Skip to main content

You know, he’s not terribly dynamic, for a Charismatic.

The Eyes of Tammy Faye

(SPOILERS) The problems with The Eyes of Tammy Faye are the perennial ones of the biopic; it’s either unable or unwilling to break the shackles of straight, literal-minded regurgitation and become a movie in its own right. Occasionally, one sees glimmers, particularly in the performances of Andrew Garfield and Jessica Chastain, at times so heightened they verge on camp, but screenwriter Abe Sylvia (working from the 2000 Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato doc) and director Michael Showalter lack the flair to push it into more interesting territory.

I’m not especially familiar with the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker story, except in context of the general scandals that have threatened the TV evangelist industry at various points. It’s evidently prime fodder for mining, replete as it is with eccentric characters, outrageous hypocrisy and terrible hair (Jim). And yet, The Eyes of Tammy Faye rarely rises to the challenge of reflecting how incredibly wackadoodle it all is.

To a degree, it’s a positive that Showalter isn’t intent on an outright assassination of Christian faith – mostly because it would be the most obvious and pedestrian move – but simultaneously, the only real point of view one senses in The Eyes of Tammy Faye is a guarded sympathy for an individual so remote, deluded or dim (or all of the above) that she incorporates her fantasies as genuine unto herself; from the moment infant Tammy Faye speaks in tongues in church, evidently a case of her putting it on rather than the real deal – unless the kid’s just a lousy actor – religion and publicity-seeking go hand in hand. Her devout, judgemental mother is clearly a confirmed sceptic, wearily asking her daughter what God’s been telling her this time. And yet, there seems a reluctance to suggest conscious, devious intent in Tammy’s behaviour; rather, what you see is what you get, hence the absurd makeup, failure to see into her husband’s psychology and peccadilloes, and her crossing bridges other, more fundamentalist Christians would not (allying herself with AIDS patients and the gay community).

Which is all very well, but since Tammy Faye, rather than the couple, is the focus, a slightly facile perspective is foisted on the movie as a whole. Chastain’s thus very good at playing someone essentially empty-headed (it was a passion project), but there’s an inevitable sense of caricature at times; her performance is actually more interesting during the movie’s early stages as young Tammy Faye, where the makeup allows for a striking contrast with Chastain’s usual demeanour. There. Tammy is not only warm and effusive in manner but much less severe, chiselled and out for an Oscar than the actress playing her (indeed, the irony that someone like Chastain, so performatively set on the serious business of getting a statuette for so many years, looks likely to earn it for the antithesis of her “star” persona is not lost). I did wonder, though, since this is one of those comprehensive makeup jobs that still make the actor look nothing like the real-life person they’re imitating, why Showalter and Chastain didn’t just cast Andrea Riseborough and dispense with the makeup completely.

Showalter and Sylvia don’t appear to have any ideas or insights with regard to the religious side of the equation, which again, makes this seem a rather literal biopic. Those delivering the message clearly aren’t up to snuff, but the film never decides to dig deeper; Tammy seems a relative (colourful) bystander next to her husband and other TV ministers. Is their professed belief entirely a sham, a tool to fleece believers (the simplest conclusion for the outsider to reach)? Or are they caught by hubris, prone to the same celebrity slide of those in the much-disdained secular sphere, considering themselves chosen and untouchable? Since they aren’t common Christians, the same rules don’t apply.

Jim Bakker has variously been labelled a sociopath and one with narcissistic personality disorder, and the makers would appear to veer towards the latter. The first time we see Jim is during a display of passionately showboating sincerity on a stage at Bible college; it instantly invites a sense of the manufactured, of insincerity. Along with Tammy’s aforementioned speaking in tongues, a desire for attention, of redirected worship and adulation, is a priority, and it’s this mutual cause that brings them together, rather than their faith (their lack of humility notably gets their tutor’s back up). Albeit, one might allow that the relationship between the two would at best be symbiotic, in that it would be impossible to prise religion and performance apart. Hence the rises and falls in the public eye, whereby even disgrace is to be displayed for the camera.

Garfield’s really good here, a squirmy, self-loathing shrimp of a man – the actual Bakker is only 5ft 4in; Garfield’s 6 inches taller – but one with a towering ego and need for adoration (any intimation that another, including Tammy, might eclipse him causes the mask to drop).

The case against the Bakkers, exposing their misdeeds, is organised by an imposing and characteristically impressive Vincent D’Onfrio as Rev Jerry Falwell (who would also, naturally, fall from grace). It serves to underline an absence in Showalter’s movie, though. Without representation of the audience and their psychology, there’s no understanding how Bakker could get back on the evangelism horse after a prison term. The instinct is to say, “Well, they’re all self-deluded fools of course, that’s why”. More charitably, the answer might be suggested in the elliptical view of Jim as presented here, which extends little further than him horsing around on a studio floor with another televangelist and admitting the misappropriation of funds (he insists the rape of Jessica Hahn was a stitch up and denies the “homosexual advances” alluded to by Falwell). It’s easy to call out evangelism, as it’s the faith equivalent of telesales, but the scornful greater public will habitually apply not wholly dissimilar attitudes to institutions and leaders they endorse.

The Eyes of Tammy Faye’s epilogue notes AIDS patient (and pastor) Steve Pieters is still alive and well, which says much about the nefarious background to the Fauci-promoted AIDS crisis (you can read Jon Rappaport’s blog for chapter and verse). On a similar subject, it seems Bakker, having veered into the doomsday prepper market (undeniably a sound business decision) was recently called up by the FDA for selling colloidal silver, which highlights the pervasive corruption of big pharma and its keepers. Bakker, unsurprisingly, was evidently duped himself, into swallowing the plandemic narrative.

It speaks volumes that all The Eyes of Tammy Faye’s awards attention is on Chastain and that makeup. Although, for what it’s worth, Garfield’s performance is much more engaging than the one he gave in Tick, Tick… Boom! And as these things go, The Eyes of Tammy Faye’s also a much more engrossing, better performed biopic than Being the Ricardos, which falls at the fence of off-putting casting and vain attempts to capture something of its subjects’ personality and appeal. If (when) Chastain takes the Oscar, it will at least be testament to an actress who lacks natural warmth successfully suggesting some in one of her characters.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi