival. What do you think of Morgan? Is he supposed to have any religious beliefs or is he just trying to earn a buck and protect Sharon? If so, is he somehow involved in a business which he isn't sincere about? Morgan is another very-likable character, much more so I'd say that Zenith's businessman par excellence, George F. Babbitt (Edward Andrews), who tries to get the revival into his metropoli of Zenith to help pump up the church's declining numbers but isn't above trying to use it to help his own various business ventures.
I feel like I'd be guessing here, a bit, which is actually something that bugs me about the film. I wish there'd been more elaboration on the conflict between the various religious leaders, as well as characters like Morgan. Babbitt is clearly a fraud of sorts, though I wasn't entirely clear on whether or not Morgan and some of the others were different, or just more subtle about it.
Again, if I have to come down one way or another...I'd say Morgan believes in what he's doing and is worried about seeing it hijacked. And, as such, he's somewhat complicit because he allows himself to be taken along for the ride, just as Sister Sharon does. And, again, perhaps this is the idea: even the well-meaning people don't come out looking entirely clean. They either facilitate the problem, or implicitly tolerate it.
My point is that all these characters are in the film to help put Gantry and the reality of revivalism into context. I know that some people will be scared off from Gantry just because it deals seriously and in your face with issues of religion, theatricality and hypocrites, but of course, that's why I love the film. To me, it's not dated at all because whether one believes that we've gotten far more sophisticated than the simple people of the 1920s, these kinds of things still happen today. If you look at the various "religious" programs on TV you'll see preaching and incidents which make those in Gantry seem subdued and documentaryish. Believe it or not, there are still traveling revival tents put up in big cities for a day or two (even here in Orange County). The question remains. What's more important? The message or the messenger? I know some people will say both are rubbish in this case. If that's true, does this film depict that? Or does it depict both as being important and healthy for people who try to stretch their "spiritual" growth by whatever means is made available to them? In other words, when is a film too complex for its own good, and do Elmer Gantry and Citizen Kane qualify as films which make it difficult for a viewer to rap one's head around them?
"What's more important? The message or the messenger?" That's really the essence of the whole thing, isn't it? I don't think I have an answer to this in regards to the film, or life in general. I lean towards "the message," because a thing is true or not regardless of how flawed its source, though that's more cold "if a, then b" logic than anything.
That said, the messenger may not matter much in an isolated sense, but in the sense that a flawed leader will inevitably go further and further astray, the distinction may be meaningless. I don't necessarily need whoever's helping me or leading me to be a particularly good person, but if they're not, I tend to think they won't be much help (or much of a leader) for long.
So, Yoda, I know that you love
Citizen Kane, but what makes it easier for you to find a message and a rudder to guide you through it more than
Elmer Gantry? Is it just that
Kane is a bonafide phenomenon and
Gantry is a film which has somewhat been forgotten over time? I don't feel the need to get into specific questions here. I just read your comments here in the "What's Bad About It?" section and those at the
Kane Movie Club thread. They may not contradict each other, but they seem to be traveling in close to opposite directions.
A very fair question. I think the biggest difference is that the enigma of the titular character, and the question of whether or not you can really understand a man's life, was the entire point of
Citizen Kane. Not being able to wrap my head around the fictional man is a part of what the film is trying to say, so it bothers me less. In
Elmer Gantry, I didn't get this sense. Whether that was from my own failure to understand what it was saying, or its own failure to convey the same, I'm not as sure, but I think that explains why I might have a different reaction to two films about two complicated characters.
That said, I did give
Elmer Gantry (though I confess I thought about making it a bit lower), so I wouldn't say there's a huge discrepancy in terms of quality. The things I like about
Elmer Gantry I like very much; if it seems like I'm criticizing it a great deal, it's mainly just because a) the things I disliked are the things that gnaw on me a bit, as a viewer, and b) the discussion is far more interesting when we focus on things we see a bit differently.
I wonder...is this cover deliberately made so that it looks like people are not only walking
into the tent, but
out of the church?
With reference to The Apostle, as well as Steve Martin's Leap of Faith, those films do seem to be inspired by Elmer Gantry or at least, the themes inherent in the film and novel Elmer Gantry. If you feel as if Gantry seemed to poop out at the conclusion, I've certainly heard that before although I find the climax to put an exclamaton point on the entire film. However, you may be happy to learn that your feelings are certainly not without legitimacy since the film adaptation only dealt with a section in the middle of the novel. In the book, Gantry's earlier life was presented in present tense, long before he met Sister Sharon, and after he "puts away childish things" at the end of the film, he continues on to have many more adventures involving many more supporting characters.
Interesting. For the record, though, I actually quite liked the ending.