'The Eyes of Tammy Faye' Review: A Compelling Look at America's First Televangelists
“She’s a firecracker, Jim.”
Jessica Chastain and Andrew Garfield in THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE.
Awards season is slowly creeping upon us and helping to jumpstart the season of Oscar-contending movies is THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE, directed by Michael Showalter. In the 1970s and 1980s, Tammy Faye Bakker and her first husband, Jim Bakker, were pioneers of the televangelist community. From their early days as traveling preachers fresh out of bible school, to co-founding The 700 Club, to eventually owning their own network with PTL, the duo plunged into stardom and scandal, all in the name of the Lord.
Whether it be her squeaky voice, her famously heavy makeup and false lashes, or her genuine-or-not persona, Tammy Faye undeniably charmed her way into families’ homes for decades. This latest film about her life, based on a 2000 documentary of the same name, stars Jessica Chastain in the titular role with Andrew Garfield playing her famous husband, Jim. While Garfield offers a compelling performance with an endearing smirk and smooth southern drawl to capture your attention, it is Chastain that truly dissolves into the role and is almost unrecognizable as the queen of Christian cable.
Jessica Chastain in THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE.
The story of the Bakkers is long and layered given that their popularity spanned for decades. The film tries its best to cover the highlights of their early days, touching briefly on Tammy Faye as a child (to paint the narrative that she was always the black sheep of the family), introducing us to Jim when the pair meets at bible college, and then to their early days as newlyweds eager to spread the gospel. The chemistry between Garfield and Chastain is immediate, and despite stretching to play convincing teenagers, the nervous first-love jitters is made believable by the two actors and instantly sells you on the charms of Jim and Tammy Faye.
From here, the film jumps to various major turning points in their lives so as not to spend too much time lingering on details that ultimately don’t matter. Sometimes 5+ years are skipped at a time in an effort to efficiently serve the narrative in a film that already runs over two hours long. At times, it does feel a little jarring and leaves the audience wondering what they may have missed out on, but the film maintains a steady pace throughout that quickly re-centers the audience to focus their attention to the story on screen.
Andrew Garfield and Jessica Chastain in THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE.
One of the most common criticisms with biopic films is the filmmaker’s tendency to take artistic liberties. While liberties are certainly taken in this film, it does not appear to be overwhelmingly so as a quick Google search will validate that much of what is shown in the film seems to be a pretty accurate recreation of what happened in real life. That said, the film does not get away totally scot-free. Since the story is told--quite literally--through the eyes of Tammy Faye, the audience only ever sees her perspective. A common question during the Bakker zeitgeist was whether or not the two of them were sincere about what they were preaching. As shown in the film, there is a famous moment in the couple’s history where Tammy Faye chatted with Steve Pieters to discuss the struggles he faced as an openly gay pastor who was also battling HIV and AIDS. The interview was groundbreaking, and many people believed Tammy Faye to appear authentic as she cried asking her fellow Christians why they all couldn’t love and accept each other equally. Soon, Tammy Faye was a sort of cultural icon for the LGBTQ+ community and helped to bridge the gap between religion and sexual orientation.
Jim Bakker, in contrast, gets played to be less sympathetic and appears to be more focused on the money (at one point, the pair opened a Disney-like Christian theme park titled “Heritage USA” and Jim was eventually indicted and imprisoned for money fraud). Now, perhaps this was an intentional choice by the filmmakers. Afterall, Chastain (in addition to starring in the film) was an executive producer of the film and worked for over 10 years to get this made through her own production company. The consequence of this is that we never get beneath the surface of Tammy Faye. We never see what made her so zany and unique. We never see why she was so famous for crying on TV—was that sincere or all part of the act? If anything, the film almost paints Tammy Faye as the victim in all of this. There are scenes that suggest that her husband may have engaged in sexual activity with another man, and scenes of her having to speak loudly to the men at the dinner table to gain their attention and show that she was equally entitled to her share of profit, screen time, and power, and scenes where she turned to prescription medication to deal with the infidelity accusations against her husband and the general turmoil that came with simply being Tammy Faye. Through all of this, she is shown as the woman who just tries to remain loving, positive, and loyal to her faith. Perhaps this was accurate to who Tammy Faye really was, and it certainly makes for a leading character than an invested audience can root for. But a deeper dive into the woman beneath the makeup would have made for an even more compelling and thought-provoking story.
Overall, the film manages to be equal parts entertaining and cringe-worthy; making the audience laugh, ponder, reflect, and perhaps even challenge themselves to question the motive behind their own choices. Do we do things for the genuine goodness of it, or to propel ourselves forward in some way? Is it a bit of both, and if so, is that a completely bad thing? The movie, despite its touchy subject matter and morally questionable leading characters, is actually kind of inspiring in its own way. The film reminds us that in the end, it never hurt to love everybody just a little bit more.