The message of the film?

Finally somebody made the right question!

I think this movie was brilliant! But I must confess i couldn´t make up my mind about your question yet.

I think overall the message is that to have faith in something can be a good thing for many people.

For me as a non believer, I think that Gantry was a hell of a guy! He didn´t harm anyone, had a very positive atittude towards life, and treated everyone fairly. Even those who disliked him.

The end really got me confused cause right after the death/disappearing of Sharon, he left with a smile on his face. I thought that at least at this moment he should be more grieving...

So for one moment I thought HE was god. But then I thought "nah, i´m reaching too much..."

I think that the message of the film is relligion is just as good as the people that practices it.

Any more thoughts?

Don't smoke. It will kill ya!

The introductory disclaimer suggests it's an indictment of revivalism and other exploitative religious practices, but that faith itself is everybody's individual right and can be positive.

However, in the scene where Elmer "exposes" Jim Lefferts as an atheist, he also names Sinclair Lewis -- the author of the book upon which the film is based -- as an atheist. I think that gives some idea of the film's true motive.

However, I think it's ambiguous enough for it to be read in a number of ways. Take the ending. **SPOILER ALERT** Does Sharon truly perform a miracle? Was it a setup? If so, was she in on it, or did she truly believe she performed a miracle? Either way, you can see from Elmer and Jim's disapproving expressions that they think she's gone too far. Then there's the fire, symbolic of Hell. Is it punishment from a disapproving God? Is it a test for the faithful? Is God taking Sharon to Heaven? Or is it just an unfortunate accident? My own worldview leans towards the latter, but it could mean any number of things.

Definitely an indictment of religion where the most religious figure in the story dies in the end because she believes she will be saved by God if she stays in her burning church. The atheist and the con man live on to enjoy their earthly pleasures. And, yes, the atheist author Sinclair is tearing religion a new one in this anti-religious story.

I think there's a sort of running drone of humanism--that in the end there's no one here but us chickens--and this notion is overtly articulated at least one time by the journalist.

It's a funny business, this: It's like the story people constantly teeter on the edge of linking religion to morality and human potential... but they can never drop that second shoe. Once that shoe drops... that's it, baby! And so they pull back from that brink.

Elmer Gantry is a sort of humanist morality play, cast into a revival tent hymn.

So it's anti-religion, while showing the capacity of our natural, better angels to redeem even the shameless marketing of religion.

A thought provoking question indeed! I have always admired 'Elmer Gantry' from all possible angles--the story, the casting, the acting, the directing, the editing, etc. The diverse span of character personalities is truly impressive and does loyal justice to Sinclair Lewis's novel. For me, it has always come across as a pro-religion story despite the secular depths that the main characters reach while trying to preach religion--hypocritically or not. To me, the theme that seems prevalent throughout is that no human is perfect and that constant personal integrity examination is the key to true happiness and fulfillment. The religions of the world establish ideals that even saints are not expected to attain. Guidelines to a purposeful and altruistic lifestyle can be derived from religion, but the latter can also be misused as a weapon, a pretense, and/or a means of self-deception and delusion of grandeur. Elmer Gantry was a victim of his own humanity; a situation that was exacerbated when he tried to live under the guise of religion. Ultimately, however, he came to grips with the fallacy of his pompousness as evidenced by his final visit with Lulu Baines. Some may argue that this was a staged encounter designed to elicit the desired response, but I have always viewed it as sincere and selfless. Gantry saw that he could exercise true kindness in a manner that any religion would espouse. Ironically, Sister Falconer had pure intentions all along, which greatly helped her win support during her revivalist expedition. Her affair with Gantry, however, brought her face-to-face with her human frailty. Upon rebounding from the defamation, she, unlike Gantry, threw herself INTO a stilted position of religious pomp. This was evident in the way she beseeched her followers at the end to remain in what was clearly a life threatening situation. "God will keep us safe!", she cried. What were her true intentions? Did she mean that God would send them all safely to Heaven or that God would somehow rescue them from the fire? Either way, she was wielding religion selfishly.

He who conquers himself is mightier than he who conquers a city.

It's that religion, just like every other money-making operation, is all about making sales. And to get the level of sales they need they will sometimes employ tactics that some would find questionable.


"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."

I don't think it's pro or anti-religion. I don't really see how anyone can say it's anti-religion when one of the most sympathetic characters is Sister Sharon. I wouldn't say it's pro-religion but rather uses the context of religious revivalism as the means to frame it's indictment of fanatacism.

The most indicting line is when Lefferts says, after the revival mob pelts Gantry, "We don't like our gods to be human." That's not a reference to religion, but false religion and extremism.

In that same scene Lulu shows up and initially delights in the crowds hateful reaction to Gantry, but because she clearly still cares for Gantry, she realizes how hurtful she has been. In the crowd's captivation to religious extremism and fanaticism, she sees her own captivation to extremism and fanaticism. Her's just just happens to be of a non-religious nature.