Directed By Michael Showalter

Starring – Jessica Chastain, Andrew Garfield, Vincent D’Onofrio

The Plot – An intimate look at the extraordinary rise, fall and redemption of televangelist Tammy Faye Bakker. In the 1970s and 80s, Tammy Faye (Chastain) and her husband, Jim Bakker (Garfield), rose from humble beginnings to create the world’s largest religious broadcasting network and theme park, and were revered for their message of love, acceptance and prosperity. Tammy Faye was legendary for her indelible eyelashes, her idiosyncratic singing, and her eagerness to embrace people from all walks of life. However, it wasn’t long before financial improprieties, scheming rivals, and scandal toppled their carefully constructed empire.

Rated PG-13 for sexual content and drug abuse

(1) THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE | Official Trailer | Searchlight Pictures – YouTube

POSITIVES

– Career best performances. The work from Chastain and Garfield here is simply stunning, especially from the former, whose transformation into the titular protagonist isn’t just limited to physical capacity. Instead, Chastain memorizes Faye’s bubbly vocal cadence and various inflections with an impressive consistency for delivery that not only adds more believability to the cause, but also removes any of the familiarity from Chastain’s breathtaking defining features that would otherwise make this feel like an impression, but instead feels like a transformation. On top of it, Chastain zeroes in on the quirky candor of Tammy that more times than not made her an easy target for public ridicule, but one that also harvests with it an unbreakable spirit that depicts her for the tough woman she actually was, against all odds. For Garfield, there’s still evidence to his identity, but the deceiving, sometimes lifeless demeanor of America’s most infamous preacher affords him the kind of scene-stealing captivity that we haven’t been privy towards until now, and one whose chemistry with Chastain mirrors that of the turbulence of the love story that the film revolves around. Both I feel deserve Academy consideration at the very least, and stand as the first occupants of the inevitably claustrophobic Oscar race coming up.

– Tonal nourishment. Without question, the biggest benefit to Showalter’s direction, and one that pays dividends to the integrity of the material, is the choice to craft this as a hybrid dramedy to get audiences invested. These two genre directions are surprisingly complimentary towards one another, especially since the craziness instilled within the story is appalling to say the least, and sad to say the most. It combines elements of a biopic, satire, and character study accordingly, stirring through campy dialogue and corny environmental resonance that actually are among its very best of charms, and ones that reflect the social commentary of the outside world looking on from beyond, superbly. The comedy itself is patient enough to resonate mostly during the opening act of the movie, remaining distant from the much emotionally heavier climax, which succeeds because of the “quirk” that has fallen from grace within this once prosperous couple.

– Glossy presentation. While normally reminiscent of cheap productions that use an abundance of lighting to paint a false sense of production value, the bright and shining stature of the movie’s cinematography from Mike Gioulakis radiates with manipulative abundance that plays heavily into the beats of the narrative. Primarily with the bill of goods that the Bakkers’ were selling to the world, illustrating this essence of happiness for the screen that feels like one of the legendary love stories of American history, but in reality a sham that only succeeded because of the deception that they sold so well. This seems like such a gift-wrapped idea from Gioulakis, whose visionary appeal crafted such an ominous atmosphere during “It Follows”, and here plays into the glamour of the tube, complete with all of its manufactured intricacies that are meant to conjure truth, life, and love, but instead plays into the false sense of security that actually has purpose in a story like this.

– Seamless transformation. I previously commended Chastain for the audible and emotional enveloping that she granted to bringing Tammy Faye back to life, but what about the ingredients of her appearance attained from award-worthy levels of production value? Well, the prosthetics are scarily detailed, mastering Faye’s facial structure right down to the very wrinkle consistencies within the evolution of her skin’s aging, while the make-up designs offer an equally invigorating dedication that proves hours went into its bombastic appeal. Finally, the wig work of some exceptionally gifted designers was so dimensionally profound and interactive within the elements of the environment that it even managed to pull one over on me. This happens during the third act, when Tammy removes it to give way to a much more tethered reality laying suppressed underneath, and one that gave way to the idea of so much going into this manufactured reality, to the point that not even defining traits within the characters are real.

– Surprisingly poignant. For the record, I expected tragedy and various fallouts from my own knowledge within this story, however I didn’t expect that the volume of the material would bring with it many unique insights and dynamics within Tammy’s psychology that would actually supplant deep seeded feelings of empathy for her. At first, Tammy comes across as mentally frail, persisting on everything from talking to herself with the assistance of puppets, to giggling nervously whenever awkwardness arose. Then you find out that these elements of characterization are simply a ruse to drown out the loneliness and lack of belonging that followed her nearly everywhere in her life, and eventually made worse for what she’s left with at the film’s conclusion. It helps articulate the humanity of Tammy in a way that transcended all of the gimmicks and various forms of public manipulation, for a narrative that at its very core is humbling for the way we arrive and leave this world alone when the clock runs out.

– Fearless cinema. Most movies pertaining to Christianity or ensuing controversy revel in a fog of ambiguity that often does a vital disservice to the story or the movie covering it. That isn’t the case with “The Eyes of Tammy Faye”, as not only are various scandals within the church covered with attention throughout the film, but there’s also some interesting character reveals that I honestly had no idea about, previous to the film. This creates an ambitiously unpredictable step forward for Showalter, whose films to this point have mostly been throwaway slapstick comedies with very little chances taken, except for those on the films that could’ve easily ended his career before it started. His gripping direction keeps focus on everything pertaining to some of the darkest days within the church, and proves that as a filmmaker he has plenty to say that won’t spare any feelings within the art to him that comes first above all else.

NEGATIVES

– Muddled montages. If we’re simply grading on a stylistic encompassing, the various musical montages forward in the storytelling gave light to the period piece aspects of production, which were mostly nuanced throughout. But on a storytelling capacity, the four jolts forward that we experience abruptly throughout the film not only cut into moments of palpable dramatic tension during the moments when the story feels like it’s continuously coming into its own, but also does so while momentarily glossing over some pivotal aspects (Like Tammy’s activism) in the context of character evolutions. Most obvious is Jim’s brushes with the law involving church scheming that led to his eventual downfall. The reactions of such are conveyed, but the causes are never clarified to the point of cohesive storytelling, making them feel like a series of events that are lacking any semblance of structure to the interpretation or prolonged dramatic heft of the audience. For my money, there’s too many of these dives forward, and they add up in a way that frequently omits the kind of urgency needed to evolve the vulnerability from the Bakkers.

– Conflicting third. Nearly the entirety of the 125 minute run time executes itself in a way that constantly adds something new to the dynamic of Jim and Tammy, while maintaining crisp storytelling that justifies the air of its abundance. Unfortunately, this isn’t kept up for the climactic third act, with some redundancy in scenes and dialogue that stalled the execution, and made this a problematic chore while casting its biggest movements in motion for the resolution of the story. This is again problematic within the various time jumps that I previously mentioned, because it underscores the value and importance of first half events, which have enhanced relevance during this third act that comes full circle on many arc’s previously established. Because of such, the third act is unfortunately and obviously the weakness of the film for me, and one

– Odd man out. As previously established, the main cast is nearly flawless in their immersive elements of historical figures that bring out enhanced levels of believability by comparison. One such unfortunate victim to this concept, and one who I think was totally miscast in his respective role, is that of D’Onofrio as Reverend Jerry Fallwell. Considering a near perfect enveloping of Fallwell exists in “The People Versus Larry Flint” (Played effortlessly by the late, great Richard Paul), it makes this one all the more one-dimensional and cartoonish by comparison. Part of the problem is D’Onofrio’s complete lack of registry, which brings up reflections and inflections of his iconic turn as Marvel’s legendary antagonist, Kingpin, to mind, but the bigger adversary is the visuals themselves, which come nowhere close in stature or appearance to mirroring Jerry’s familiar likeness. On top of it all, he’s directed to be this absorbing of chemistry and intrigue that halts momentum in any given moment, to play a villain who is evil for the sake of being evil, nothing more or nothing less. It’s disheartening because I love Vincent D’Onofrio as an actor, but this stands as the one time I felt he was the weakness of a film, and one whose approach feels like the mere definition of paycheck portrayal.

My Grade: 7/10 or B-