Biographer Alanna Nash provides an interesting description of the new Elvis biopic from director Baz Luhrmann and starring Austin Butler. Nash wrote the biography of the singer's longtime manager Colonel Tom Parker, played in the movie by Tom Hanks. The film was released on June 24 and received positive reviews from critics, with Butler's performance receiving particular acclaim. The film marks Luhrmann's return to the big screen for the first time in almost a decade, with his last movie being The Great Gatsby in 2013.
Elvis follows the life and career of legendary performer Elvis Presley (Butler) as he navigates becoming the King of Rock and Roll, as well as his tumultuous relationship with his manager, Colonel Tom Parker (Hanks). Nash published her biography of Parker, The Colonel, in 2003, the product of six years of exhaustive research into the elusive subject. Elvis has received praise from the family of the singer, saying it well captured the dynamic between Elvis and the Colonel, but Nash has some issues with the story.
In an interview with Variety, Nash lays out her problems with the film, saying it relies too much on style and a slippery timeline. She says the timeline of the film is nonexistent, presenting facts in a compressed and loose way, comparing it to a "fever dream." She particularly criticizes the film's use of the Colonel as an antagonist, saying it didn't capture his many accomplishments while managing Elvis. Read her quote below:
The timeline… well, what timeline? It’s all a Baz Luhrmann fever dream. The past, present and future are all shook up like a ‘50s milkshake and served with a thousand straws! Other than the tremendous pains Baz has taken to make this story seem “woke,” the liberties are essentially fair — except to Parker. In making him such an antagonist, they have robbed him of his many accomplishments with his client.
The problem facing most biopics is the difficulty to capture the full essence of an individual in one movie, especially when they're not the main character. Many of a person's nuances, therefore, can be lost when adapted for the big screen and have to be compressed or altered. With Luhrmann directing Elvis, there was bound to be an emphasis on style over substance, which a number of critics and Elvis fans are claiming. Nash has other criticisms for the film, but also concedes that some of the artistic liberties Lurhmann takes are justifiable.
Even granting the use of artistic license, it's still worth talking about what the film does and doesn't get right. It's not Hollywood's job to educate, only entertain, and since Elvis isn't a documentary, it's up to the audience to do their own research into the turbulent life of the beloved icon and come to their own conclusions. While Nash's criticisms are perfectly valid, Elvis is a movie that sets out to entertain its audience with its visual splendor first and foremost, something it succeeds in doing in a way only Luhrmann could pull off.
Source: Variety