‘Elvis’ REVIEW: A biopic in Luhrmann glitz and glamour
‘Elvis’ REVIEW: A biopic in Luhrmann glitz and glamour
Baz Luhrmann is back, baby! After his Academy Award-winning The Great Gatsby in 2013 comes a fresh take on biopic movies as he tells the story of the King of Rock and Roll in his own lens. Starring Austin Butler in his breakout role, Luhrmann’s highly anticipated comeback is a concoction of Moulin Rouge! musicality and Elvis Presley’s biography, his rags to riches story infused with the director’s highly stylish presentation.
Following last year’s Respect that tells of Aretha Franklin’s life, Elvis is one of the first biographical musical movies of the decade. Unfortunately, it does not give justice to the legend’s life and influence. The trippy unconventional flair of Luhrmann comes at the expense of a powerful biopic, but it’s not a lie when people say this movie has the guts and soul to make you tap your shoes and wiggle it out à la Elvis.
The movie opens up with a confusing montage of speedy flashbacks in the eyes of Presley’s infamous manager, Colonel Tom Parker. Played by the great Tom Hanks, he insists that he did not kill Elvis by overworking him, that the claims about his financial abuse of the musician was nothing but a fraud. However, this is brought to light as the movie goes on to show the dark side of the music industry. The scene where Elvis finally agrees on signing with the Colonel is literally framed like a deal with the devil in the crossroads.
Elvis spans from his soul roots, showing the young legend having an epiphany at a “black church”, to his career as a musician and an actor, down to his untimely death at the age of 42. Although the film does a great job introducing who Elvis is to the new generations who only know him by his title, it still falls short insofar as it is heavily dramatized that at some point one can forget that the persons involved in the story are indeed real people. Like other biographical dramas, Elvis suffers from inaccuritis, all for the sake of entertainment and the integrity of the late singer.
How inaccurate? Here’s a few things that got lost in Luhrmann’s sugar coated picture. One, he was not the perfect husband, even drugging Priscilla one time. Two, yes, the fans did love Elvis to the point that panties were literally thrown at the stage, but this love was taken advantage of from time to time as most of his admirers were underage. Not to mention, he met Priscilla when she was 14 while he was already 24 years old. Lastly, there was no mention of Ginger Alden, his fiancée, whom he met when he was 41 and whom he fired a gunshot at once.
Although the omission of these creepy facts is expected from a movie attempting to immortalize the King, the truth remains the truth in the end. In the movie, he was framed as this innocent white guy on the outside, black on the inside, with him being a fan of Martin Luther King Jr. and the rest of the famous Black musicians in the past. But another reality is that his whole act was plain cultural appropriation, but of course the white American audience did not have a problem with it as long as he was not black. The mention of this somewhat problematic side of the late musician can make one think, “If Elvis was still alive, would he be canceled by society?” Here’s what B.B. King, played by Kelvin Harrison Jr. in the movie, had to say, “...he [Elvis] just had his own interpretation of the music he’d grown up on.”
But what the movie shows best is the importance of using one’s platform to amplify the voice of the marginalized. One of the riveting moments in the film is Elvis transforming his Christmas show into a protest where he composed the song, “If I Can Dream,” in light of RFK’s assassination. Too bad this, too, was inaccurate, as RFK was not even killed in the middle of the taping of the show unlike what was portrayed in the film. It also showed the appalling segregation that was implemented in the past in scenes where there was a place assigned for colored people in Elvis’ concert. Finally, it hit home by showing his struggles with his family as he tries to juggle being a husband and father while headlining the International Hotel in Las Vegas.
Ask anyone a word to describe Luhrmann’s newest movie and a common denominator would be hallucinatory. The movie shows some fast cuts and slick transitions as the Colonel narrates his testimony. Some awesome details were editing young Presley into a comic book and having a different font style for the cities he toured in. There are also moments in the film where it is framed as a collage, making it seem like everything was happening all at once, or as Elvis would put it, “taking care of business in a flash.” This distinct technique of Luhrmann is what makes the biopic a sight to see, but sadly, it’s also a reason to hate the film as it can be overwhelming for some, not to mention it clocks in at 2 hours and 39 minutes.
Unsurprisingly, the highlight of Elvis is Elvis himself, Austin Butler. Shining through in every moment, Butler gave an outstanding performance that can be compared to Malek’s Freddie Mercury and Egerton’s Elton John, both of which top billed two of the most famous biographical musical drama films in the past years. Butler embodied the “greasy hair, girly makeup” image of Elvis, although many will argue about their resemblance. The script even pokes fun at him at one point, with B.B. King telling Elvis he looks like a butler.
Priscilla says something to Elvis along the lines of, “you’re only alive when you’re onstage,” and this perfectly summarizes the movie. With the King’s amazing catalog of songs, every musical scene showed his prowess and dared to entice the audience, but there is a disconnect in between performances, as if it was an effective musical but a failure of a biopic. Overall, Elvis breaks the boundaries of the biopic umbrella, taking the film scene by a storm of Luhrmann glitz and glamour and Butler magic.
Catch a screening of Elvis in select theaters nationwide on June 22, 2022.