Probably the most significant thing to know about this film is that the story is set in 1927. Given, too, that the film's production was 1960, we can say that "Elmer Gantry" does not reflect the current, 21st century, state of religious fundamentalism in America. The film is basically how Hollywood, in the late 1950s, viewed tent religion in the early part of the twentieth century.
Given that the Production Code, with its moral censorship guidelines, was still in force when the film was made, the script is a sanitized version of the Sinclair Lewis novel. Hollywood thus tries to straddle the fence in its faith vs. no-faith theme, and render characters as merely flawed, not evil.
Thus, vacuum salesman Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster) may be slimy, deceptive, hypocritical, scheming, and manipulative, but he can also recite lines from the Bible. To make him any more diabolical would have angered a majority of viewers in 1960. Similarly, Sister Sharon (Jean Simmons) may collect money from those who go to her revivals, but it's to pay the bills and all the logistics necessary for her ministry. Further, she seems so sincere and, seemingly, can render miracles.
We can thus forgive Hollywood for taking this approach to the story in 1960. At that time, nobody could foresee how self-serving and hateful religious fundamentalism would become in politics in the latter part of the 20th century. After all, Sister Sharon talked a lot about "love", not hate.
The film is quite grandiose, a big-scale production, well over two hours in duration. Scenes are lavish in scope, heavy on dialogue, and visually robust, no doubt a carryover from those big screen sword and sandal epics of the 1950s. As such, the story seems contrived. Performances, especially that of Burt Lancaster, seem exaggerated.
As a big, splashy Hollywood production, "Elmer Gantry" is okay, except for its length, its contrived story, and its exaggerated performances. But it doesn't reflect modern religious fundamentalism. For that, a more realistic, and relevant, movie is "Marjoe" (1972), about a child evangelist. And "Marjoe" is not contrived at all; it's a true story.
Given that the Production Code, with its moral censorship guidelines, was still in force when the film was made, the script is a sanitized version of the Sinclair Lewis novel. Hollywood thus tries to straddle the fence in its faith vs. no-faith theme, and render characters as merely flawed, not evil.
Thus, vacuum salesman Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster) may be slimy, deceptive, hypocritical, scheming, and manipulative, but he can also recite lines from the Bible. To make him any more diabolical would have angered a majority of viewers in 1960. Similarly, Sister Sharon (Jean Simmons) may collect money from those who go to her revivals, but it's to pay the bills and all the logistics necessary for her ministry. Further, she seems so sincere and, seemingly, can render miracles.
We can thus forgive Hollywood for taking this approach to the story in 1960. At that time, nobody could foresee how self-serving and hateful religious fundamentalism would become in politics in the latter part of the 20th century. After all, Sister Sharon talked a lot about "love", not hate.
The film is quite grandiose, a big-scale production, well over two hours in duration. Scenes are lavish in scope, heavy on dialogue, and visually robust, no doubt a carryover from those big screen sword and sandal epics of the 1950s. As such, the story seems contrived. Performances, especially that of Burt Lancaster, seem exaggerated.
As a big, splashy Hollywood production, "Elmer Gantry" is okay, except for its length, its contrived story, and its exaggerated performances. But it doesn't reflect modern religious fundamentalism. For that, a more realistic, and relevant, movie is "Marjoe" (1972), about a child evangelist. And "Marjoe" is not contrived at all; it's a true story.