The Real Failure of Elvis' movie career

[likethebike]

I don't want to disparage anything that West has done. I just find it odd to compare a man who has had mostly tiny supporting roles to man who was asked to carry 31 movies.

The idea that Elvis couldn't be a extra or spoke so badly that a voice over artist does him better than he does himself is just bewildering. I feel it ignores the work he did on screen and really doesn't balance itself well with the rest of work other actors did at the time or are doing now.

He had great screen presence, was comfortable on screen, was able to convey emotion, was able to react. He never got the opportunity to blossom into full blown into a really good actor because with few exceptions, he never had the scripts, never had the directors. Given what he had he did better than alright. When you're doing something like "Tickle Me" in three weeks, how good can you be?

"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" would have been great for Elvis.

I think Elvis could have been convinced to take a supporting role in a film as many supporting roles are very juicy and many actors have been built major careers out of that one supporting role that clicked. A lot of times a supporting role is all good stuff. Look at "Kiss of Death". Victor Mature was the star but Richard Widmark is the one everybody remembers.

[paulwood]

Excellent essay and intelligent points however I don't deem Elvis movie career a failure just because he didn't make dramatic films ( or rather more dramatic films).

The Elvis films of the 60's were a franchise - some good some bad. The were formulatic in the same way the Bond films were: girls, cars, songs, locations, action more girls, more songs. Good colourful escapist entertainment and nothing more - nothing wrong with that.

The trouble with the 60's films started with Kissin Cousins when the productions values went down. From that point on its not hard to spot the films with the small budgets. Whereas the Bond Franchise average about a film every three years with increasing budgets and different actors in the role. Elvis films were sometimes three a year with smaller budgets and only Elvis carrying them. If he hadn't made so many what would we be left with a lot less to enjoy IMO.

The movie studios milked Elvis and Elvis was happy to take the money until thier popularity faded - he said in his message to the NME Poll concert that he hoped to keep making the kind of pictures people wanted to see. He didn't publically say he hoped to be in Becket and win an Oscar.

After Clambake things did change a little -they obviously looking for a new direction

Stay Away Joe, Trouble With Girls, Charro! Change of Habit even Live a Little Love A Little were more adult and had no consistent theme - but none of them caught on with the public in the same way as the formulatic films did.

In Charro his acting seemed to have gone down a few notches in the way he overstated the understated. And Change of Habit was like a pilot movie for a TV series. These were cheap productions and were never going to put Elvis back in the big time. Whos to say that he'd have been succesful making dramas in the 60's? Brando didn't do so well in that period.

If a film starring Brando, Paul Newman is good with them in thier respective roles I'm happy watching it and I don't see the point in wondering... what if Elvis had this part?.

Anyone can be an actor but only one person can be Elvis.

[Cryogenic]

Another fine essay, LTB. I've been meaning to comment on your 68 Special one. I've already written the bulk of my response, but at the moment, it's sitting on another PC I can't access. It won't be long before I finish it. Anyway, for this thread, I'll just chip in with the following...

WIC FS and KC fall flat more than once. What saves KING CREOLE are the 11 interruptions. And I am grateful for that! Always the man and his music. Nothing else IMO.

Although the songs in "King Creole" are of an exceptionally high standard and bring considerable levity to the picture, the film happens to have some excellent dramatic qualities, too. The problem is that it is contrived in a manner to have those songs there in the first place. One senses it could, and perhaps should, have been even grittier, and in such an aesthetic, totally song-free. Unfortunately, it's a much weaker picture than "Saturday Night Fever". I bring the latter picture up because it deals with similar themes, incorporates dance/music and features a lithe black-haired actor aged 23, playing a teenager. "Saturday Night Fever" is "King Creole" for the late 70's -- done better. Yet Elvis and John Travolta delivered comparable performances (and Travolta, unlike Elvis, was Oscar-nominated in that role). The material let Elvis down time and time again. Although his career has been a bumpy one, and Tarantino should be credited with helping Travolta revive himself (as Binder did, to an extent, with Elvis), even if it did lead to something horrendous like "Battlefield Earth", Travolta is something like the actor Elvis never was, scoring personal and cinematic hits in films as diverse as the aforementioned SNF, "Grease", "Pulp Fiction", "Face/Off" and "Primary Colors".

Elvis was teetering on something special on several occasions. Pre-army, he was climbing all the way -- "Love Me Tender", "Loving You", "Jailhouse Rock" and "King Creole". Then, after the brief interlude of "G.I. Blues", he was seemingly back on track with "Flaming Star", but that was it ("Wild In The Country" was already a transition piece between "Flaming Star" and "Blue Hawaii", in my opinion). The simple fact is that he was hideously mismanaged (both personally and externally: i.e. the blame rests with him and The Colonel jointly). It must be noted that Elvis almost became a supporting actor in his very first film, had he starred in "The Rainmaker", which he tested for and The Colonel nixed. This was the quiet death knell that rang out for the duration of Elvis' movie career. Elvis was out of his depth in the complex, bizarre and twisted world of movie-making -- something The Colonel knew and exploited to the full. Compounding things, Elvis did nothing to educate himself, possibly through a combination of fear, lethargy and cynical indifference, and so could never challenge The Colonel and carve out the kind of big screen career he and us so richly deserved.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

I take a less grim view of his film career, Cryo', echoing LTB's idea that these (money-making) films served up good-clean, uncomplicated popular entertainment, from "Blue Hawaii" to "Viva Las Vegas." Most of it would not be mistaken for high-art, but like the screen personas of Dean Martin, or Bob Hope or Bing Crosby or Burt Reynolds, these films largely succeeded in what they set out to do.

That's a good comparison of Elvis and John Travolta in regards to "King Creole" and "Saturday Night Fever." I've never thought of that at all, although I have thought of their similirities, from '77 to about '80.

[Joe Car]

I take a less grim view of his film career, Cryo', echoing LTB's idea that these (money-making) films served up good-clean, uncomplicated popular entertainment, from "Blue Hawaii" to "Viva Las Vegas." Most of it would not be mistaken for high-art, but like the screen personas of Dean Martin, or Bob Hope or Bing Crosby or Burt Reynolds, these films largely succeeded in what they set out to do.

That's a good comparison of Elvis and John Travolta in regards to "King Creole" and "Saturday Night Fever." I've never thought of that at all, although I have thought of their similirities, from '77 to about '80.

I always thought, if anybody could have played the young EP, it could have been Vinny Barbarino, I mean John Travolta from the late seventies era.

[Cryogenic]

I take a less grim view of his film career, Cryo', echoing LTB's idea that these (money-making) films served up good-clean, uncomplicated popular entertainment, from "Blue Hawaii" to "Viva Las Vegas." Most of it would not be mistaken for high-art, but like the screen personas of Dean Martin, or Bob Hope or Bing Crosby or Burt Reynolds, these films largely succeeded in what they set out to do.

I'm not sure why thinking that films like "Blue Hawaii" and "Viva Las Vegas" are "good-clean[sic], uncomplicated popular entertainment" means you take "a less grim view of [Elvis'] film career" when I said nothing to indicate a counter belief. Those films are good, clean, uncomplicated popular entertainment, and I also think the two you've selected have excellent soundtracks, both sung brilliantly by Elvis (which, by and large, is what makes them excellent), and so there is something to be savoured there. But I won't coddle myself with the mythical notion that these films, even the lofty likes of "King Creole" and "Flaming Star", remotely do justice to Elvis' talent, or are, by any stretch of the imagination, "great" films equal to the likes of various motion pictures performed in by comparable talents like Frank Sinatra, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and John Travolta. Elvis didn't do one film, in my opinion, as singularly excellent as "The Manchurian Candidate", "The Searchers", "Unforgiven" or "Pulp Fiction". Not one of his single dramatic pictures is a "great" film. And, if you have any perspective at all, you will indeed agree that his film career, in spite of entertaining pictures, was a huge waste.

That's a good comparison of Elvis and John Travolta in regards to "King Creole" and "Saturday Night Fever." I've never thought of that at all, although I have thought of their similirities, from '77 to about '80.

I always thought, if anybody could have played the young EP, it could have been Vinny Barbarino, I mean John Travolta from the late seventies era.

Thanks for the endorsements.

[Juan Luis]

I may be in the minority about thinking of Elvis as a great singer/entertainer without even giving a seconds thought way in the back of my mind..... those 31 feature films. It must be psychological because (with 5 or so exceptions KC FS etc) I just see a very silly guy trying his best to kill his career to no avail. It failed to demolish his careeer... had it been done on purpose. The first major and most important Rock star that really wasn't. Because of the movies and all the (not even comparable to muzak of the worst kind) material recorded. But I love him.

[Joe Car]

I take a less grim view of his film career, Cryo', echoing LTB's idea that these (money-making) films served up good-clean, uncomplicated popular entertainment, from "Blue Hawaii" to "Viva Las Vegas." Most of it would not be mistaken for high-art, but like the screen personas of Dean Martin, or Bob Hope or Bing Crosby or Burt Reynolds, these films largely succeeded in what they set out to do.

I'm not sure why thinking that films like "Blue Hawaii" and "Viva Las Vegas" are "good-clean[sic], uncomplicated popular entertainment" means you take "a less grim view of [Elvis'] film career" when I said nothing to indicate a counter belief. Those films are good, clean, uncomplicated popular entertainment, and I also think the two you've selected have excellent soundtracks, both sung brilliantly by Elvis (which, by and large, is what makes them excellent), and so there is something to be savoured there. But I won't coddle myself with the mythical notion that these films, even the lofty likes of "King Creole" and "Flaming Star", remotely do justice to Elvis' talent, or are, by any stretch of the imagination, "great" films equal to the likes of various motion pictures performed in by comparable talents like Frank Sinatra, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and John Travolta. Elvis didn't do one film, in my opinion, as singularly excellent as "The Manchurian Candidate", "The Searchers", "Unforgiven" or "Pulp Fiction". Not one of his single dramatic pictures is a "great" film. And, if you have any perspective at all, you will indeed agree that his film career, in spite of entertaining pictures, was a huge waste.

That's a good comparison of Elvis and John Travolta in regards to "King Creole" and "Saturday Night Fever." I've never thought of that at all, although I have thought of their similirities, from '77 to about '80.

I always thought, if anybody could have played the young EP, it could have been Vinny Barbarino, I mean John Travolta from the late seventies era.

Thanks for the endorsements.

They never set high goals when it came to making movies, at least the powers to be. They accomplished what they set out to do, market EP, make fluffy movies, make plenty of money, and not win any awards. EP idolized the who's who of young actors, Brando, Dean and Tony Curtis, and had aspirations to be like them, but unfortunately to his crew, they just needed Elvis to show up, that was money in the bank. Artistically, they didn't care. Getting Elvis a meaty role in a great movie, even in a supporting role, was never going to happen, especially when he came out of the army, thus there were never any "great pictures."

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

I take a less grim view of his film career, Cryo', echoing LTB's idea that these (money-making) films served up good-clean, uncomplicated popular entertainment, from "Blue Hawaii" to "Viva Las Vegas." Most of it would not be mistaken for high-art, but like the screen personas of Dean Martin, or Bob Hope or Bing Crosby or Burt Reynolds, these films largely succeeded in what they set out to do.

I'm not sure why thinking that films like "Blue Hawaii" and "Viva Las Vegas" are "good-clean[sic], uncomplicated popular entertainment" means you take "a less grim view of [Elvis'] film career" when I said nothing to indicate a counter belief. Those films are good, clean, uncomplicated popular entertainment, and I also think the two you've selected have excellent soundtracks, both sung brilliantly by Elvis (which, by and large, is what makes them excellent), and so there is something to be savoured there. But I won't coddle myself with the mythical notion that these films, even the lofty likes of "King Creole" and "Flaming Star", remotely do justice to Elvis' talent, or are, by any stretch of the imagination, "great" films equal to the likes of various motion pictures performed in by comparable talents like Frank Sinatra, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and John Travolta. Elvis didn't do one film, in my opinion, as singularly excellent as "The Manchurian Candidate", "The Searchers", "Unforgiven" or "Pulp Fiction". Not one of his single dramatic pictures is a "great" film. And, if you have any perspective at all, you will indeed agree that his film career, in spite of entertaining pictures, was a huge waste.

That's a good comparison of Elvis and John Travolta in regards to "King Creole" and "Saturday Night Fever." I've never thought of that at all, although I have thought of their similirities, from '77 to about '80.

I always thought, if anybody could have played the young EP, it could have been Vinny Barbarino, I mean John Travolta from the late seventies era.

Thanks for the endorsements.

And thanks for the spelling correction. I never put Elvis' pictures on the higher plane of cinema, but just indicated that they occupy a role that for plenty of other actors was quite enviable. To call it a huge waste is an unfair exaggeration and a frankly elitest conception of the meaning of entertainment as opposed to "art." There's my perspective.


JLGB wrote:

I may be in the minority about thinking of Elvis as a great singer/entertainer without even giving a seconds thought way in the back of my mind..... those 31 feature films. It must be psychological because (with 5 or so exceptions KC FS etc) I just see a very silly guy trying his best to kill his career to no avail. It failed to demolish his careeer... had it been done on purpose. The first major and most important Rock star that really wasn't. Because of the movies and all the (not even comparable to muzak of the worst kind) material recorded. But I love him.

Indeed you are, JL. While I don't want to come off as an apologist for the worst of his movies, I think it's a common assumption that we have to call his film career an unqualified failure. It's simply not the case.

That's at odds with box office receipts alone, never mind the countless reruns of his movies on television for years that followed. Take issue with popular tastes, but his film formula did work for a long time.

You always just saw a "silly guy"? I can't believe what I'm reading. I winced at some of the roles, but that's going a bit far. His personal charisma and star power very often (but certainly not always) had a way of rising above the dreck. I fully enjoyed the '50s movies and I can quarrel only with that notable minority of the '60s pictures. I'm at peace with that fact that he got roped into these contracts and do try to enjoy these films for what the entertainment they usually provided. Nothing all that challenging, but often escapist, "guilty pleasure" fun.

For a long time, an "Elvis Presley" picture was considered a "sure-thing" in Hollywood. We can laugh about what people will pay for, but I think popular American tastes then and sometimes now desired a diversion from daily life with a star they recogonized, in an appealing location. Like Bing Crosby and others, people wanted to see their favorite star in action. Again, not high cinema, but part of the Hollywood tradition. If you want to talk about true, rock-bottom "Grade D" cinema, it existed - but is not ever to be found on cable TV today like an Elvis movie will, alongside Jimmy Stewart, Doris Day and others that don't always measure up to culture critics, then and now.

[likethebike]

While no one could argue that the best Elvis films can stack up to standard bearers like "The Godfather" or "The Searchers" or "Pulp Fiction", I do think that several Elvis films like "Jailhouse Rock", "King Creole", "Viva Las Vegas", "Flaming Star" and the underrated "Follow That Dream" rank in the very good to excellent category occupied by the likes of stuff like "Gunfight at the Ok Corral", "Death Wish", and "Saturday Night Fever" and other potent but flawed films. It would surprise many here how frequently these Elvis films pop up for positive mention in non-Elvis related texts. In Peter Travers guide to the 1000 Best DVDs he picks both "King Creole" and "Viva Las Vegas". Others like "Wild in the Country" fall more into the interesting than good category.

"Viva Las Vegas" does not have to make an apologies for itself and it's more than the soundtrack that makes it work. "Tickle Me" filled with first class studio songs does not work in anywhere near the same way. Although stuff like character and plot does not really exist in "Viva Las Vegas" it distinguishes itself with style, sex and energy.

"King Creole" to me is a very ambitious film beyond its soundtrack. It incorporates different types of filmmaking into package, the film noir/gangster film, the coming of age film, and the American musical. I think it does pretty well. There are several fine scenes, the pursuit in the alley, Elvis pinning Vic Morrow against the wall, Elvis' chasing down Maxie Fields. What's more the characters have a depth that they don't have in most Elvis films or even in traditional Hollywood entertainment films.

This does not mean it was a distinguished career over all. Most of Elvis' movies though were beneath his talent and some like "Kissing Cousins", "Clambake" and "Paradise Hawaiian Style" were an insult to the audience. Still, it seems willful to say there weren't moments. The amateur night at Hollywood East is the contention I take offense at.

Where the hostility comes from many fans is the fact that a truly major musical talent was spending eight years making mostly unimportant films.

I think Elvis' early death throws his film career out of perspective. Eight years in a musical career today is not a very long time and as I pointed out previously actors like Quinn and Wayne went through longer apprenticeships in mostly spotty films before breaking through. Crosby spent 14 years making mostly fluff before "Going My Way". Had Elvis lived longer and gone on to make some interesting films we would have looked back on this period as a dues paying period. Or even if he had made more music and more great music, the time spent in Hollywood would have seemed more benevolent, an eccentricity that was not without its rewards.

In regards to Elvis' acting, I think some people are looking for Elvis to be rather than judging objectively. You can see this clearly in Guralnick's assessment of "Wild in the Country". While I agree that WITC is not a particularly good movie, I think to dump it on Elvis is wrongheaded because if you watch the movie and think about that dialogue and those situations (many stolen from previous southern pot boilers) you know it's not Elvis. This really becomes clear when you read J.R. Salamanca's source novel which bears only a passing resemblance to what was on the screen. It's a very slow book but it meditates on the nature of violence and sex and contrasts it with the idle quality of nature and the country. It's also about guilt and self-awareness. There is none of this in the film. Clifford Odets took this story and made it "Peyton Place" jr. He turned everything original and made it cliche'. He took everything understated and made it over the top absurd.

Yet because Odets is a culturally safe figure as a writer, someone else must take the blame. That blame goes to Elvis who is perceived to be out of his element as an actor. Odets may have been a genius but by 1961 he was washed out.

IMO what makes the film watchable today are the performances of Elvis, Hope Lange, Tuesday Weld, Millie Perkins and Gary Lockwood (playing a a character not in the book). Elvis has the hardest, most demanding role. He has a little trouble with some of Odets lengthy speeches and he rushes out some of his speech when he first meets Hope Lange. Eventually though he settles in and does very touching work. Listen to how delicately he phrases his plea to Hope Lange when they meet in her home after their meeting in the hotel. Look at the non-verbal sparks he and Weld throw dancing at the fair together. Look at his non-verbal love scene with Lange in the hotel room. Look at his phrasing and facial expressions in the scene between him and Uncle Rolf at the fair where the uncle is trying to trick him into marrying Tuesday Weld.

[Juan Luis]

.

You always just saw a "silly guy"? .

Not always.

[Promocollector]

I do think that several Elvis films like "Jailhouse Rock", "King Creole", "Viva Las Vegas", "Flaming Star" and the underrated "Follow That Dream" rank in the very good to excellent category occupied by the likes of stuff like "Gunfight at the Ok Corral", "Death Wish", and "Saturday Night Fever" and other potent but flawed films.

LTB

I know you have a thing about Elvis' movies but no-way can any Elvis movies rank with "Gunfight at the OK Corral". While the Elvis movies that you mentioned may be very good movies, they are not classics by any stretch of the imagination, whereas "Gunfight" is a classic western.

[likethebike]

Sure they can. "Gunfight at the Ok Corral" wasn't even the best time that particular story was done. ("My Darling Clementine") It's a very good movie but I can't reasonably argue that it's that much better than "King Creole" or "Jailhouse Rock" or "Viva Las Vegas". IMO it's a well done star vehicle same as the three Elvis movies I mentioned. For me, I have to be able to answer why and with a movie like "Gunfight at the Ok Corral" or other much beloved but flawed films I can't see why other than the reputation of its stars. (Well maybe I can for JHR but not the other two movies.)

The idea that any Elvis movie can't compare to even a reasonably good movie by anyone else is wrongheaded to me. A good movie is a good movie no matter who its star is. He's not my favorite movie critic and I don't point him as some sort of great guru, but do you think Peter Travers slid the scale for Elvis? Do you think the editors at the Leonard Maltin or Steven H. Scheuer Film Guides slid their scales to give like "Flaming Star" three star reviews or three and half for "Trouble With Girls" in the early '80s Scheuer guide because they want to move big numbers among Elvis fans?

1956's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" has no respected stars and yet it's better than 98 percent of the movies you'll see.

[Cryogenic]

And thanks for the spelling correction.

I give an honest note of thanks and THAT is the response I get?

For what it's worth: I was not aware I gave a spelling correction. Might you point it out to me? I DID indicate, by use of the "sic" marker, that a particular piece of punctuation was in an erroneous configuration, but this was done to clarify that I was faithfully duplicating the error for the purposes of veracity, not inadvertently making it myself. Perhaps you would care to educate yourself so that your sarcasm, if you feel the need to employ it at all, is at least correct, and not fallacious. OK? "Thanks".

I never put Elvis' pictures on the higher plane of cinema, but just indicated that they occupy a role that for plenty of other actors was quite enviable.

You've made this point now, but you didn't make it back then. Perhaps you would also care to tighten up your language and manner of discourse in the future? "Thanks" again!

To call it a huge waste is an unfair exaggeration and a frankly elitest conception of the meaning of entertainment as opposed to "art." There's my perspective.

Elitest ..... [sic]?

I believe I have effectively argued the context that warrants proclaiming Elvis Presley's film career as a "huge waste". You seem to be accomplished at performining linguistic sleights of hand, and here, once again, you have discarded my context and replaced it for another, thereby attempting to unfairly denigrate my original summation. Critically thinking minds -- a group to which yours, sadly, does not belong -- can easily interpret my comments in the manner they were/are intended.

While I don't want to come off as an apologist for the worst of his movies, I think it's a common assumption that we have to call his film career an unqualified failure. It's simply not the case.

Considering Elvis' immense talent and profound charisma, and the fact that his films cynically cashed in on the latter, but did virtually nothing to tap and nurture the former, it is very much the case, seen from this point of view, that his film career was an artistic failure, if not a commercial one. When you consider his towering achievements in the field of music, and what he potentially had to contribute to the field of film, his movies look truly pathetic. It seems you have difficulties dealing with this simple fact, but people commonly wrap themselves up in diversions and myths, so it's no surprise you're unable to acknowledge it.

That's at odds with box office receipts alone, never mind the countless reruns of his movies on television for years that followed. Take issue with popular tastes, but his film formula did work for a long time.

See above.

You're arguing a totally separate point. Of course the formula worked! Any cretin can see that. Now, with your remarkable skills of deduction and reason, I recommend you go to a nutritionist website and keep telling them that millions of people love McDonald's, regardless of the negative health effects.

His personal charisma and star power very often (but certainly not always) had a way of rising above the dreck. I fully enjoyed the '50s movies and I can quarrel only with that notable minority of the '60s pictures. I'm at peace with that fact that he got roped into these contracts and do try to enjoy these films for what the entertainment they usually provided. Nothing all that challenging, but often escapist, "guilty pleasure" fun.

More diversionary pap.

It's interesting that, in the midst of large fluffy images, you noted in your first post that some of the films made Elvis physically ill, and here, you're using the term "guilty pleasure", doubly affirming that his film career, from an artistic stance, was horribly botched.

For a long time, an "Elvis Presley" picture was considered a "sure-thing" in Hollywood. We can laugh about what people will pay for, but I think popular American tastes then and sometimes now desired a diversion from daily life with a star they recogonized, in an appealing location.

Millions of people seek such diversions watching "Big Brother". Does that make it more meaningful or acceptable? Elvis always sought to entertain, but his very best moments come from fusing entertainment and enrichment, communicating deep human truths in a profoundly moving and enrapturing manner. This description applies to the majority of his singing -- but it doesn't consistently apply to a single film he was part of. Elvis Presley was more than a "bread and circus" star, but his films never ONCE allowed him to fully show it.

If memory recalls, Elvis was captured saying something along these lines in Peter Guralnick's "Last Train To Memphis": you can't sing and be a serious actor in the same film. How prescient those words came to be.

I know you have a thing about Elvis' movies but no-way can any Elvis movies rank with "Gunfight at the OK Corral". While the Elvis movies that you mentioned may be very good movies, they are not classics by any stretch of the imagination, whereas "Gunfight" is a classic western.

Thank you for bringing clarity to this thread, "Promo".

While you make many great points, LTB, and you write at a high level, I could not disagree more strongly with your basic assertion that Elvis' best movies are equal to true classics like "Gunfight at the OK Corral" and ""Saturday Night Fever" (I have not seen "Death Wish", but based on two out of three misses, this third example is thrown into doubt). "King Creole" is a strong picture, but it's not as tight or accomplished a film as "Saturday Night Fever". The idea of Elvis' character strolling into a department store and distracting the occupants with singing while it is robbed is ludicrous (and a perfect encapsulation of everything wrong with Elvis and his relationship with the film world). The picture has other deficiencies which put it firmly below SNF, but I won't burden this thread with further elaboration; the example I've given is sufficient in highlighting a flaw of far greater magnitude than anything in "Saturday Night Fever". I respect what you're trying to do, LTB, and while many of Elvis' pictures are "watchable", and some are even "good", none are "greats" or "classics". That's the sad fact of the matter, but some, like everything in life, can't or won't see it.

I take no pleasure in being this brutally honest about Elvis and his film career. Yes, he brought pleasure to many people through his films, and still does, and he even recorded some impressive musical numbers (even his "lesser" films often have at least one good song to their name). While his film career, and the approach to marketing, did deprive Elvis and us of more, even better studio material, not to mention live concerts, we must also consider that he sang a fantastic range of music, some styles which were only encountered through the film sessions themselves (something which would warrant an entire thesis by itself; perhaps a future topic, LTB...). Lastly, we must consider that if it weren't for the state of his film career in 1968, Elvis might never have bounded back in quite the way he did, and we might never have gotten something as cutting and relevant as "The Comeback Special". Every coin has two sides (and all manner of microscopic grooves making up the whole). I also find myself in the reverse position of arguing FOR Elvis' films, within certain limits, to non-fans, who continually turn their noses up at the mere mention of his name. But none of this changes the reality of what Elvis' cinematic career was and is. It is common to deny reality, especially when fanciful versions of reality -- myths -- are more comforting, but it's ultimately a form of deception, which, as Elvis' life shows, is neither clever nor healthy.

[Juan Luis]

To be fair Travolta did use his appeal to get stuff stolen in the movie. I remember when I first saw it in 78 with the girls in the movie theater screaming...when he makes his appearance with the shoes and going up! I was of course an Elvis fan already and this (me) 14 year old kid daydreamed at that moment Elvis making first appearance LMT.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

"Cryro": I don't have the time to respond at the moment for want of slumber at this hour, but you once again demonstrate a distasteful youthful recklessness towards anyone who disagrees with you.

(For the record, I know what "sic" means, but the reality of using it in most public forums is almost always intentionally petty in intention, whether admitted or not...)

Please try to exercise some basic good will and decorum to fellow fans and learn to debate with civility, leaving the desparaging comments for the campus. A lot us come here in the spirit of friendship that fandom tends to create and have in fact become friends. We're discussing Elvis movies, here, and the venom is plainly out of place.

The point here on this forum is to discuss the highs and lows of Elvis' career with fellow fans, not get into a pissing match. I'll cede my ground to others who understand why Elvis' movie career wasn't a complete failure (not even close, to be fair) and who can debate without being insulting. There's a perhaps surprising amount of intelligent Elvis fans here and let's try to exercise some mutual respect.

[likethebike]

With all due respect Cryo your example is a very poor one in that even many great films have scenes with logical flaws. And I'm not sure this particular flaw is that great a stretch of logic, particularly in 1958 when not every store in America was overloaded with surveillance equipment.

The thing is that "King Creole" is filled with three dimensional characters which something like "Gunfight at the Ok Corral" is not. "King Creole" also straddles three different types of movie making traditions which is a lot more ambitious framework than "Saturday Night Fever". Maybe SNF gets point for having a surer focus but that's a matter of taste. I would argue in terms of cast and director, "King Creole" also has "Saturday Night Fever" beat. Elvis' character arc is just as believable and moving as Travolta's in the later film. It is much more than a simply watchable film. It's a very good film. In 1980 critic Dave Marsh declared it the best rock and roll film ever made over "Saturday Night Fever" (really a disco film) and over even "A Hard Day's Night". By 1992, he knocked it down a few spots but it was still Top Ten.

Look at the reviews for SNF and "Gunfight" you'll see they get about ratings as Elvis' films in straight film books. They don't slide the scale just to get Elvis in there.

I would argue that SNF gets upgraded in its reputation because of what Travolta did later in "Pulp Fiction" and other movies. I remember in high school and college when I would argue with friends and people in school including professors that SNF was a significant film and Travolta a good actor I was greeted with scoffs.

I also think it's a mistake to get all snobbish about entertainment. It has a much longer shelf life than much art and its vitality often gives it permanent value. And a lot of times it catches as many themes and depth as supposed art. I mean if you watch the three movies that Doris Day made with Rock Hudson, dismissed in their era as populist trash, they hold up much better today than the prestigious Oscar winner "Ben Hur" which seems dopey and stilted today except for that great chariot race. The Day/Hudson movies have dated a bit because of the explicit sexual freedom of the past decades but they still seem funny, bright, and un-selfconsciously romantic. Filmmakers today try in vain to create a little of that star sheen.

Anyway, I'm veering off-topic. I think in terms of Elvis' career in films the true grade he deserves is a "I" for incomplete. What we have is an opening act of varying quality and nothing to measure it against. As I pointed out in the opening post, the careers of actors like John Wayne, Anthony Quinn, Crosby, Sinatra were nothing special early on.

[Juan Luis]

Anyway, I'm veering off-topic. I think in terms of Elvis' career in films the true grade he deserves is a "I" for incomplete.

IMO very fair LTB.

[Cryogenic]

"Cryro": I don't have the time to respond at the moment for want of slumber at this hour, but you once again demonstrate a distasteful youthful recklessness towards anyone who disagrees with you.

(For the record, I know what "sic" means, but the reality of using it in most public forums is almost always intentionally petty in intention, whether admitted or not...)

Please try to exercise some basic good will and decorum to fellow fans and learn to debate with civility, leaving the desparaging comments for the campus. A lot us come here in the spirit of friendship that fandom tends to create and have in fact become friends. We're discussing Elvis movies, here, and the venom is plainly out of place.

The point here on this forum is to discuss the highs and lows of Elvis' career with fellow fans, not get into a pissing match. I'll cede my ground to others who understand why Elvis' movie career wasn't a complete failure (not even close, to be fair) and who can debate without being insulting. There's a perhaps surprising amount of intelligent Elvis fans here and let's try to exercise some mutual respect.

So, I can now add CONDESCENDING, SMALL-MINDED, HYPOCRITE to your name.

In the words of my good friend, N8......... Greg, you're pathetic.

With all due respect Cryo your example is a very poor one in that even many great films have scenes with logical flaws. And I'm not sure this particular flaw is that great a stretch of logic, particularly in 1958 when not every store in America was overloaded with surveillance equipment.

On the contrary, LTB, my example is not poor. While you are correct in that surveillance wasn't, back then, what it is today, the scene is inherently more flawed than that: it shoe-horns in a bout of singing -- in other words, Elvis' main ability -- and turns a piece of drama into an outlandish farce that wouldn't be out of place in something like "Tickle Me", "Harum Scarum" or virtually any other 60's Elvis picture you care to name. Aesthetically, it is very grating, and at odds with the more serious inflection of the underlying story. There is NOTHING like this in "Saturday Night Fever".

"King Creole" also straddles three different types of movie making traditions which is a lot more ambitious framework than "Saturday Night Fever".

Incorporating different types of "movie making traditions", or genres, while certainly making for a more ambitious framework, doesn't make a film itself inherently more ambitious. I would say that "Saturday Night Fever" is more ambitious because of the way it elegantly, and riskily, fuses dance music/dance scenes with an exceedingly gritty and coarse narrative, where swearing, violence, the intense objectification of women and even gang-rape are commonplace.

Maybe SNF gets point for having a surer focus but that's a matter of taste.

I would definitely say that SNF is the tighter, more streamlined, more consistent, more believable film.

I would argue in terms of cast and director, "King Creole" also has "Saturday Night Fever" beat. Elvis' character arc is just as believable and moving as Travolta's in the later film.

Their character arcs align favourably, which is largely why I chose to enter "Saturday Night Fever" into the discussion in the first place, but SNF is just a little more sophisticated to me. "King Creole" holds the viewer's hand, to an extent, with Elvis's character consciously articulating a desire to work, finding work and ultimately ending with him experiencing a sort of catharsis through that work (i.e. singing/performing). "Saturday Night Fever" is more uncertain about its character's fate, or rather, certain about being uncertain about it. Travolta's character is already at work (indeed, the film begins with him memorably walking down the street with a paint can) and he brushes college off, not with a staged (albeit sincerely rendered by Elvis) confrontation where he affirms the reasons why, but merely because (i.e. the reason don't have to be articulated). The scene where Tony and Stephanie chat in the cafe is more true and and honest than anything in "King Creole", in my opinion; it's funny and sad, surreal and real, all at once.

Many people wrongly see SNF as lightweight fluff when it is a serious character study/coming of age tale. Disco music and dance scenes are used in an ingenious way to create a sultry fantasy around the harsh reality of life in the Bronx. Disco, as portrayed in this film, is an escape from life; not an acceptance of it. This point is made rather explictly when a girl asks to wipe Travolta's brow inside the club (he is a "god" in his "temple", whereas in the week, he is a nobody in a neighbourhood of nobodies). Unlike "King Creole", dancing is not the protagonist's salvation, but a distraction; a trap. The closing scene of the film -- indeed, the closing shot -- suggests everything and nothing. Could dancing, the thing that ensnared Travolta's character, be his salvation afterall? Maybe. Maybe not. KC and SNF are both good pictures, and they do traverse much of the same ground, but where KC is sometimes ham-fisted and silly, SNF is always complex and gripping. If the enemy in KC is Maxie Fields and his network of gangsters/informants, the enemy in SNF is life itself.

In 1980 critic Dave Marsh declared it the best rock and roll film ever made over "Saturday Night Fever" (really a disco film) and over even "A Hard Day's Night".

Look at the reviews for SNF and "Gunfight" you'll see they get about ratings as Elvis' films in straight film books. They don't slide the scale just to get Elvis in there.

Appeal to authority. In other words: meaningless.

And to rank "King Creole" above "Saturday Night Fever" and "A Hard Day's Night" is startling to me. But then, I have my opinions, and Marsh has his.

Incidentally, "rock and roll" is no more apt for "King Creole" than it is "Saturday Night Fever". If the latter's musical style is disco (soul/funk), then the former's is New Orleans jazz. I think that "best popular music film" is a more accurate label (though still imprecise and erroneous in various ways).

I would argue that SNF gets upgraded in its reputation because of what Travolta did later in "Pulp Fiction" and other movies.

And "King Creole" doesn't get upgraded in its reputation because of the junk that Elvis churned out later on? Almost anything is going to look like a diamond next to those turds (relatively speaking). Suffice it to say, I disagree vehemently with your assertion. If Travolta had got run over and killed the day after "Saturday Night Fever" came out, or more accurately (as such a thing might have deified him and the film), if he'd retired from acting and gone on to become a landscape gardener, I have a feeling that "Saturday Night Fever" would still be lauded by those that laud it. Great films, just as bad ones, function on their own strengths/weaknesses.

I remember in high school and college when I would argue with friends and people in school including professors that SNF was a significant film and Travolta a good actor I was greeted with scoffs.

And this means what? Another appeal to authority.

I also think it's a mistake to get all snobbish about entertainment. It has a much longer shelf life than much art and its vitality often gives it permanent value.

Who's getting snobbish about entertainment? I merely see some of the reverse occuring: entertainment is being exalted to the status of "art". Although some of Elvis' pictures are markedly better than others, with genuine attempts at something more than just entertainment now and again (e.g. "King Creole", "Flaming Star"), none are particularly distinguished motion pictures. Some people, and you are amongst them, LTB, have either lost sight of that or tried to argue around it. While I frequently enjoy your writings and find your attempts here admirable, and I certainly think that the ins and outs of Elvis' film career make for fascinating discussion, I find it absurd that anyone would try and rank any of Elvis' films as equal to some of the classics mentioned in here. By all means, discuss them in the same breath, as it were, and rigorously compare themes, motifs and ideas, acting quality, screenplays, direction, cinematography, set design and so forth, but don't get carried away. If you really think that Elvis' best films stand shoulder to shoulder with other titles mentioned, then I'm happy for you, but I find such opinions troubling, misguided and ultimately wrong.

The Day/Hudson movies have dated a bit because of the explicit sexual freedom of the past decades but they still seem funny, bright, and un-selfconsciously romantic. Filmmakers today try in vain to create a little of that star sheen.

This is an excellent point, but it still doesn't change anything. I can even indulge with further examples: I vastly prefer the original "Ocean's Eleven" to the new; even though they were never shooting for art, the magnetic larger-than-life appeal of The Rat Pack cannot be denied. But again, it doesn't change the limited prestige of even the finest Elvis Presley picture.

I think in terms of Elvis' career in films the true grade he deserves is a "I" for incomplete. What we have is an opening act of varying quality and nothing to measure it against. As I pointed out in the opening post, the careers of actors like John Wayne, Anthony Quinn, Crosby, Sinatra were nothing special early on.

This is the sort of perspective I can happily embrace. I fully agree. Elvis had more to give, and if his life had gone a little differently, I'm sure we'd all be enjoying the fruits to this day. He would probably have found a whole new level of personal and professional success had he returned to movie-making in his later years. Now, short of being able to tunnel into a parallel universe, we'll never know.

[Juan Luis]

When I was 13-16 you either were disco or ROCK. Disco is/was totally uncool and I am glad that movie pretty much ended (with a bang) that crap! At least it was music though..Today it is talking in rhyme with hand movements equivalent of someone with a pinched nerve! .... KC is less sophisticated than SNF but IMO the Rock New Orleans Jazz Blues fusion is more memorable at the end of the day .. Elvis was in it too! BTW..I like the BEE GEES up to MAIN COURSE. Tommorrow might think differently.

[likethebike]

Every written so far has been an attempt to bring perspective and a part of that is the idea that I believe things have swung too far to the other side. The very idea that Elvis could make a good film but it's not as good as other good films because it's an Elvis film is wrongheaded.

The idea of referring to film critics is not an appeal to authority. It is to show that this is not limited to Elvis fanatics. Many people with an interest in and knowledge of film think along the same lines. To say that SNF would be lauded by those who laud it, is a meaningless statement. The people who like it would still like it. Of course.

The idea that Elvis' later lesser movies make this look better is contradicted by history. Later success makes earlier look better, later failure makes earlier work look worse. I've seen a lot of stars go through it. You make some mediocre stuff and people wonder if the original stuff was as good as they thought it was.

For the record, many bad movies incorporate violence, swearing and the objectification of women.

We have to disagree on that scene in the store. Being that I see people in New York City singing on the street all the time and I see them attracting attention if their good. It makes absolute sense to me that someone who is a good singer could walk into a store and distract people by singing in less security conscious 1958. What's more the song is a about a minute fifty. Less time than you could even grab a manager. There's nothing absurd there. Even within the movie, Dolores Hart recognizes that something is going on. And again even if there, you could poke logistical holes in almost any movie.

"King Creole" is a very good movie featuring a dynamic lead character surrounded by three dimensional characters in a very real milieu. The only thing that's even close to ham fisted are the references to the puppet master etc. But then the Carolyn Jones character is supposed to be melodramatic.

One of the reasons it's a very good movie is that succeeds in some measure on all three levels. The opening number with Elvis and the street singer is fabulous right out of the classic musical. However as critic Danny Peary pointed out in his brief but interesting review, it's a legitimate flaw in the film because it in such contrast to the tone and character of the rest of the film. However, at two crucial points it uses music brilliantly to tell its story. One is when Elvis is singing "Trouble" after being bullied by Matthau onto the stage. The look of pride and satisfaction on Carolyn Jones' face at that minute gives us both an insight into her feelings for Elvis, probably the only man who has stood up for her, and into her relationship with Matthau. The best thing about Elvis being so good is that spites Matthau. Then at the end when Elvis sings "As Long as I Have You" it's a gesture that's filled with meaning because it is Jones' song and Jones' has done so much for Elvis' character and it's of primary importance in this key moment in his life to pay tribute to her. It's in a Hollywood tradition, but it works.

It has its moments as noir as well. The lighting is superb as are the use of New Orleans locations. It has a lot of ambience. Even more, Elvis' character is genuinely complex and he goes through real compelling ethical dilemmas. Unlike a character in a more conventional movie, he doesn't pass every test. While he lets Nellie go at the hotel, he gives in to Vic Morrow's plan to beat the druggist. Despite his success he can't make things better for his father or win his father's respect. In a desperate act, he agrees to do a despicable thing. Even if it's his father's boss, the man is still going to be hurt and maybe killed. That it turns out to be his dad, is just a wonderful twist in that it increases the guilt his character feels at commiting an act he knows is wrong. This ain't no cheap teen drama. The conflict in the movie is more than just Maxie Fields. Maxie Fields is what happens to you when you let yourself give into your basest instincts and drift from your true self.

I don't know how anyone can argue as well with that chase through the alleys. From the lighting, to the score (the musical score is really terrific here) it's handled masterfully. Vic Morrow's dialogue is marvelous. And Elvis does not beat them with any display of movie tough guy swagger. He beats the first hood by his wits. He beats Morrow by luck and he pays for it.

Then it works as a coming of age drama. Elvis' character is on a quest for identity and never quite gets there. When the movie starts, he feels he's been shafted by life and his father. Through a career, he finds a glimmer of hope that is shut off almost immediately because of his lesser impulses. When the film ends, nothing is resolved but Elvis' character has a chance because one person sacrificed for him. You tell me this is that much less compelling than the arc in SNF?

I would argue that KC is the much better directed film as well. Look at the scene in alley or look at the brilliant scene where Elvis comes after Walter Matthau. When Elvis bursts through the door Curtiz accentuates the action and its violence with a quick cut of strings on the soundtrack. It's very well done.

It's not a truly great film because it does have flaws. There are logistical flaws in that we see too little of Walter Matthau's hired hands. He can't have an empire based on four hoods. Another is the period absurdity of everyone in the cast except Elvis having a northern accent in New Orleans. There are thematic flaws as too much of Elvis' character is cribbed from Jim Stark- the magnet for and defender of social outcasts, the weak father. There are also some stylistic flaws as well. As terrific as "Trouble" and "As Long as I Have You" are some of the other music is shoehorned into the story as some songs are there simply to fill time. And some are unimaginatively presented.

Still given all that the movie does right, it can certainly stand with other significantly flawed movies like Gunfight, SNF, Death Wish, the Longest Yard, the Breakfast Club, and other much beloved mini-classics.

It's not Psycho, or the Godfather or Gone with the Wind, but it is certainly more than watchable and a more than worthy achievement. That's the case I am making here.

This all by the way is a sidethrust to my main argument. Still, you have to give credit where credit is due. To say that no Elvis movie can stand toe to toe with a star vehicle like Gunfight is perverse. The only point in such an argument would be to elevate the stars of that motion picture above Elvis and that's no point at all except to certify one's mythical hipster credentials.

About entertainment and art the difference to me is so blurry as to be unrecognizable especially in movies where so few are what you would call art. Even in other forms, entertainment has proven itself at its best to be transcendent. Is Robert Louis Stevenson art? I don't know. But many generations of readers have found enjoyment and meaning in his stories. Meanwhile much self-conscious art has fallen into the dustbin and even many masterpieces have touched so many fewer lives.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

Well put, Likethebike. I haven't watched "King Creole" in quite a few years, but you manage to conjur all that I liked about it.

I recall your previous related thread on this subject:

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18320&highlight=guralnick


Cryogenic ("Joined: 24 Jan 2006")
wrote in violation of the content and spirit of the Guidelines
such snide lines as :

And, if you have any perspective at all, you will indeed agree that his film career, in spite of entertaining pictures, was a huge waste.

Critically thinking minds -- a group to which yours, sadly, does not belong

More diversionary pap.

So, I can now add CONDESCENDING, SMALL-MINDED, HYPOCRITE to your name.

In the words of my good friend, N8......... Greg, you're pathetic.

Listen, Cryogenic: I'm trying to play nice here. Learn to agree to disagree without being nasty and disdainful to anyone who doesn't share your "elevated" tastes and opinions. I was 22 once myself and I recognize such bluster when I see it. There's no place for that here among fellow fans.

The FECC guidelines clearly prohibit /state :

...Use of bad language : It's possible to disagree with someone without cussing or the likes.

3- Personal attacks


5- Do not fight any personal wars on this board. ...


Enjoy your stay and treat everyone with respect.
-----------------------------------------------


Regards,

FECC Team

I can can take the low-road too, and had only just started to respond to your provocation. I'm just letting you know, you are way out of line.

*****************

[Cryogenic]

LTB... another good post. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, though, I don't disagree with your assessment of the picture in general, but I don't find it to be as tightly done as "Saturday Night Fever", either. People who dismiss something purely on the name "Elvis" are morons to begin with, so while you are correct that it goes on and such people are being grossly unfair, I am obviously no such person. Elitism pervades society, and whilst we all have our prejudices and personal tastes, I try to give every film a fair shake, from "Batman and Robin" to "The Godfather". "King Creole" is good, perhaps even very good, but next to the likes of other pictures raised in here, I don't think it cuts the mustard. "King Creole" may not be hugely inferior to "Saturday Night Fever" (I genuinely don't think so), but it is inferior to some degree, and by sufficient size that it misses being a "classic", if only just, in my eyes. That is all.

And, if you have any perspective at all, you will indeed agree that his film career, in spite of entertaining pictures, was a huge waste.

The point was argued forcefully by myself, but it's no different to how others, including the esteemed drjohncarpenter, conduct themselves. Ban me and you'd have to ban them. That said, N880EP got a whiff of the leather strap, as it were, and he is one of the greatest posters, alongside the likes of drjohncarpenter, to ever grace the Elvis world. So... who knows? The FECC administration might still grant you your wish.

Listen, Cryogenic: I'm trying to play nice here.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Learn to agree to disagree without being nasty and disdainful to anyone who doesn't share your "elevated" tastes and opinions. I was 22 once myself and I recognize such bluster when I see it. There's no place for that here among fellow fans.

You are condescending and insulting in the EXTREME. I highlighted it in my previous post; now I'm highlighting it again. Ever since I gave my age, you've been using it to denigrate my posts, rather than responding to the points I make (or, at the least, all the points that run counter to your own). That is classic AD HOMINEM rhetoric.

Thanks for engendering a thoughtful discussion, LTB. If I think of anything further to add -- something which doesn't revolve around "King Creole"/"Saturday Night Fever" next time! -- I'll jump back in. All my best.

[likethebike]

Personally I've found Greg to be an always thoughtful poster and occasional Devil's Advocate. I also consider him a friend. Come on kids, we waste too much time on these personal feuds.

Cryo- I think we have a little bit of communication failure here. There's a definite difference between a classic and a mini-classic at least in my mind. My argument is for KC at that level. (I also think you think more of SNF than I do. To me it's good but flawed.) Also to be a classic of a certain genre as KC or Gunfight at the Ok Corral are doesn't necessarily translate into a classic of all of film. Most horror fans would say that Nightmare on Elm Street is a classic of that genre. But is it one of the greatest movies of all time alongside the Godfather, Psycho, Chinatown, Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, East of Eden, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the Searchers etc? I don't think so.

I'm out of gas on Elvis the actor. He had something. It wasn't fully exploited and it's a shame.