Baz Luhrmann's film "Elvis" covers the life of Elvis Presley from a young boy to his premature death, after becoming the most famous performer in popular music in America, if not the world, where he influenced musical acts which followed his popularising of the new form of music called "rock and roll" (although such influence is not covered here). The early days of Elvis clearly establish how Elvis himself was heavily influenced by African American gospel music and blues.
The entire film is framed from the perspective of Colonel Tom Parker, the man who managed Elvis' career from the beginning. As played by Tom Hanks under a lot of prosthetic make-up, Parker has a very...weird accent, especially for someone called "Tom Parker". He also looks like a dangerous character in an illustrated fairy tale book...I'm not sure what the right term would be...troll? Goblin? Something of that sort, in any case.
Now, as Parker narrates Elvis' story, he is persuasive but there is always cause to pause for thought and think him delusional at times. For instance, he argues that Elvis' Christmas special was his idea but as represented in this film, you cannot imagine the outcome of that special turning out the same if Elvis had blindly followed Parker's instructions. To be candid, I did find reason to believe that Parker could have been the factor which helped to make Elvis so successful. That being said, even if that was true, you do have to wonder how entitled he was to the money that he was charging Elvis. Maybe Elvis wouldn't have risen so fast and high without Parker, but still...
That brings me to another question that this film raises: how much of it is true? Is it anachronistic at times in order to resonate with historical moments occurring during Elvis' life or be pointed references? Is artistic licence used a lot? For instance, early in Elvis' career, you see him in the company of African American musicians who would belatedly get the recognition that they deserved for pioneering rock and roll music. Did Elvis really socialise with these people? You see newspaper photographs and stories which suggest that Luhrmann might be drawing on archival material to represent the truth. Another example would be Elvis being drafted into the military. Was he really in danger of going to gaol for his performance style, which being drafted was a more palatable alternative? For the latter I did consider that this might have been a machination of Parker but given the latter's stance on Elvis touring overseas, it doesn't seem make sense.
As someone who had a parent who was a big fan of Elvis and who became a big fan of Elvis as a small child in Australia, I like this film. Austin Butler makes for a suitably good looking Elvis and the closing credits list him as singing some of the songs which are played in extract throughout the film. Not ever having taken a deep dive into Elvis' biography, I can't vouch for the authenticity of what is depicted in this film but it seems to cover the landmark moments of his life and I liked how his life was connected to the broader, historical drama occurring around him. Knowing how polarised the US is now, it wouldn't surprise me if even people who adore Elvis would take umbrage at how his story is tied to the condition of African Americans. Perhaps if I was to look at some reviews of this film on this site I might see some unreasonably negative reviews because of this. I noticed such reactions when I reviewed films here like the recent "Candyman" reboot or "The Eternals". In any case, I wasn't invested enough in Elvis' life to demand historical accuracy, authenticity, a lack of of political themes or a hagiography. As far as I can tell, this seems a reasonably authentic account of Elvis' life, through the prism of race relations in the US.
Given that the film is framed through the perspective of Tom Parker, I have to say that getting a resolution to the mystery behind him would have been appreciated but to the extent that that is covered, it is skipped over lightly, as is Elvis' initial relationship with his future wife, Priscilla. Having recently seen a video online covering scandals in the music industry, the case of Jerry Lee Lewis' young wife was brought to mind. Again, not knowing too much of the truth of Elvis' relationship with Priscilla back then, there is a marked difference between the public reactions to both of these relationships.
As a final comment, I had wondered if I had seen an earlier Elvis biopic. Looking up Wikipedia for this review, I think that it might have been a 1979 release of the same name, starring Kurt Russell. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the star, it was directed by John Carpenter. I have a faint memory of a young Elvis in that film, where he is shooting a scene in a film and he makes the comment when the camera isn't filming that he naturally walks in that odd way...a cowboy's walk or something.
Anyway, this 2022 biopic was informative to me as it explained many of the choices that Elvis seemed to be making as far as his career was concerned.
Recommendations:
The Beatles: Eight days a week (directed by Ron Howard, the star of the tv show "Happy days"). Reviewed on this site by me.
The entire film is framed from the perspective of Colonel Tom Parker, the man who managed Elvis' career from the beginning. As played by Tom Hanks under a lot of prosthetic make-up, Parker has a very...weird accent, especially for someone called "Tom Parker". He also looks like a dangerous character in an illustrated fairy tale book...I'm not sure what the right term would be...troll? Goblin? Something of that sort, in any case.
Now, as Parker narrates Elvis' story, he is persuasive but there is always cause to pause for thought and think him delusional at times. For instance, he argues that Elvis' Christmas special was his idea but as represented in this film, you cannot imagine the outcome of that special turning out the same if Elvis had blindly followed Parker's instructions. To be candid, I did find reason to believe that Parker could have been the factor which helped to make Elvis so successful. That being said, even if that was true, you do have to wonder how entitled he was to the money that he was charging Elvis. Maybe Elvis wouldn't have risen so fast and high without Parker, but still...
That brings me to another question that this film raises: how much of it is true? Is it anachronistic at times in order to resonate with historical moments occurring during Elvis' life or be pointed references? Is artistic licence used a lot? For instance, early in Elvis' career, you see him in the company of African American musicians who would belatedly get the recognition that they deserved for pioneering rock and roll music. Did Elvis really socialise with these people? You see newspaper photographs and stories which suggest that Luhrmann might be drawing on archival material to represent the truth. Another example would be Elvis being drafted into the military. Was he really in danger of going to gaol for his performance style, which being drafted was a more palatable alternative? For the latter I did consider that this might have been a machination of Parker but given the latter's stance on Elvis touring overseas, it doesn't seem make sense.
As someone who had a parent who was a big fan of Elvis and who became a big fan of Elvis as a small child in Australia, I like this film. Austin Butler makes for a suitably good looking Elvis and the closing credits list him as singing some of the songs which are played in extract throughout the film. Not ever having taken a deep dive into Elvis' biography, I can't vouch for the authenticity of what is depicted in this film but it seems to cover the landmark moments of his life and I liked how his life was connected to the broader, historical drama occurring around him. Knowing how polarised the US is now, it wouldn't surprise me if even people who adore Elvis would take umbrage at how his story is tied to the condition of African Americans. Perhaps if I was to look at some reviews of this film on this site I might see some unreasonably negative reviews because of this. I noticed such reactions when I reviewed films here like the recent "Candyman" reboot or "The Eternals". In any case, I wasn't invested enough in Elvis' life to demand historical accuracy, authenticity, a lack of of political themes or a hagiography. As far as I can tell, this seems a reasonably authentic account of Elvis' life, through the prism of race relations in the US.
Given that the film is framed through the perspective of Tom Parker, I have to say that getting a resolution to the mystery behind him would have been appreciated but to the extent that that is covered, it is skipped over lightly, as is Elvis' initial relationship with his future wife, Priscilla. Having recently seen a video online covering scandals in the music industry, the case of Jerry Lee Lewis' young wife was brought to mind. Again, not knowing too much of the truth of Elvis' relationship with Priscilla back then, there is a marked difference between the public reactions to both of these relationships.
As a final comment, I had wondered if I had seen an earlier Elvis biopic. Looking up Wikipedia for this review, I think that it might have been a 1979 release of the same name, starring Kurt Russell. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the star, it was directed by John Carpenter. I have a faint memory of a young Elvis in that film, where he is shooting a scene in a film and he makes the comment when the camera isn't filming that he naturally walks in that odd way...a cowboy's walk or something.
Anyway, this 2022 biopic was informative to me as it explained many of the choices that Elvis seemed to be making as far as his career was concerned.
Recommendations:
The Beatles: Eight days a week (directed by Ron Howard, the star of the tv show "Happy days"). Reviewed on this site by me.