John Lennon-August 16, 1977

What was the first thing he did after the service? He does GI Blues and is singing 'Five Sleepyheads' and 'Wooden Heart' to little children. From the presumed perspective of someone like John Lennon who was a fan of his since day one, that would be 'the day' Elvis died.

Actually, the first thing he did was cut the greatest album of his career, Elvis Is Back!, but I take your point about the movie music. But Lennon didn't say 'Elvis dies when he started those crappy movies', or ' Elvis' career started to decline when he came out of the army', he said

'Elvis died the day they put him in the army.' So if you don't agree with that, you're quarreling with Lennon, not me. And I think it's clear from comments by fans like Lennon and Martin Scorsese that seeing Elvis go into the army had just as much impact on their idea of him as the crappy movies later on. Remember, their admiration for Elvis had as much to do with image as it did with music. Starry-eyed teenagers everywhere saw him go from this:

03-ELVIS-01.jpg

To this:

elvis-presley_in_uniform.jpg

It's a shift that can easily be overlooked in hindsight, but it was a huge one and I think it marks the point of disillusionment with many fans. The perception Lennon was voicing is exactly why Elvis's landmark post-army sessions are frequently ignored or overlooked.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Interesting discussion, folks and good points. For a time, history books even under-reported ELVIS IS BACK, didn't deal with his gospel sessions (after all, it doesn't rock and gulp, is religious), so it takes a while for a historical narrative to emerge. Lennon himself could walk around dismissing post-'60 Elvis if he wanted to...

The popular view tends to rub off and count out exceptions and can take years to dislodge, the same way that post-humous impersonators ironcially have sort of re-written Elvis' legacy..in a mostly negative way, given their favoring of sunglasses and usually no-where near Elvis-like looks...The perception, as the saying goes, becomes the reality, even it is clearly is not.

Even the way we idealize our own "best" years..be they as when one was a childm, both parents alive, still with all our brothers and sisters (out of a sense of nostalgia or loss), or perhaps it's one's high school years. or college or a great job you held down, we do put up walls and say "THAT...was the time.." If I could bottle that...etc.

But of course, it's a fiction and yes, Lennon's '50s Rockin' Rebel Elvis was a simplication of an already complex artist. Even as a kid (when I most liked '50s Elvis) I realized there was that Elvis, for all the rebellion, was also a dreamy and even conventional ballad singer who did "Love Me Tender" and "Loving You' and ..."Steadfast, Loyal and True." Even as a kid, I realized that "all rockin', all the time" is a lot of posturing and I learned that we can run down both ends of the street. By the same mentality, some critics of this bent , as I recall, didn't recognize the genius of "ELVIS IS BACK!" (...where's the "Tutti Fruiti? Where's the "Reddy Teddy"? etc. ) LIkewise with total skipping over his forays into gospel in 1960. These things didn't compute to someone who came of age with rock and roll and adopted it as a sort of worldview and socio-cultural outlook rather than just one of the great genres out there.

I'm glad Elvis was "never the same" after the army...I wouldn't want him (as much as I love them) to be a one-dimensional good rocking '50s rock and roller ( the great Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Little Richard, Bill Haley, etc.) I love them all but they hardly had that overall artistic diversity and range of Elvis. They all were "revived" in ten or so years but pretty much stayed in that bag..and God love'em for it. Elvis, in turn took some risks and yes, still developed.

I think the shot of Lennon sporting a snazzy ELVIS pin in '75 is a pretty good assessment that he still loved Elvis. How many of us "love" this or that family membe or siblingr...but wish the$%* he'd get a job...or that she's quit that jerk or etc...? So I take such criticism in stride and yes, it's true Elvis needed another "From Elvis in Memphis" in say, 1975 or 77, not more morose balladeering, as much as that was what some call a study in the man's depression. To the ex-Beatle's credit, he knew that rock had liberating qualities that might have saved him. LIke they say, stick to what you know and "dance with with the one that 'brung you'"...Ripping off fast and short rockers showed Elvis' own drift to what first made him so attractive, no matter how good a singer he was overall ...

As an aside, the non-conformist talk about police and the army, well, I hung out with some pseudo-rebels and anarchists in high school but even then ridiculed their glamorizing of such things from their middle-class comfort life-style. Elvis was still a good southern country boy behind his transgressions (sex, race, etc.) and sooner or later someone might see he wasn't about to upend the entire social order..and why do that anyway? Had Lennon lived longer we might also see his "rebel" pose become more and more hollow, for as it was not a few Beatle fans (including his assassin) took umbrage at the reality of the man behind the platitudes of "Imagine"'s utopia. LIkewise, quite a few lefties were disappointed when they found Bob Dylan was more than the earnest "relevant" folk singer they wanted him to be....forever.

**************
Looking back at the brief passage in the book, it's unclear how and when and whether he really said that on or about August 16th, unless i missed it. It's as if the author wants to make it appear that way..and to the juxtaposition of his description of a "bloated, binging" King tossing out "scraves to the blue hairs" or whatever is his way of being cynical and shocking..(oh, so Lennon-like) and moving on. I rather think Lennon might have really felt shocked or saddened by the man's final fall, at least once the microphones were away. I'm not buying those paragraphs as a depection of Lennon's true reaction. If my mother (who never met the man) was moved to cry about him the day he died, surely a guy who idolized Elvis, met him eventually, might have had it hit him in some ways,...especially when the media kept talking about it for some time. After all, he was suddenly "bigger than ever" ironically and if anything, I can imagine a contrarian like Lennon wanting to be glib just to move on from the excess, no matter if he largely meant it, artistically--- (ELVIS IS BACK, HIS HAND IN MINE, '68 Comeback, ALOHA, etc, be damned...)

His Elvisian-flavor on his great single "Starting Over" in the December of 1980 was to my young ears a clear tribute to the late King.

Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Elvis is Back likely gets overlooked by 50's fans because it was an LP rather than a single.

Elvis is Back didn't sell as much as some of his previous LP's had so it's likely a lot of the 50's fans were unaware of it.
They were obviously more aware of the singles and movies.

It's a shame because it's really a great LP.

I took Martin Scorsese's comments in that interview to mean that he was never really a big Elvis fan in the first place.
He liked some of Elvis' songs and a couple of movies but that's it.
He didn't sound like he was as big a fan of Elvis like Lennon was.

Surprisingly Scorsese said he liked Flaming Star though.

Good post, Greg. Some nice insights as usual.

Surprisingly Scorsese said he liked Flaming Star though.

It's nice to see, but I wasn't that surprised by it. Flaming Star is generally Elvis's best regarded film in cinema circles. It was in the Rough Guide to cult movies list of the best Cult Westerns, and legendary film critic Andrew Sarris praised the film as Elvis's best around the time it originally came out in the early 60's. It has a lesser reputation in rock circles, largely due to the idea that 'Elvis died the day they put him in the army'.

Surprisingly Scorsese said he liked Flaming Star though.

It's nice to see, but I wasn't that surprised by it. Flaming Star is generally Elvis's best regarded film in cinema circles.

Scorsese likely based his appreciation for "Flaming Star" out of his respect for legendary director Don Siegel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegel

Surprisingly Scorsese said he liked Flaming Star though.

It's nice to see, but I wasn't that surprised by it. Flaming Star is generally Elvis's best regarded film in cinema circles.

Scorsese likely based his appreciation for "Flaming Star" out of his respect for legendary director Don Siegel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegel

Oh, Absolutely. Siegel was awesome. Have you seen his 1964 film The Killers? The role that John Cassavettes played was tailor made for Elvis. He could have owned that film were he still getting chances at serious dramatic material. It would have been a dream (and we would have gotten to see him face off against Ronald Reagan, who plays an evil gangster in the movie- that would have been extra sweet). Flaming Star is unfortunately the last time Elvis got to work with a great director, although Phil Karlson who helmed Kid Galahad was no slouch (but his career was in decline by the time Elvis got to work with him).

Good post, Greg. Some nice insights as usual.

Surprisingly Scorsese said he liked Flaming Star though.

It's nice to see, but I wasn't that surprised by it. Flaming Star is generally Elvis's best regarded film in cinema circles. It was in the Rough Guide to cult movies list of the best Cult Westerns, and legendary film critic Andrew Sarris praised the film as Elvis's best around the time it originally came out in the early 60's. It has a lesser reputation in rock circles, largely due to the idea that 'Elvis died the day they put him in the army'.

When people talk about Elvis potential as an actor they almost always mention King Creole and often don't even mention Flaming Star.

This includes friends, family and even a lot of fans completely overlook Flaming Star.

That's why i was surprised that Scorsese mentioned it.

I know Flaming Star has gotten some praise from critics but it's still under appreciated in my opinion.

Brian, I totally agree Flaming Star is underrated. It's my favorite Elvis movie. Most of the people who gravitate toward King Creole are rock/Presley people. I have seen Flaming Star often mentioned as the best film Elvis made in film circles. Rock critics probably respond best to Elvis's rebel performance and the great rockers in Creole, while cinephiles respond more positively to Flaming Star's ambitious social message.

What was the first thing he did after the service? He does GI Blues and is singing 'Five Sleepyheads' and 'Wooden Heart' to little children. From the presumed perspective of someone like John Lennon who was a fan of his since day one, that would be 'the day' Elvis died.

Actually, the first thing he did was cut the greatest album of his career, Elvis Is Back!, but I take your point about the movie music. But Lennon didn't say 'Elvis dies when he started those crappy movies', or ' Elvis' career started to decline when he came out of the army', he said

'Elvis died the day they put him in the army.' So if you don't agree with that, you're quarreling with Lennon, not me. And I think it's clear from comments by fans like Lennon and Martin Scorsese that seeing Elvis go into the army had just as much impact on their idea of him as the crappy movies
later It's a shift that can easily be overlooked in hindsight, but it was a huge one and I think it marks the point of disillusionment with many fans. The perception Lennon was voicing is exactly why Elvis's landmark post-army sessions are frequently ignored or overlooked.

Yes, GI Blues was ONE OF the first things he did.

The problem with your argument is that you imply that Elvis had a choice and that his fans abandoned him and lost faith in the rebel image because he 'pussed-out' and joined the army. Again, he had no choice. I don't think his fans were criticizing him for doing what he had to do. I'm sure most of them viewed it as a tough break and if Eddie Cochran or Gene Vincent were drafted they would do the same and reluctantly put on their combat boots and shut up. I'm not quarreling with Lennon but with the very fine point that you are putting on this. With the exception of having to do his military duty, Elvis image went UNCHANGED until he got out and debuted his cleaner persona in the years and movies that followed.

Lennon had a far less productive. Population demographics make all the difference along with the rise of the media focus on fawning over babyboom teenagers by the liberal leaning mid 60's press fueled by its disdain for an unpopular Vietnam war. Doc says context matters ans he is right again as usual. While there is much to debate about Elvis' weaker efforts and lost years, Elvis actually did develop as artist and conquered records, film, TV and the concert stage as no other had before or will again. Elvis in many ways mirrorred the maturity/maturing of his fan base. Real jobs; hard work; dirty fingernails and aching backs. Lennon was stuck in perpetual public adolesence (Elvis' was private) like much of his fan base. Alarmingly, many still haven't grown up; anxious to pretend they somehow changed the world with their courage while clamoring for the nanny state to take care of them. I'll take the Elvis generation any day. Lennon was a recidivist junkie much like Elvis but found a sympathic press while living in the squalor of the Dakota. Say what you will about Elvis, he didnt all all but abandon his daughter. Lennon's comment at Elvis' death is revealing- Lennon ceased evolving while whether you like like where he went or not, Elvis kept changing almost to the bitter end. Elvis fought a hostile press most of his life because they disdained both where he came from and his ignorant base of unwashed fans compared to the enlightened followers of Lennon, et al.

Lennon had a far less productive. Population demographics make all the difference along with the rise of the media focus on fawning over babyboom teenagers by the liberal leaning mid 60's press fueled by its disdain for an unpopular Vietnam war. Doc says context matters ans he is right again as usual. While there is much to debate about Elvis' weaker efforts and lost years, Elvis actually did develop as artist and conquered records, film, TV and the concert stage as no other had before or will again. Elvis in many ways mirrorred the maturity/maturing of his fan base. Real jobs; hard work; dirty fingernails and aching backs. Lennon was stuck in perpetual public adolesence (Elvis' was private) like much of his fan base. Alarmingly, many still haven't grown up; anxious to pretend they somehow changed the world with their courage while clamoring for the nanny state to take care of them. I'll take the Elvis generation any day. Lennon was a recidivist junkie much like Elvis but found a sympathic press while living in the squalor of the Dakota. Say what you will about Elvis, he didnt all all but abandon his daughter. Lennon's comment at Elvis' death is revealing- Lennon ceased evolving while whether you like like where he went or not, Elvis kept changing almost to the bitter end. Elvis fought a hostile press most of his life because they disdained both where he came from and his ignorant base of unwashed fans compared to the enlightened followers of Lennon, et al.

There are so many mean-spirited, and just plain wrong, comments and distortions here, it's not even worth picking them out and taking you to task for bothering to post such drivel.

Suffice to say, thanks for stopping by!

Brian, I totally agree Flaming Star is underrated. It's my favorite Elvis movie. Most of the people who gravitate toward King Creole are rock/Presley people. I have seen Flaming Star often mentioned as the best film Elvis made in film circles. Rock critics probably respond best to Elvis's rebel performance and the great rockers in Creole, while cinephiles respond more positively to Flaming Star's ambitious social message.

I like a number of his movies, but for very different reasons than what you explained, so I don't exactly fit into those categories. It seems stereotypical even though a good majority of people follow stereotypes whether they realize it or not. I personally do not.

The problem with your argument is that you imply that Elvis had a choice and that his fans abandoned him and lost faith in the rebel image because he 'pussed-out' and joined the army. Again, he had no choice. I don't think his fans were criticizing him for doing what he had to do. I'm sure most of them viewed it as a tough break and if Eddie Cochran or Gene Vincent were drafted they would do the same and reluctantly put on their combat boots and shut up. I'm not quarreling with Lennon but with the very fine point that you are putting on this. With the exception of having to do his military duty, Elvis image went UNCHANGED until he got out and debuted his cleaner persona in the years and movies that followed.

I'm not implying that Elvis "pussed-out", I'm saying that may be how it was perceived by some devotees at the time, including Lennon. When you argue "Yes, but he still put out good music while he was in the army", you are quarreling with Lennon's statement. The distinction between dying when he went into the army, and his career declining shortly after he emerged from it may seem like a fine point, but I think it's an important one. Lennon word choice was frequently revealing, it's one of the things that made him such a great songwriter. And his feelings on Elvis were clear, look at his other famous elvis-related quote:

"Before Elvis, there was nothing".

That's biblical. Old testament. Near-worshipful. Look at photos of Lennon from the late 50's with the sideburns, the slicked back hair and the leather jacket. He was in love with what Elvis stood for; his music and his image. The image of Elvis the rebel king was gone when he entered the army, regardless of what the music sounded like. Replaced by a good looking, clean cut kid, the king of the mainstream. So, Lennon's statement makes perfect sense when viewed in the context I have presented. Can you offer other quotes from Lennon that would contradict my interpretation of his statement? Anything that would suggest he values Elvis's Army or immediate post-army recordings as much his earlier records? I haven't seen them, if they exist.

And I want to make clear, I'm not faulting John Lennon in any way here, I'm just trying to illuminate what I believe is an important context in understanding his reaction to Elvis's death.

As far as John Lennon's insensitive comment, I see where he's coming from. Yes there were more significant accomplishments following the army years. But for someone like Lennon who invested really a ton of emotion into Elvis when he first arrived on the scene, I get it. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand the context.

The comment wasn't insensitive so much as it was blunt, and a view many from John's generation held. Context is key, and Lennon's early life was marked by sudden loss of those close to him, like his biological mother, Julia. He grew a very hard shell around dealing with such events, such as when they learned of Stu Sutcliffe's early death at 21. Stu was perhaps his best friend in the early days, and John said very little. Given how very important Elvis Presley was to him, his comment is no surprise. Lennon remained a Presley advocate and fan until the end, too.

Now some of Lennon's perceptions about Elvis were wrong which is understandable because he didn't know Elvis.

Elvis was never a rebel in real life and it was inevitable that the image he had would fade once rock n' roll became more acceptable.

Never? It seems it is not Lennon whose perceptions about Elvis are wrong.

Doc,

The Elvis/John dynamic is interesting. I think they were wounded very young and lost a couple year of maturity due to their mother's death. Any book you read on John explains how insecure he was and a lot of that goes back to his mother's death. I think it sharpened his wit and sometimes he was quite blunt. Elvis was very similar to John when you actually got him to speak on record. They would have been a great duo in the 70s....it's a shame.

Lennon was a recidivist junkie much like Elvis but found a sympathic press while living in the squalor of the Dakota.

The 'squalor of the Dakota'?

That's some high-end, expensive squalor!!

I would think some of this would undoubtedly be that your impression of your idols at 15 and your impression of them when you're 20 or 25 is often a lot different. When you're not as young, and you're not as impressionable what they come out with doesn't seem as impressive no matter what it is. This is especially the case when you're no longer in college or school and the hits of the day are less a part of your vocabulary. It's especially the case when the artist is doing something vastly different as "Are You Lonesome To-night?" Elvis' hit when Lennon turned 20, certainly was. It's also the case when you've been separated from the artist for awhile. When I was 13 turning into 14 there was virtually nothing greater than Michael Jackson in my estimation. I know when Jackson came out in 1991 with Dangerous and the attitude among people my age was that he'd lost it. It may be true that's but so much time had passed since Thriller, Jackson was no longer a regular part of my life, and I had heard so much different music by then, there had been so much goofy gossip about Jackson by then that he didn't seem like much of an idol for anyone. I felt a similar disappointment although not as deeply about Bad. By the time, history came out I was so far away I wasn't even bothering to listen anymore. Yet I speak to kids today and they love a lot of the songs from this period. Maybe something similar to this happened to Lennon with Elvis. I'd be amazed if he'd even heard Elvis is Back because the Elvis on the radio and GI Blues was so different and he himself was so different than he'd been a few years before that he just gave up the ship even at that point.

I guess this is akin to King's point about Lennon finding out that Elvis was only a man, not super hero. I don't think it's legitimate artistic criticism though.

On Elvis the rebel, I think it's important to recognize that unlike Jim Stark, Elvis was a rebel with a cause. There was no place for him and his class. Once he found one, there was no need to buck the system anymore. He did continue to grow as an artist.

I think here's the real criticism that could be made. In the 1950s teens, blacks, poor whites, and various disenfranchised groups really had little voice in the mainstream of the pop culture. Because Elvis found a place for himself, it was no longer a priority for him to speak (albeit symbolically) for the groups he represented. When Elvis was in King Creole or on the Ed Sullivan Show people who had not seen any of the world they came from could see a bit of that in Elvis' presentation on the screen.

I'm a huge fan of the movie Blue Hawaii. It's a fine if mild escapist entertainment. Elvis is a real professional as an actor at this point and the two best tracks "Hawaiian Wedding Song" and "Can't Help Falling in Love," feature some of his artful and even soulful singing. On the other hand though I can see why this film would inspire bile in many of Elvis' original fan base. Unlike Elvis' first four characters in movies, Chad Gates is a child of extreme privilege. His greatest problem in life is that things will come too easily for him. This is a complete refutation of Elvis' roots and none of Elvis' roots save gospel are in the music. That important bit of self for that under represented audience is no longer there. Worse for the teenagers, the film is downright antagonistic. Teen rebellion is presented as nothing more than a bratty whim. Elvis is supposed to be beyond all that. While the rebellion for rebellion's sake has been overplayed in rock and is downright pointless at this late date. In 1961 though, it was not a shut up and appreciate what you've got moment. There was a lot to be suspicious about and lot to be curious about. There was racism, an up coming war of morally and politically dubious purpose, the remnants of the red scare, the threat of nuclear annihilation on and on and on. Even if Elvis never explicitly commented on these things in the 1950s his every move made listeners implicitly, subliminally, maybe consider them, Maybe things aren't settled. Maybe what we've been told isn't always right. Although I appreciate the sheer beauty and artistry that went into a "Hawaiian Wedding Song" and I think we'd be worse off without it, I also think you have to recognize the loss as well as the gain. It's not that Elvis wasn't still good or that country and blues and rock are the only valid formats. But it is a loss that the greatest voice for these constituencies found other things to do- things that were often very interesting and thrilling- is a loss. So I don't agree with the assessments but I understand them. (To be fair to Elvis he would visit those voices from time to time, more so later on.)

I do agree with in the ghetto that Elvis' draft was a big fix up. He was almost 23 when he received his notice, pretty old for a draftee in the period. The time he was gone was an eternity for a pop star. It was basically the length of Fabian's time in the spotlight. It could have killed Elvis' career but it didn't.

I think Lennon is misunderstood at times.

Here's my take on a couple of his Elvis comments:

"Before Elvis there was nothing" = "Before Elvis came along, there was nothing in music that interested me"

"Elvis died when he went in the army" = "Having been a fan of the early Elvis, with his wild & rebellious image, things were never quite the same after he left the army"

Have to agree with you there 100% Colin.

Good points, as usual and interesting commentaries from all of you.

Lennon had a far less productive. Population demographics make all the difference along with the rise of the media focus on fawning over babyboom teenagers by the liberal leaning mid 60's press fueled by its disdain for an unpopular Vietnam war. Doc says context matters ans he is right again as usual. While there is much to debate about Elvis' weaker efforts and lost years, Elvis actually did develop as artist and conquered records, film, TV and the concert stage as no other had before or will again. Elvis in many ways mirrorred the maturity/maturing of his fan base. Real jobs; hard work; dirty fingernails and aching backs. Lennon was stuck in perpetual public adolesence (Elvis' was private) like much of his fan base. Alarmingly, many still haven't grown up; anxious to pretend they somehow changed the world with their courage while clamoring for the nanny state to take care of them. I'll take the Elvis generation any day. Lennon was a recidivist junkie much like Elvis but found a sympathic press while living in the squalor of the Dakota. Say what you will about Elvis, he didnt all all but abandon his daughter. Lennon's comment at Elvis' death is revealing- Lennon ceased evolving while whether you like like where he went or not, Elvis kept changing almost to the bitter end. Elvis fought a hostile press most of his life because they disdained both where he came from and his ignorant base of unwashed fans compared to the enlightened followers of Lennon, et al.

I don't think you should have been dismissed so readily. While I have less of a
problem with the so-called nanny-state (once a year in Virginia -has "ObamaCare"
stopped this yet?-, the "great unwashed" incidentally turn out for a free health
clinic by the thousands as documented by the Washington Post because they
can't afford the "freedom" offered in our very wealthy country. ..These are poor
white people , by the way, and many with jobs....but aside from that, I think you are right in
pointing out that demographics greatly aided the Beatle rise in ways that Elvis
could not benefit from in the '50s. By the '60s, the "teenager" had fully arrived and
the Fab Four were by then leading the charge. The self-referential baby boomers
remain at the helm of the media for the most part and largely love to laud their youth
and much of that views the '50s as a generation a tad too far back, unfortunately.

I don't like the personal critiques but it sort of has to be said that Lennon (despite the
image) was no angel and that Elvis, despite his depression and drug addiction, toured
and worked his ass off, supporting a child and an ex-wife, all throughout the '70s ...doing
the very work that made him what he was so many years earlier.

Say what one will from a view that glamorizes the battle against the Vietnam war,
but I don't see Elvis' being in the army at all an act of backing down or "pussing out" as
some have alluded to. I think his very ordinariness is what makes Elvis to this day a
beloved figure in the "flyover" states (as the coastal types would say) : a guy who
experienced the beginning of " maturity/maturing " and probably widening
of the " fan base" ..you know, those with " Real jobs; hard work; dirty fingernails a
nd aching backs." The slice of life sort of fans you see of all ages in the '77 EIC TV
special..postal workers, retirees, etc. "I'm not a spring chicken anymore.." So was
he uniformly a teen "rebel" symbol? No but he had become part of Americana and
likewise to much of the world a great cultural persona of his time. There is an
earnst sincerity (and patriotism, respect for authority, etc.)
with Elvis and his fans that some of the '60s rockers never wanted...or could
cultivate. Different times, different audiences...

I wonder why Peter Guralnick didn't apreciate Flaming Star in Careless Love. To me is the best Elvis's acting in the 60's far away from Stay Away, Joe, Live a Little, Love a Little, Change of Habit, Trouble with Girls, Kid Galahad, Follow that Dream and even Wild in the Country. The only think I didn't like in the movie was that childish song " A Cane and a High Starched Collar". Without that song and with only the title song sang in credits, it would remain the complete nonsinging serious movie with Elvis Presley

I wonder why Peter Guralnick didn't apreciate Flaming Star in Careless Love. To me is the best Elvis's acting in the 60's far away from Stay Away, Joe, Live a Little, Love a Little, Change of Habit, Trouble with Girls, Kid Galahad, Follow that Dream and even Wild in the Country. The only think I didn't like in the movie was that childish song " A Cane and a High Starched Collar". Without that song and with only the title song sang in credits, it would remain the complete nonsinging serious movie with Elvis Presley

people simply have different tastes.

I know movie critics that give movies that i don't like very good reviews and vice versa.

Peter Guralnick simply didn't like the movie and didn't think Elvis did a good job in it which is his opinion but he does seem to be in the minority.

Flaming Star was and is one of the few Elvis movies that gets good reviews to this day.

This is a really well-written post from page 1, spot-on, and well worth reading again.

I don't really think there is cause for offense over Lennon's words, but they do carry a certain sting, and I think I know why.

Lennon's 'Elvis died when they put him in the army' comment is certainly not the most outrageously offensive statement made on the occasion of Elvis's passing. Consider Jerry Lee Lewis's reaction when asked how he felt when he heard about Elvis's death:

I was glad. Just another one out of the way. I mean, Elvis this, Elvis that. All we hear is Elvis. What the sh*t did Elvis do except take dope that I couldn't get ahold of?

And that's the short version! Still, Lewis's words don't quite hold the bitter sting of Lennon's dismissal. There is an honesty to Lewis's reaction that makes it almost more comic than bitter. The fact that even while a massive outpouring of love for Elvis was overwhelming the Memphis authorities, Lewis could still see himself, in the low point of his career, as a rival of Elvis's who was nipping at his heels reveals more about Lewis's mindset than it does about Elvis Presley.

Lennon's statement is similarly revealing.

If you've ever watched a certain scene in the Imagine documentary, about the making of Lennon's landmark album, you'll know what I mean. A rabid fan has somehow manages to make his way up to Lennon's house, and starry-eyed and unwashed, begins to ask John Lennon all of the deep questions about life and art that he has sure Lennon must hold the key to. Lennon for him is not a mere man, but a mystic on a plane of existence beyond those of mere mortals. Lennon goes out of his way to disillusion the guy. He literally almost makes the guy cry by insisting that he's just a normal guy. No different from anyone else. The idol is revealed to be a man, and the fan is left all alone with all of life's difficult questions that seemed so surely answered moments before.

You see, Elvis did exactly the same thing to John Lennon when he let them shave off his sideburns and started marching to military time. Lennon had found someone to follow, someone who would lead the eternal fight to demolish all of the silly walls that the establishment erects. Alas, seeing photos of Elvis in Military Issue olive drab, Lennon found himself alone in the world again.

So his words are not those of a Rock God, or even criticism from one of Elvis's contemporaries, but those of a starry-eyed fan, bitterly disillusioned in 1958 and still coping with his own perceived loss.

The problem with the statement is not Lennon's intent, or that the facts of Elvis's career don't fit neatly into its thesis. The problem is that the statement is repeated as gospel by thousands of starry-eyed fans who never had the opportunity to stumble into John Lennon's yard.

I wonder why Peter Guralnick didn't apreciate Flaming Star in Careless Love. To me is the best Elvis's acting in the 60's far away from Stay Away, Joe, Live a Little, Love a Little, Change of Habit, Trouble with Girls, Kid Galahad, Follow that Dream and even Wild in the Country. The only think I didn't like in the movie was that childish song " A Cane and a High Starched Collar". Without that song and with only the title song sang in credits, it would remain the complete nonsinging serious movie with Elvis Presley

people simply have different tastes.

I know movie critics that give movies that i don't like very good reviews and vice versa.

Peter Guralnick simply didn't like the movie and didn't think Elvis did a good job in it which is his opinion but he does seem to be in the minority.

Flaming Star was and is one of the few Elvis movies that gets good reviews to this day.

I can see Guralnick's point. I dont think Flaming Star holds up as well today as King Creole or Jailhouse Rock. Looking at it again, it is a sort of a cliched western and his acting although not bad, does not show that much range. It is not a classic western in the sense of The Magnificent Seven, The Searchers or a Clint Eastwood western. It is lacking the elements of those films. For Elvis it was a good film, for the masses just an OK film, not a classic. It was certainly a step in the right direction regarding his film career, but it kind of stopped it also. Pity.

I wonder if Jailhouse Rock hasn't that brilliant title song and King Creole also (maybe if these movies were nonmusical completely) how the reaction for these films would be? Flaming Star is the only true nonmusical movie Elvis ever made (excepting, like I sad before, that silly song -A Cane and a High Starched Collar) and his acting is very well. I was very sad when I saw Charro. Comparing to Flaming Star, I considered that all his talent vanished. Same with Stay Away, Joe. So to me Flaming Star is the best movie of 1960-1969 period. Guralnick said it was a comventional western, and Elvis was not too convincing in the role of half breed Pacer Burton. I think Elvis was very, very good.

I wonder if Jailhouse Rock hasn't that brilliant title song and King Creole also (maybe if these movies were nonmusical completely) how the reaction for these films would be?

Unfortunately, those films would never have been made if Elvis did not sing in them.

I wonder why Peter Guralnick didn't apreciate Flaming Star in Careless Love. To me is the best Elvis's acting in the 60's far away from Stay Away, Joe, Live a Little, Love a Little, Change of Habit, Trouble with Girls, Kid Galahad, Follow that Dream and even Wild in the Country. The only think I didn't like in the movie was that childish song " A Cane and a High Starched Collar". Without that song and with only the title song sang in credits, it would remain the complete nonsinging serious movie with Elvis Presley

people simply have different tastes.

I know movie critics that give movies that i don't like very good reviews and vice versa.

Peter Guralnick simply didn't like the movie and didn't think Elvis did a good job in it which is his opinion but he does seem to be in the minority.

Flaming Star was and is one of the few Elvis movies that gets good reviews to this day.

I can see Guralnick's point. I dont think Flaming Star holds up as well today as King Creole or Jailhouse Rock. Looking at it again, it is a sort of a cliched western and his acting although not bad, does not show that much range. It is not a classic western in the sense of The Magnificent Seven, The Searchers or a Clint Eastwood western. It is lacking the elements of those films. For Elvis it was a good film, for the masses just an OK film, not a classic. It was certainly a step in the right direction regarding his film career, but it kind of stopped it also. Pity.

Dude WTF does this got to do with the original topic ? Too many posts have gone off topic here.