Elvis.

Elvis Presley was anything but boring, as a person or as an entertainer, which makes it all the more criminal that Baz Luhrman’s biopic Elvis is such a dull, overlong mess. Even a game performance by Austin Butler, who’s doing the sort of impersonation that Oscar voters seem to love, can’t salvage this thing, which could have been 45 minutes shorter yet somehow misses some of the most interesting parts of the singer’s life story. (It’s free for HBO Max subscribers, or you can rent it on amazon, iTunes, etc.)

Elvis tries to be a cradle-to-grave story, or at least an early childhood to death one, starting out with Elvis as a very young boy who moves with his family to a house in the white part of a Black neighborhood, where he was introduced to the gospel and blues music that he later used (or appropriated) in his own sound. The narrative then winds its way through his rise to stardom, marriage to Priscilla Beaulieu, stint in the army, the comeback special, and so on, until he gets addicted to drugs and dies, in connect-the-dots storytelling that might still have worked if Lurhman had any interest at all in telling the whole of Elvis’s story. Instead, we get a nonsense framing device of Col. Tom Parker (Tom Hanks), who is both the narrator and whose perspective is supposed to be our lens on the story, as Parker keeps trying to tell the viewers that he’s not that bad of a guy, and Elvis wouldn’t have been anything without him. It’s a pointless distraction and shifts the focus to a character nobody really cares about – or, if they did, maybe the film could have been called Parker and just put Elvis in the background. (Please, nobody do this.)be an

Presley’s actual life was far messier than the one we see in Elvis, not least of which is that he had several affairs while married to Priscilla, something the film glosses over almost entirely until the point where she announces that she’s leaving him and taking their daughter Lisa Marie with her. Among other sins of the script, such as the superficial treatment of his substance abuse issues or scant discussion of his appropriation of Black music or how his success may have allowed Black artists to follow in his wake, this amounts to a sort of hagiography that paints Elvis as a victim. Col. Parker did take advantage of Elvis financially and probably did so emotionally as well, but the story is so weirdly one-sided – even though Parker is the narrator – that the singer comes off as a pathetic man-child, and often not responsible for his own actions. I doubt this is accurate, and it’s certainly not interesting to watch.

Luhrman also plays loose with some key facts, which I suppose is par for the course in these music biopics, but his depiction of a race riot at an Elvis concert at Memphis’s Russwood Park is almost pure fiction. It plays into Lurhman’s ham-fisted attempts to tie Elvis’s career to the civil rights movement, which comes up again when Luhrman moves the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in time so that it happens during the taping of the comeback special, rather than some weeks before it, so that there can be a Big Moment backstage where Elvis and the producer decide the singer has to make a statement during the show and change the closing number. (There’s some good comedy in that whole sequence, though, as Parker sold the show as a Christmas special, and keeps insisting that Elvis close with a Christmas song and wear an ugly sweater.) A screenwriter can alter some timelines or small facts in service of the story, but here, Luhrman does the opposite – it holds the story back, makes the film longer, and adds no real interest. Even the comeback special, which was the most-watched TV program of its year and has entered music history for its impact on the culture and the way it opened up the second act of his career, is kind of boring in Elvis. I’d much rather watch that special three times, which would match the running time of this mess, than watch Elvis again.

Butler is a lock for a Best Actor Oscar nomination at this point, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he won the Golden Globe for Best Actor – Drama, with Colin Farrell in a separate category because The Banshees of Inisherin counts as a Musical or Comedy. And Butler is good, even if he looks more like Miley Cyrus than Elvis when he’s in his stage makeup. The oddsmakers favor Elvis getting a Best Picture nod, which would be a real travesty, both on its face (this movie sucks) and because it’s going to push out something far more worthy. It’s just a waste of a lot of time and money, and the only film I’ve seen this year that I’d rank below it is Amsterdam, which would also fit that same description.

Comments

  1. Brian in ahwatukee

    Did you see Blonde? There is a new trend where it’s a “bio-pic” where it’s loosely related to someone’s life but the movie sort of sucks. At least blonde was based on an Oates book, which was pretty readable. That movie was also too long without being really that interesting.

    The best part of the Elvis movie was luhrman makes some visually appealing shots, but that’s not enough. Even Hanks doesn’t work, that dude is all charm and goodness, his malicious character just didn’t work for me

    • I haven’t. I like de Armas a ton, but people hated that movie and it is so damn long we shelved it. It’s on our master to-watch list but if I ranked them by priority (they’re sorted by date available for now) it would in the 30s.

  2. When you watch a biopic – especially a musical one – how much weight do you give to accuracy versus entertainment value? I didn’t really care whether the film was factually accurate – it was pretty easy to tell it wasn’t – but I thought Butler’s performance was incredible and even uncanny at times. The music was fantastic and I always appreciate Lurhman’s maximalist approach. I think the film hammered home that Elvis was a cash cow milked dry by Parker and others, and even when overweight, drugged up, and near dearth, still sang his heart out. I enjoyed this movie quite a bit; sorry you didn’t. To each their own.

    • I try to keep an open mind, unless the film just destroys a person’s story, either as hagiography or hatchet job. In this case, though, I thought the storytelling overall was really lacking, and I didn’t even mention Luhrman’s hacky camera work. I do understand the appeal of his style; I liked his first three films and I have a real soft spot for Moulin Rouge, even with its flaws. I just didn’t think it worked here, and I think a more accurate rendering of Elvis himself might have helped the story.

    • A Salty Scientist

      I’m just sneaking in to state that I adored Strictly Ballroom, and will watch this one with an open mind.

  3. I believe I read that the Presley Estate required certain accommodations (whitewashings) in the script in order to grant permission to make the film. Hence, the enhanced halo effect?

  4. Chase Beppler

    No. Elvis is Electric, Powerful, Outgoing. The movie portrays Elvis as best as it could and it did it in a way that fitted perfectly with Elvis, from the performances to the music, it’s just incredible.