Great Balls of Fire depicts Lewis as an emotionally immature man wholly fascinated with the sexual freedom that is rock ‘n roll. The film suggests that at a time of restrictive morality in the USA rock ‘n roll music represented a transitive stage towards the sexual liberation of the nation. Ironically, this burgeoning liberation could be argued by its detractors as the spread of immorality and the time when American popular culture turned against God. Lewis is thus a messenger for a new morality, one pioneered by Afro-Americans: as a white performer who plays “black music” he is hence another bridging figure. Yet, when he puts this new morality into practice by marrying his thirteen year old cousin, he has perhaps pushed the envelope too far and finds the nation is not ready. Rather than condemn Lewis’ attraction to pubescent girls the film celebrates the courage of his moral decision even if it literally means that he has turned his back on the traditional Southern God of repression (and segregation). Although Ryder is an innocent, she is depicted as a young woman with yearnings of her own, yearnings that Quaid responds too not out of an immoral intention to deflower her but because he too is emotionally undeveloped. It is as if this rock n’ roll liberator can only relate to adolescents – his attraction to high school girls (arguably children) is thus a sign of his immaturity rather than a true perversion, in the films’ view.
The morally repressive within society (represented by the preacher cousin, Alec Baldwin) would condemn Lewis for going against God, but their morality is based on a fear of sexual liberation. Quaid and Baldwin are moral opposites and their comparison treated mockingly as McBride clearly celebrates Quaid’s decision to perhaps go against God and keep his moral independence even if it implies a punishment by God. Ironically, Ryder is the more mature figure despite her age, and wanted to wait for a few years before marriage although Quaid persuaded her otherwise. In this, the film toys with the notion of Quaid as a corruptor and a kind of devil’s advocate – he is after all spreading the devil’s music rather than God’s word. The film treats this paradox comically and engagingly as Quaid becomes, for the director, a celebration of immorality and irresponsibility; although Quaid sticks to the conventions of marriage until despair sets in. A bridge to the social changes of the subsequent decade, he is morally ahead of his time and the relationship between Quaid and Ryder is not treated as an aberration but ironically as a symptom of the progression of American moral enlightenment – immorality becomes strength. The film is aware of the irony of this position and there lies the subversive charge in this energetic tribute to the true wild child of rock, an immature talent who became a moral affront to civilization. read more