greystoke wrote:I've written numerous times over the years - and just recently on poormadpeter's Wild in the Country thread - that Parker had no real power or influence in Hollywood and that his voice was only reflective of the letter of each contract and the envious position Elvis was in. Elvis was a more influential figure in Hollywood than he often gets credit for, although he wasn't prone to using that influence, especially when all business was conducted by his manager. The source of Elvis's power and influence is quite simple -- his popularity. With this should have come an understanding of Hollywood from the inside that allowed him the creative freedom to choose projects almost at his leisure, be aware that commercial ventures are a necessity and appreciate that good business relationships open doors. This was how John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, Burt Lancaster, Paul Newman and Steve McQueen all operated during the same era -- but where these actors held the reigns of their careers, taking advice as appropriate, Elvis seemed to be along for the ride. Or, more to the point, being taken for a ride. Tom Parker held the reigns on Elvis's career and made the sole destination financial gain. This is quite evident in the article poormadpeter posted on another thread and in other articles from the same timeframe in which this piece is either quoted, or similar articles have been written. Hedda Hopper, for example, in her Looking at Hollywood column on January 24th, 1965, wrote about Parker closing the December, 1964, contract with United Artists, referring to the aforementioned Variety article in the process. Around the same time she spoke to Parker for another column in which she asked about the forthcoming movie, "In My Harem." Parker's response: "I don't read scripts." "If those studios aren't smart enough to come up with a good story, I can't help 'em. For the kind of money they're paying us, we can leave the problem of making pictures to them. All Elvis has to do is be there on time. He is. We just take the money as we work. We give the government its full share, and we've never had it so good . . . "
With such a nonchalant and ignorant attitude being flaunted quite openly, it would be no surprise if studios, producers and other actors had reservations about dealing with Parker and working with Elvis. Clearly, the idea of making quality movies and fostering any artistic desires was a secondary consideration for the Presley camp -- and the above statement does speak for the Presley camp, even if Elvis remained silent more often than not. And although I don't doubt for a second that Elvis had greater ambitions than were ultimately realised in Hollywood, I also think he was accustomed to a certain lifestyle courted through being one of the highest paid actors in the world and being in a position where guaranteed work and major salaries were frequently forthcoming. In that respect, Parker was doing his job. But it's also important to consider the fact that contracts were being inked on the premise of an accompanying album which would include a dozen songs. Which creates the problem of almost forty songs being specially written for Elvis each year, with each song having certain requirements to specific scenes in each particular script. Elvis, I'm sure, was actively involved in selecting songs and could have been as involved as he chose to be on any picture. But with the nature of the films he was acting in and the kind of songs being forwarded, it's easy to envision him taking each subsequent project for granted. After all, that was the kind of business acumen fostered by his manager.
Quite unsurprisingly, I've come across several articles from the sixties that speak of Tom Parker as a shrewd manipulator and a manager with questionable methods. Whilst it often seemed as though Elvis worked for Parker and not the other way around, which is how it actually was. In many instances, however, I do think the type of movie Elvis came to star in was largely instigated by Parker. After all, what more could one expect when a quotient of songs was being agreed upon with a top-line salary for the film's star into the bargain?! Parker and Hal Wallis surely went back on forth on contracts over the years, with changes being made and salaries being altered over the on several points. But once under contract to a studio or a producer, Elvis worked for that studio or producer, and the final decisions lay with them irregardless of what Parker had to say -- UNLESS, the letter of a contract was being walked to ensure some semblance of control by a manager pulling any strings he could grasp. But there's no way otherwise that Tom Parker, who wasn't a producer or studio affiliate, could get involved in a film's production other than having a good working relationship with the producer or director. He did come to pursue certain producers, such as Sam Katzman, to make movies like Kissin' Cousins or Harum Scarum, which afforded cheap production values and the potential of greater profit participation for Elvis. But anyone who figures Tom Parker to have the upper hand on a film produced by the likes of Jerry Wald, Hal Wallis, Walter Mirisch, George Sidney or Jack Cummings far overestimates his reach and importance next to some of Hollywood's most successful and highly regarded producers.
Which brings us back to the question of why Elvis wasn't more proactive in his career. Especially his career as an actor -- given his love of movies, ambition to be a good actor and the kind of work ethic that made him reliable and easy to work with. Perhaps Elvis was appreciative of the success he had within a certain career path and feared tampering with that. Yet opportunity seemed to always be at a premium for Elvis in Hollywood, given the amount of new contracts he signed during the sixties and the salaries he commanded. It's also impossible to be in complete control of one's career and see with true clarity the effect every decision will have. Whilst it must be appreciated that no Elvis picture caused any studio financial distress or the kind of monetary losses that came to define Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor's careers during the sixties. Elvis was a safe bet. But did he know that? Was he aware that with success usually comes a cache of goodwill and open doors? But if he lived in a bubble that kept outside influence and wider opportunity at bay, and never really knew how to function without Parker, then what chance did he have in any environment? I'm not saying Elvis's career in Hollywood was a failure -- not by any stretch of the imagination. Even the most successful actors suffer periods in which choice roles aren't forthcoming or one flop leads to another. That's par for the course. But I can think of very few instances when Elvis actually pursued a role or seemed likely to find the opportunity to act in picture with bigger intentions than being a commercial vehicle for his more obvious talents. Compare this to John Wayne, Marlon Brando or Frank Sinatra, who pursued roles, produced their own movies and often worked for less money than Elvis, but for greater rewards. Especially in establishing their own production companies. Which is something Elvis never done, yet surely could have with the right people around him. Take Steve McQueen, for example, and his Solar Productions. Solar produced the 1968 film, Bullitt, at a cost of just under $5.5 million. With earnings to the tune of almost $25 million in the space of 18 months, the 42.5% Solar earned on the film netted McQueen's company $8.3 million in addition to his own personal salary of $700,000. For The Thomas Crown Affair, McQueen's $650,000 salary and profit participation to the tune of $1.75 million, came in addition to $1,000 per week living expenses, a private house, car, driver and flights from Boston to Los Angeles. Frank Sinatra read scripts and books with a mind to produce the movies he wanted to act in -- Von Ryan's Express being one such project, which he was outbid on by 20th Century Fox, but pursued the leading role knowing the film's potential. John Wayne took over twenty years to bring The Alamo to the big screen in the way he wanted to, whilst McQueen would coin $12 million for The Towering Inferno. But Elvis never seemed to pursue his ambitions or appreciate that a world of opportunity was abound outside of Tom Parker's singular vision -- or lack thereof. Elvis may have had to take a step back and accept a smaller salary on occasion or share top billing with his peers. Yet even as observers this doesn't seem possible given how his career was handled.
Thanks, greystoke, for this interesting post.
greystoke wrote:Quite unsurprisingly, I've come across several articles from the sixties that speak of Tom Parker as a shrewd manipulator and a manager with questionable methods.
Could you post some of those articles when you have the time? It would be cool to read them.