Movie Review : Elvis (2022)
In a not-so distant world, Elvis Presley and The Beatles were of equal importance in popular culture. It made a lot of sense. One was the sexy, charismatic entertainer that made you want to reconsider your life choices and the others were the dreamy, bohemian kids who did drugs and made you want to reconsider your life choices through groundbreaking songwriting. They were yin and yang. The twin pillars rock n’ roll was built upon. But one receded from culture and the others gained in importance.
Revisionist history wants that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were the twin pillars rock n’ roll was built upon. This is technically not untrue and a much better narrative. Why does history hate Elvis, though? Why does it want to make him disappear? That is the question I asked myself while watching Baz Luhrmann’s new movie about the King.
Not that I need to tell you what a movie titled Elvis is about, but Baz Luhrmann’s new all-signing, all-dancing colorful extravaganza tells the story of the king through the eyes of his manager Colonel Tom Parker (played by Tom Hanks) who allegedly abused and exploited him psychologically and financially throughout his career. The film argues that Parker imprisoned him in a never-ending Las Vegas contract, which led to his premature death in 1977. This is all typically melodramatic and enjoyable, but it is just one account of what must’ve happened to the man who once domineered over the music industry.
The twin pillars rock n’ roll was built upon
Although the reception to Elvis was lukewarm at best, it is inadvertently great like most Baz Luhrmann movies are. It is also inadvertently great at explaining why history has been unkind to Elvis Presley. There’s a great scene at the beginning of the film (as great as any scenes I’ve seen this year, to be honest) where Colonel Parker witnesses Elvis perform for the first time and one important detail about the King’s career becomes clear: his performance was always more important than any song he was singing.
He could’ve been singing Old McDonald had a Farm and people would’ve paid tickets to see it. Elvis Presley was a charisma-driven superstar rather than a songwriting driven one. Audiences came to see HIM whenever he performed on stage, on television or in a movie. He had many great songs, but let’s be honest : would That’s All Right or even something like Unchained Melody would’ve been any popular if they were interpreted by Jeff Tweedy? Exactly. Nothing against Tweedy (who I like), but you see my point.
What Elvis emphasizes is that Colonel Parker, the music industry and audiences have squeezed the life out of the king. The level of fame he achieved is an unsustainable way to live.
Elvis tells a story about a surprisingly distant past, but its themes are quite contemporary. It’s a film about our relationship to constructed pop culture narratives. Of course, it paints Elvis as this innocent Southern boy who also believes in these same constructions which is most likely a gross oversimplification of the character, but the point remains salient: the story is always more complicated than what’s been presented to you. Elvis Presley wasn’t just a hyperseductive Southern boy with a golden voice and swiveling hips. He was a business and the people operating it (including Elvis himself) brought it to every possible logical money making possibility available then. If Elvis had been alive and under 42 in 2022, he would’ve had a podcast sponsored by Zip-Recruiter.
The Baz Luhrmannitude of it
A lot of criticism about this movie were aimed at its luxuriant aesthetic and main actor Austin Butler’s face, which are pretty stupid criticisms to make of a Baz Lurhmann’s movie. Are you really expecting the director of Romeo + Juliette and Moulin Rouge NOT to be luxuriant? Wasn’t Elvis himself living in a hyperluxuriant American myth? Have any of these people ever been to Graceland? There are photos available on the web, for fuck’s sake.
I’ve never understood this fetishism for accuracy demanded for biopics. Especially for a pop culture icon like Elvis who’s relationship to his audience was always mediated by either a stage or a television set. Who the fuck knows what happened in between? There was no social media then. Did Baz Luhrmann really have to make it stern and ugly like mid-century America was or isn’t it more fun to take a deep dive into his untamed imaginary and have his perception of Elvis, the cultural narrative. Because how we think about Elvis and how Baz Luhrmann illustrates the life of Elvis ain’t that different. He just made a film out of it.
A Baz Luhrmann film about Elvis is as much a Baz Luhrmann film than it is a film about Elvis. He’s allowed to tell the stories he wants and at this point of his career, we have to work with who he is and not who we want him to be.
Oh and Austin Butler’s fine by the way. He’s not great and he doesn’t suck. He’s fine. He deserves more work in Hollywood.
*
I really liked Elvis.
Sure, it glances over quick at his relationship to black music. But I think that if you don’t apply historical revisionism to his story he was actually good for black music. He was an ambassador in a still segregated America. How many people got into Chuck Berry and Howlin’ Wolf because of him is unclear, but I believe Elvis was very much a gateway drug into the good stuff. You can disagree with me about that, I'm opened to change my mind. But I do think I'm right.
It isn’t a proper biopic, but it’s rather a story about how we perceive culture. Baz Luhrmann’s point of view is very much the point of view of a starry eyed audience member rather than a documentarian and I think this idea is unassailable in 2022. Everyone has their own perception of everything and Baz Luhrmann’s impeccable-Elvis-that-doesn’t-get-that-fat-in-Vegas is as valid and entertaining as anyone else’s.
